The obstacle to greater transparency

M. C. Escher: "Band of Union".

 In this post, I will outline what I believe is the greatest obstacle to greater official transparency on the UFO phenomenon. I will also suggest a plausible solution to circumvent the obstacle. 

The obstacle

What is the greatest obstacle to official transparency regarding the UFO issue? My claim is that the most significant barrier is fear in the minds of some high-ranking officials in the Pentagon and the Intelligence Community (IC). My suggestion to a solution is to moderate that fear—I will return to "how" further down.

In the following, let us use common sense and introductory human psychology. First, what is behind these high-ranking officials’ fear? If you are familiar with UFO history, you know that the documented evidence of denial and ridicule of the significance of UFOs/UAP by the U.S. government (USG) is abundant and clear. The reason for the high-ranking officials´ fear is that the official stance of denial and ridicule, held over many decades, will be made aware to the public.

Now, put yourself in the shoes of the current officials in the Pentagon and IC who do not want more transparency. What would you think and feel in a situation when your employer’s dirty secrets are about to be exposed to the entire world? (The problem is more complicated than that, but my generalisation will do for now). Even if you, as a current official in the Pentagon and/or IC, have not been directly or willingly involved in the UFO cover-up, the public will not know that. In your mind, you expect an avalanche of blame or worse from an outrageous citizenry if the truth comes out. (How the public actually would react is, in my view, hard to predict).

 

With those expectations (regardless of valid or invalid), would you willingly put all the cards on the table if you worked in the Pentagon or IC with the UFO issue? Remember, I refer to officials who are hesitating or opposing greater transparency on what the USG knows or does not know about UFOs/UAP. We know that a faction of officials in the Pentagon and IC support what Luis Elizondo, Chris Mellon, and others are trying to accomplish. And according to Elizondo, that faction seems to be in the majority. 

What does that tell us? It tells us that the small pocket opposing greater transparency comprises very senior and highly influential individuals. These individuals have the most to lose in a disclosure scenario and, therefore, are the ones who most fear and resist it.

 

 My point so far is that it’s easy to imagine why some high-ranking officials keep resisting greater transparency, and in the extension, (full?) disclosure of the UFO phenomenon. However, their fear is not an excuse for continued manipulation of the public’s perception of the UFO issue in general and the quality and quantity of the evidence in particular. (Evidence shows some UFOs/UAP are unlikely man-made, for example, the "Tic Tac" from the USS Nimitz 2004 UAP encounter (-s)). 

Back to the question: would you put all the cards on the table? Again, let’s use some common sense. If you did something morally wrong — even bordering illegal — would you feel inclined to tell it to someone? You might have an urge to tell and know that by speaking, you would feel relieved. Keeping a secret can take a toll. But fear of blame, judgement, and possibly something worse would keep you from saying anything. Fear and shame (shame is a social feeling whereas guilt is more directed toward oneself) are powerful feelings. Their function is to increase our survival by avoiding threatening situations and adapting to a group’s social rules (10 000 years ago, a rejection from a group in most cases meant death for an individual).

My point is that we cannot underestimate human psychology in the ongoing disclosure process: we cannot minimise what some high-ranking officials expect to occur with their position, reputation, pension, and so on in a disclosure scenario. 

And to be fair, I believe that at least some of them are genuinely concerned about how the general public's trust in the USG will be affected, potential societal panic, and how their loved ones would be affected. So I believe those high-ranking officials certainly are driven by self-interest. But also, perhaps, by more altruistic concerns regarding the consequences of disclosure. In most cases, we all decide and act on a mix of self-interest and concern for others. 

Those expectations of threat to themselves (loss of position, status, income, etc.) and loved ones, and the fear and shame those expectations produce, are, in my view, the greatest obstacle for greater transparency regarding the UFO issue. 

Again, I’m simplifying the situation. There are likely other factors involved in the resistance from some pockets in the Pentagon and IC to give straight answers to what they know or do not know about UFOs/UAP. For instance, the US Air Force has a lot to lose on greater transparency on the UFO issue (historically, it is the USAF who has denied and ridiculed the validity of UFOs, and worse...).

Still, I believe that fear and shame are definitely at the root of the problem. The question, then, becomes: how can the fear and shame be moderated or dampened?

A plausible solution

So is there any solution to the problem of fear and shame? There are probably many solutions, depending on the scale and depth of the cover-up of the UFO phenomenon. Regardless of the scale and depth, the first step should be to moderate the fear and shame in the minds of some senior officials. Those officials have to feel secure in, so to speak, spilling the beans. 

How do you make them feel comfortable enough offering what the USG knows or does not about UFOs?

You give them something in return. For example, you can provide them with a guarantee that they will not go to jail, lose their stars and pension, etc. Let’s call this solution simply, "amnesty". Is that a fair deal, considering what we know from UFO history (lies, denial, ridicule, silencing of people and possibly worse measures)? No, it’s not fair to victims of the official cover-up of the truth of UFOs/UAP.

Nonetheless, the problem with a demand that justice has to be served is maintaining the status quo. Disclosure has made progress and currently has strong momentum. However, if the public demands justice and who to blame, I believe the momentum will slow down and probably come to a halt. And who knows if an opportunity like the one we have at the moment will ever turn up again? 

Also, we have to consider the current political atmosphere in the U.S. As I understand it as an outsider, the U.S. is a divided nation, and people's trust in institutions is low. Now, that is not the most appealing circumstances for government officials to publicly announce that the USG has lied about UFOs for seven decades. (The cover-up would probably be revealed progressively during weeks of public Congressional hearings.)

Therefore, I believe that amnesty for the Pentagon and IC officials who know the truth about the UFO phenomenon could facilitate the next necessary step for disclosure: Congressional hearings. 

Note that I am not saying that I like this solution. But I am saying that I believe it to be the most effective way to circumvent a significant obstacle: the fear and shame in the minds of some senior and highly influential military and intelligence officials. 

Whether one likes the idea of amnesty, I think it is crucial to at least evaluate it and compare it to other alternatives. One can, for example, think through what disclosure is all about: Why is greater transparency on the UFO issue essential, and for who? What are the implications of (full) disclosure, or what do we want the implications to be and for who?

I believe most people would answer “for everyone” to the “for who?” question. Disclosure of the truth of the UFO phenomenon concerns every individual on Earth. Not just presently living individuals, but also future generations. 

So what are the implications of greater transparency (both positive and negative)? Well, that is a tricky question for anyone to answer. First of all, we would have to know what exactly is there to disclose regarding the UFO issue. However, one thing I can claim with high certainty is: 

The positive and negative implications are there regardless of the technology and energy source behind the "Tic Tac" being man made or not. People familiar with the USS Nimitz 2004 UAP encounters will understand what I mean.

 

Should we risk all the opportunities that greater transparency probably would create in exchange for justice and vengeance? No, I think that would be short-sighted and selfish. It would be like neglecting your child's need for care and protection for your personal need for vindication. If that is the path we choose to go, I do not think humanity is neither ready nor deserves greater transparency.

So we have to provide the high-ranking officials with the means to do the right thing: 

We have to change their expectations of what will happen if they tell the truth or declassify (within reasonable limits) the evidence that some UFOs/UAP are not man made.

As always, think for yourself and make up your own mind. Here, I think moral values, what is right or wrong to do, what a good life/society is and for whom are at the centre of the UFO issue and the fight for greater transparency.

Take care!

J. T