UFO: footages, disclosure, archaeological anomalies

[mirandansa]

Mirandansa, while I swore an oath to Ahriman never again to get involved in one of these, I am compelled to speak up:

Once again, this OP is simplistically too much for us to discuss intelligibly, you need to narrow down the topic and then stick to it. As it stands it is unclear what you are arguing, or even if you arguing.

I'm interested in knowledge, in the explanations for these UFO cases. If i at all argue against a presented explanation, that's primarily because i want to be sure the explanation works.

I don't understand this assumption that: if one ever presents a body of information, one must be arguing for or against it. For me, information is more like a source of enjoyment. Knowledge-making can be collaborative, and i believe we can enjoy this process.

Moreover, a comprehensive rebuttal of all these claims would necessarily run at tremendous length, as it would require at least the equivalent depth of the OP for each of the claims presented therein. If I wanted to write a dissertation, I'd go get myself another degree.

I have presented these cases within one post because they together make a certain narrative in which each of them becomes mutually meaningful. For instance, if there really are aliens with the technology to visit the Earth as claimed by the Disclosure Project, then the ancient astronauts hypothesis for the archaeological anomalies too would make sense, and vice verse. The narrative may be true or false; that's not something i personally and currently can decide. I have a limited amount of knowledge; you may well have some good ideas about this topic that i don't have. And that's something i look forward to seeing piecemeal.

 

[mirandansa]

That is the sun reflection on what apears to be a plate of the external shielding of a disrupted satelite. You can't recognise it because you are not used to see that stuff in pieces.

Maybe.

If it's a metal plate, where did it come from? Some abandoned satellite? Is this how an old satellite usually end up?

[The numbers represent the actual order of shooting. Notice how the shape changed as it approached the Earth. I myself first thought this was just a scrap metal with parts coming off. But upon carefully comparing them from 66 to 69, i realised the morphing process wasn't so straightforward. And i can't see any of the supposedly missing detached parts around in the first place. A possibility i can think of within the "scrap metal" hypothesis is that the parts were somehow swinging so that in some pictures they are hidden behind and in some others they are visible.

I am not impressed, because the object rotates (very irregular) and it is probably not rigid either.

Yes, that's what i tried to say right in that paragraph.

I'm not saying this must be an alien spacecraft.

That is not what you are saying but definitively what you are implying, if you claim otherwise you are lying.

I cannot say either that this must be an alien spacecraft or that this must be a scrap metal. What am i supposed to "imply"?

 

[MRaverz]

That is the sun reflection on what apears to be a plate of the external shielding of a disrupted satelite. You can't recognise it because you are not used to see that stuff in pieces.

Maybe.

If it's a metal plate, where did it come from? Some abandoned satellite? Is this how an old satellite usually end up?

Yes.

 

[mirandansa]

First the easy ones, talk shows, no good, I don't need to tell you why but in case it sliped your mind people can claim all kinds of crazy shit and that doesn't make any of it true you even presented cases where it was clear that they were bold face lying.

Right, people can claim all kinds of crazy shit.

But we are talking about people like

former US President Jimmy Carter
former Canadian Defence Minister Paul Hellyer
former White House Chief of Staff Paul Jodesta
former Arizona governor Fife Symington
Project Mercury astronaut Gordon Cooper
Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin
Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell

and various other military officers with trained eyes and intellect.

Eisenhower, in his Farewell Address, mentioned the problem of military industrial complex:



Bill Clinton -- as quoted by senior White House reporter Sarah McClendon in reply to why he wasn't doing anything about UFO disclosure:

Sarah, there's a government inside the government, and I don't control it.

http://www.hillaryclintonufo.net/billclintonquotes.html

Secondly the live footages, some of them are clear fabrications, others may genuinly be UFO's, for the guy who thinks those are aliens that is. I remind you that UFO stands for "UNKNOWN Flying Object", emphasis on the "unknown" part (objects they all are, the flying part not so much true, because most of them don't qualify as flying like Venus or baloons, not on what you have presented), I have been able to indentify a big chunk of what you have presented as denbree the moment I saw them and it perplexes me how can anyone squigle their eyes so much in order to be able to seen in something that vaguely resembles to be capable of any form of flight other than free fall. To claim that is some form of object intentonaly made to be that way is a long step to take from the fact that you don't know what it is in the first place, much less aliens.

I wish i could figure out which footages you are talking about.

Thirdly the archeological parts are simply paridolia, we are seeing things into the picture that aren't there because we come from a more advance civilization then when those pieces of art were made. I should put them into context to help you out that most of those pieces of art are religious in nature, and it was believed in those times that Gods (or rather God) and dead people literaly lived in the sky. In that context take a look again at them and tell me what you see.

I studied anthropology at a university, i know how to examine mythologies.

I included this ancient astronaut hypothesis simply because it's relevant to the discussion of UFO.

Also relevant is my recent post on "Is YHWH Alive", in which i discuss the implication of the Flower of Life found around the world:
http://forums.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=5967

 

[MRaverz]

First the easy ones, talk shows, no good, I don't need to tell you why but in case it sliped your mind people can claim all kinds of crazy shit and that doesn't make any of it true you even presented cases where it was clear that they were bold face lying.

Right, people can claim all kinds of crazy shit.

But we are talking about people like

former US President Jimmy Carter
former Canadian Defence Minister Paul Hellyer
former White House Chief of Staff Paul Jodesta
former Arizona governor Fife Symington
Project Mercury astronaut Gordon Cooper
Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin
Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell

and various other military officers with trained eyes and intellect.

Eisenhower, in his Farewell Address, mentioned the problem of military industrial complex:



Bill Clinton -- as quoted by senior White House reporter Sarah McClendon in reply to why he wasn't doing anything about UFO disclosure:

Sarah, there's a government inside the government, and I don't control it.

http://www.hillaryclintonufo.net/billclintonquotes.html

Secondly the live footages, some of them are clear fabrications, others may genuinly be UFO's, for the guy who thinks those are aliens that is. I remind you that UFO stands for "UNKNOWN Flying Object", emphasis on the "unknown" part (objects they all are, the flying part not so much true, because most of them don't qualify as flying like Venus or baloons, not on what you have presented), I have been able to indentify a big chunk of what you have presented as denbree the moment I saw them and it perplexes me how can anyone squigle their eyes so much in order to be able to seen in something that vaguely resembles to be capable of any form of flight other than free fall. To claim that is some form of object intentonaly made to be that way is a long step to take from the fact that you don't know what it is in the first place, much less aliens.

I wish i could figure out which footages you are talking about.

Thirdly the archeological parts are simply paridolia, we are seeing things into the picture that aren't there because we come from a more advance civilization then when those pieces of art were made. I should put them into context to help you out that most of those pieces of art are religious in nature, and it was believed in those times that Gods (or rather God) and dead people literaly lived in the sky. In that context take a look again at them and tell me what you see.

I studied anthropology at a university, i know how to examine mythologies.

I included this ancient astronaut hypothesis simply because it's relevant to the discussion of UFO.

Also relevant is my recent post on "Is YHWH Alive", in which i discuss the implication of the Flower of Life found around the world:
http://forums.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=5967

ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY

 

[mirandansa]

The tether video, easy. Those disc shapes are distortion pattens caused by objects - almost certainly debris from the broken machinery - being out of focus to the camera.

If the objects were debris from the broken machinery, they should come outward from the same direction in a diffusing pattern. But in the video they come from every direction. Why is that?

The pulsation is due to variable reflection from the objects rotating. The motion I'm not sure about, but given it's incredibly obvious what the objects are

Hold on, what they are is not obvious. You say they are debris; yes, that's a possibility. But that they are debris is not obvious.

it's safe to say that something was influencing their motion relative to the camera; perhaps minor outgassing from the shuttle.

Watch from 3:05. One object comes from down left, relatively fast. It decreases in speed as it passes the tether. Then at 3:22, it changes its direction to downward. Is this caused by "minor outgassing"?

Watch again from 3:05, this time middle above. 3 seconds later, two pulsating objects suddenly appear. How do you explain this? (This is the same pattern we see in the STS-80 video.)

The Pheonix Lights

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4041

"The Phoenix Lights were flares. Deal with it."

I had already read that article when i was writing my initial post. I said right before the clip: "The United States Air Force claims the stationary lights were flares dropped by A-10 Warthog aircraft." This explanation doesn't work well:




That sceptic also wrote "the Phoenix Lights episode is a running joke in the Air Force". On the other hand, there are many testimonies from insiders and even Presidents (Truman, Eisenhower, Clinton) that there is an independent cover-up force operating within the military structure. The article ignores this crucial aspect of all army-related UFO cases.

 

[mirandansa]

ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY

I'm not saying what they say must be true. My point is that we shouldn't dismiss their statements as mere "crazy shit" before properly investigating the matter. Pilots and astronauts, for instance, are trained in distinguishing visual objects in the air/outerspace, so we have a reason to take their UFO reports more seriously than those from untrained witnesses.

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY

I'm not saying what they say must be true. My point is that we shouldn't dismiss their statements as mere "crazy shit" before properly investigating the matter. Pilots and astronauts, for instance, are trained in distinguishing visual objects in the air/outerspace, so we have a reason to take their UFO reports more seriously than those from untrained witnesses.

Pilots and astronauts can be mistaken too. Even with their training they might still make mistakes and they are not trained in spotting UFOs and identifying everything in the sky. If you search for James Randi, you will undoubtedly come across videos where he talks about Uri Geller and that trained scientists could not figure some of his trick out when watching him. Just because they are trained, does not mean that they don't make mistakes, they are human after all.

 

[DeusExNihilum]

You know, one day I'll see a UFO related thread on an internet forum where the proponent DOESNT attempt to unload every single UFO story they've ever heard and managed to find through google in as small amount of space of possible. But today is not that day.

It is highly reminiscent of creationist tactics; To flood the floor with so many claims and "Evidences" as possible so that the opponents are either forced to only give each claim the most cursory of rebuttals, which is never sufficient in any debate, or one particular thing can be focused on but that just leaves the proponent going "AHA! BUT WHAT ABOUT THIS MOUNTAIN BEHIND YOU. THEY CANT ALL BE EXPLAINED WITHOUT ALIENS!!"

I mean, on the first page alone you brought forward THIRTEEN different things, which would take numerous pages of research and rebutting EACH. I mean FFS you gave us 9 of those 13 in your first post.

And you're doing what the majority of "UFO's are aliens" proponents do in your replies - If someone objects, just find another blurry picture of an indistinct shape and go "But what about THIS?!?!?!?".

The fact of the matter is that you're saying "These unexplained flying objects have not been explained, therefore, the most likely explanation is the most unlikely explanation - Aliens in spaceships."

 

[mirandansa]

I'm not saying what they say must be true. My point is that we shouldn't dismiss their statements as mere "crazy shit" before properly investigating the matter. Pilots and astronauts, for instance, are trained in distinguishing visual objects in the air/outerspace, so we have a reason to take their UFO reports more seriously than those from untrained witnesses.

Pilots and astronauts can be mistaken too. Even with their training they might still make mistakes and they are not trained in spotting UFOs and identifying everything in the sky. If you search for James Randi, you will undoubtedly come across videos where he talks about Uri Geller and that trained scientists could not figure some of his trick out when watching him. Just because they are trained, does not mean that they don't make mistakes, they are human after all.

I'm not saying they don't make mistakes. And the point remains that their reports are worthier of attention than that of those with no expert knowledge of engineering, celestial bodies, etc.

Another important aspect to this is that they kept silence about the cases for decades. It's not like they made an immediate disclosure upon witnessing UFOs. Gordon Cooper, for instance, selected for the Project Mercury astronaut among 109 pilots, didn't publicly talk about his pre-Mercury 1950s encountering of hundreds of UFOs above West Germany until much later in his life when he was no longer at NASA. The same for the ICBM interception incidents; they had the report documents, but these were classified and they weren't allowed to publicly talk about it, even no debriefing within the Air Force bases:



There are two main factors for the silence. One is personal reasons, such as the fear of being ridiculed or losing the job (as the result of being considered "mentally unfit"). The other is organisational reasons, especially on the part of the military industrial complex, such as the interests in protecting the current economic structures (zero-point energy technology, for instance, would have a catastrophic impact on fossil-fuel-oriented industries).

 

[mirandansa]

I mean, on the first page alone you brought forward THIRTEEN different things, which would take numerous pages of research and rebutting EACH. I mean FFS you gave us 9 of those 13 in your first post.

I don't understand. Why is that a problem? I present information so that we can talk about it. The Wikipedia article on "Loch Ness Monster" brings forward 20+ different things; is that a problem?

And you're doing what the majority of "UFO's are aliens" proponents do in your replies - If someone objects, just find another blurry picture of an indistinct shape and go "But what about THIS?!?!?!?".

Yes, closer examination.

The fact of the matter is that you're saying "These unexplained flying objects have not been explained, therefore, the most likely explanation is the most unlikely explanation - Aliens in spaceships."

Fact 1 -- Some of the objects are not fully explained.

Fact 2 -- Hundreds of distinguished individuals testify to the existence of a cover-up machinery and some even to the existence of spacecrafts of extraterrestrial origins.

Possibility 1 -- The testimonies are either lies or based on a mistake. The objects are not extraterrestrial artefacts.

Possibility 2 -- The testimonies are not lies but based on a mistake. The objects are not extraterrestrial artefacts.

Possibility 3 -- The testimonies are neither lies nor based on a mistake. The objects are extraterrestrial artefacts.

We could say that for an extraterrestrial life to exist and travel all the way to this planet is less than likely. But the problem is the testimonies. We cannot flat-out dismiss P3 without properly examining these first-hand reports. And that's what i'm trying to do with you people here.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Ok, miranda, time for another lesson in basic science. I know you hate it, but try to listen.

Anecdote and sub-par evidence aren't completely worthless; just mostly worthless. They can indicate that further investigation is warranted. However, the next step is to go out and get GOOD evidence; which you've completely failed to do. All of the things you've shown so far are explainable via duplicity, misinterpretation, and exaggeration. No matter how much of this sub-par evidence you pile up, it doesn't turn it into good evidence. Get us some clear photos, produce an alien, or as I said in my first post, give us a pile of alien feces to analyze.

As they say in the East; "The thoughts of a fool amount to nothing, no matter how high they are heaped."

 

[mirandansa]

Ok, miranda, time for another lesson in basic science. I know you hate it, but try to listen.

Anecdote and sub-par evidence aren't completely worthless; just mostly worthless. They can indicate that further investigation is warranted. However, the next step is to go out and get GOOD evidence; which you've completely failed to do. All of the things you've shown so far are explainable via duplicity, misinterpretation, and exaggeration. No matter how much of this sub-par evidence you pile up, it doesn't turn it into good evidence. Get us some clear photos, produce an alien, or as I said in my first post, give us a pile of alien feces to analyze.

You are quite missing a crucial point.

If what they say is true, the evidence should be found in some military facilities that are kept away from the eyes even of the head of state. How can we go about obtaining that evidence, if it exists? As far as the U.S. is concerned, the President should have a control over these facilities. So, it's crucial that the President be aware of the issue and launch a public investigation if what you call "good evidence" is ever to come to the surface. But he wouldn't take the step unless he is convinced that the majority of the public demands such an investigation and, above all, that the public are ready for the possible official announcement that extraterrestrial life exists. Look at how people reacted to the 1938 address rehearsal for a "first contact" scenario:



Panic, hysteria, home evacuation... this is how people reacted when they took the broadcast for real. And there would be a good reason for a head of state to fear such a possible chaos even if he/she is aware of the extraterrestrial life visiting the Earth. In fact, this is why former Arizona governor Fife Symington, who now confesses he did witness the Phoenix Lights and thought the phenomenon was "unworldly", didn't at the time publicly admit the incident and, on the contrary, decided to deny as well as ridicule it over the concern for the public.

As you say, we need direct evidence in order to firmly decide on these cases. And that's precisely why we should support the Disclosure Project, which has been preparing a briefing to the U.S. Presidents, currently Obama, who could initiate a public investigation into the much discussed military industry complex and obtain "the evidence", if any:

 

[ArthurWilborn]

First, you're falling into the classic conspiracy theory trap; you're taking an absence of evidence for your position as positive evidence of a conspiracy to conceal that information. Science begins with a null hypothesis, that nothing unusual is going on, which has to be disproven. You'll have to present evidence - good evidence, mind you, anecdote is insufficient - that (1) there is a conspiracy to conceal information and (2) that information relates to contact with aliens. Or, you know, good evidence of aliens.

The disclosure project seems to be running a classic scam; the evidence (or enlightenment, or the millions in a frozen bank account) is always just over the next hill and they just need a little more support from you to bring it out. The paranormal is so unlikely and human knavery is so common that I must reasonably conclude that this project is an example of the latter.

You're reminding me of a story I read from the James Randi Million Dollar Challenge. I can no longer find it, but it involved a highly intelligent woman who believed she had the paranormal power to influence candle flames with her mind. This power was by no means dramatic, and she proposed a massive data collection project involving thousands of samples to determine if she was having a minuscule effect. It was suggested to her that minor variations were within the expected range of error of the measurement, but she refused to consider this. Towards the end of her correspondence she noted that her ability seemed to work better the more she believed in it. A final plea was made for her to consider that she was engaging in self deception, but she refused to consider this as well. Like her, you're allowing your pride in your obviously advanced intellect to blind you.

 

[lrkun]

Ok, miranda, time for another lesson in basic science. I know you hate it, but try to listen.

Anecdote and sub-par evidence aren't completely worthless; just mostly worthless. They can indicate that further investigation is warranted. However, the next step is to go out and get GOOD evidence; which you've completely failed to do. All of the things you've shown so far are explainable via duplicity, misinterpretation, and exaggeration. No matter how much of this sub-par evidence you pile up, it doesn't turn it into good evidence. Get us some clear photos, produce an alien, or as I said in my first post, give us a pile of alien feces to analyze.

You are quite missing a crucial point.

If what they say is true, the evidence should be found in some military facilities that are kept away from the eyes even of the head of state. How can we go about obtaining that evidence, if it exists? As far as the U.S. is concerned, the President should have a control over these facilities. So, it's crucial that the President be aware of the issue and launch a public investigation if what you call "good evidence" is ever to come to the surface. But he wouldn't take the step unless he is convinced that the majority of the public demands such an investigation and, above all, that the public are ready for the possible official announcement that extraterrestrial life exists. Look at how people reacted to the 1938 address rehearsal for a "first contact" scenario:



Panic, hysteria, home evacuation... this is how people reacted when they took the broadcast for real. And there would be a good reason for a head of state to fear such a possible chaos even if he/she is aware of the extraterrestrial life visiting the Earth. In fact, this is why former Arizona governor Fife Symington, who now confesses he did witness the Phoenix Lights and thought the phenomenon was "unworldly", didn't at the time publicly admit the incident and, on the contrary, decided to deny as well as ridicule it over the concern for the public.

As you say, we need direct evidence in order to firmly decide on these cases. And that's precisely why we should support the Disclosure Project, which has been preparing a briefing to the U.S. Presidents, currently Obama, who could initiate a public investigation into the much discussed military industry complex and obtain "the evidence", if any:

I doubt Obama will give this the green light and if aliens did exist, being the head of the state, Obama already knows the truth. Besides, it's more interesting that we are not certain if aliens do or don't exist. Like kaku says, aliens might be so advanced that we're like ants to them. Why would an intelligent race try to contact something that can't communicate to it? Oh well.

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

Another important aspect to this is that they kept silence about the cases for decades. It's not like they made an immediate disclosure upon witnessing UFOs. Gordon Cooper, for instance, selected for the Project Mercury astronaut among 109 pilots, didn't publicly talk about his pre-Mercury 1950s encountering of hundreds of UFOs above West Germany until much later in his life when he was no longer at NASA. The same for the ICBM interception incidents; they had the report documents, but these were classified and they weren't allowed to publicly talk about it, even no debriefing within the Air Force bases:

The government kept these a secret to not cause a panic. UFO sighting became more prominent after WWII. The cold war was starting. Releasing UFO reports during this time would cause a panic because people would think that Russia had some sort of super weapon. This is why they released them now. 20 years after the cold war ended, it would not cause much panic. Remember just because the government covered it up does not mean its aliens.

 

[MRaverz]

I think this thread can be sorted out quite easily.

OP clearly thinks aliens 'might' exist.
OP needs to provide extraordinary evidence for this extraordinary claim.
Until then, it's silly to claim that anything in the sky 'might' be alien.
Plus Occam's razor.

Also, I know you've stated: "If you read my post, you'll notice that i'm actually trying to look for non-alien explanations. If you can offer some, please do."
But seriously, I highly doubt you're as sceptical as you think you are.

 

[MRaverz]

First, you're falling into the classic conspiracy theory trap; you're taking an absence of evidence for your position as positive evidence of a conspiracy to conceal that information. Science begins with a null hypothesis, that nothing unusual is going on, which has to be disproven. You'll have to present evidence - good evidence, mind you, anecdote is insufficient - that (1) there is a conspiracy to conceal information and (2) that information relates to contact with aliens. Or, you know, good evidence of aliens.

The disclosure project seems to be running a classic scam; the evidence (or enlightenment, or the millions in a frozen bank account) is always just over the next hill and they just need a little more support from you to bring it out. The paranormal is so unlikely and human knavery is so common that I must reasonably conclude that this project is an example of the latter.

You're reminding me of a story I read from the James Randi Million Dollar Challenge. I can no longer find it, but it involved a highly intelligent woman who believed she had the paranormal power to influence candle flames with her mind. This power was by no means dramatic, and she proposed a massive data collection project involving thousands of samples to determine if she was having a minuscule effect. It was suggested to her that minor variations were within the expected range of error of the measurement, but she refused to consider this. Towards the end of her correspondence she noted that her ability seemed to work better the more she believed in it. A final plea was made for her to consider that she was engaging in self deception, but she refused to consider this as well. Like her, you're allowing your pride in your obviously advanced intellect to blind you.

Also, why would the government even bother to cover aliens up? There's literally no point.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

That is the sun reflection on what apears to be a plate of the external shielding of a disrupted satelite. You can't recognise it because you are not used to see that stuff in pieces.

Maybe.
If it's a metal plate, where did it come from? Some abandoned satellite? Is this how an old satellite usually end up?

Well in the early days nobody cared what happens to discontinued satelites, a third stage of a rocket or to the trash of purpousfully blown of satelites (just to see what happens in space warefare), ofcourse we endedout paying that actitude very costly, because the trash that you didn't cared in the last mission comes back to bite you in the ass in the next one, and it is not uncomon for satelites to be destroyed or incapacitated (contributing to making even more trash) because of that (altough most stuff can burn on the atmosphere, there where cases where pieces have destroyed some cars and the roof of some houses). Currently there are several monitoring stations dedicated to tracking down between tens and hundreds of thousands space trash to try and avoid prolems, even so there are allot of scrap that are to small to be tracked down (not the case of the picture) and yet still big enough to make a big mess, getting hit by a screw at the typical magnitude of relative speeds generaly found on space debree is going to ruin your day big time.
Some missions have a very narrow (particularly interesting) orbits to be preformed, orbits easy enough to have been found a long time ago and to have already had a mission there and now with a zombie satelite in it's place (and or allot of "let's blow stuff to see what happens" cloud of crap) that will incapacitate or severely handicap missions that requier that specific orbit (all the good orbits are taken and jam packed). And the worst thing is, that crap just stays there, after a certain altitude stuff will take more that 70 years fo fall down if they are ever going to do it at all.
It is a very problematic topic. Now a days they try to regulate that (before the situation gets out of control) and now you are requiered to have a plan to decomition the satelite (and 3rd stages of rockets among other trash) on the design stage (even before building the satelite), but that is still a bit washy for instance in recent history the chinese have done their own "let's blow my own satelite to prove that I have balls" stunt, creating a nasty cloud of rubish (that has biten in the ass of other missions) and everyone went "Not cool man, totaly bad karma" on them but what are they going to do? Cry on them because they haven't followed your rules on not to do things that you used to do?

Space trash, very serious business, it can lose you millions of dollars if you are not carefull. (Specialy if it is your fault because you were not carefull, it is as if you have losed the mob money)

 

[mirandansa]

First, you're falling into the classic conspiracy theory trap; you're taking an absence of evidence for your position as positive evidence of a conspiracy to conceal that information. Science begins with a null hypothesis, that nothing unusual is going on, which has to be disproven. You'll have to present evidence - good evidence, mind you, anecdote is insufficient - that (1) there is a conspiracy to conceal information and (2) that information relates to contact with aliens. Or, you know, good evidence of aliens.

Hence the call for an investigation.

The disclosure project seems to be running a classic scam; the evidence (or enlightenment, or the millions in a frozen bank account) is always just over the next hill and they just need a little more support from you to bring it out. The paranormal is so unlikely and human knavery is so common that I must reasonably conclude that this project is an example of the latter.

Is that not a prejudiced speculation on your part?

You're reminding me of a story I read from the James Randi Million Dollar Challenge. I can no longer find it, but it involved a highly intelligent woman who believed she had the paranormal power to influence candle flames with her mind. This power was by no means dramatic, and she proposed a massive data collection project involving thousands of samples to determine if she was having a minuscule effect. It was suggested to her that minor variations were within the expected range of error of the measurement, but she refused to consider this. Towards the end of her correspondence she noted that her ability seemed to work better the more she believed in it. A final plea was made for her to consider that she was engaging in self deception, but she refused to consider this as well. Like her, you're allowing your pride in your obviously advanced intellect to blind you.

I'm blind to what?