It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How to Be a Real Whistleblower?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   
While we’re still trying to figure out who shot Access Denied and deleted all his posts and threads (hmm… a conspiracy in the making?) here’s something I think is worthy of discussion…


How to Be a Real Whistleblower

Let's assume that a person is privy to above top secret information about the Cosmic Watergate / Conspiracy of Silence / Truth Embargo (etc., etc. - hereafter referred to as CWCSTE).

Let's further assume that this person wants to see the end of the CWCSTE, and wants to bring the whole thing crashing down. After all, bad things are being done, a free and democratic society is incompatible with the kind of secrecy the CWCSTE would require, and the people have a right to know. One could also assume that this person may have less altruistic motives, such as inter-agency rivalries, or personal grudges (passed over for promotion to the MJ-12 steering committee, perhaps), as Mark Felt did. The rationale is irrelevant - the point is that this person wants the information out there, where it will have a real policy impact.

So how does he or she go about it? Whom do they contact, and how?

This question brings us to the crux of the problem with UFO leakers / whistleblowers, past and present. If they were really interested in accomplishing any of the goals set out above, they would have done it in another way than the one that they currently employ.

The MJ-12 documents are real? Well, who would you send them to - two of the key Roswell researchers, Bill Moore and Stan Friedman, and a little-known filmmaker, Jaime Shandera? Not if you wanted them to be viewed objectively, and taken seriously, by the mainstream media and the general public. Not if you really wanted to use them to break the CWCSTE (note to legitimate whistleblowers - you wouldn't send it to me, either).

Someone like Michael Salla, perhaps, or maybe Steven Greer? Again, not if you wanted to actually bring about an end to the CWCSTE.

Why?

Because these people - big guns of varying sorts in the UFO field - in reality have a very small public profile, and even less public legitimacy, not because they are dishonest (although some ufologists definitely qualify as "Snake-oil salesmen"), but because they have, as Kevin Randle would say, a "dog in the hunt," i.e. they have already come to a conclusion. If you were to leak documents, or information, to them, it would always be tainted as coming from "those ufologists," and as a result it would never receive the widespread exposure necessary to accomplish your aim of breaking the CWCSTE.

So, who would you leak it to?

redstarfilms.blogspot.com...

And your answer is?

No fair cheating and reading the rest of the article first!




posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   
This is a good topic to discuss AD.

With that said I have to open with...

I wonder whether or not Kimball has read the Church Committee Reports that detail the fact that large numbers of Journalists have been on CIA Payrolls?

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   
I'm not sure I follow you here LS. How do you see this as relevant?

All official studies to date have concluded that the UFO phenomenon is NOT a threat to National Security so why would private groups or individuals be targeted for surveillance or covert actions in relation to it?



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Well I don't really follow you here AD.

How do you see the fact that many U.S. Journalists are on the CIA payroll as irrelevant?

(Remember under the hypothetical scenario here , you are supposedly releasing Classified information with the idea that it will not be intercepted and will become public and influence policy.)

Considering the Church Committee Reports state that U.S. Journalists are on the CIA payroll as fact, it would be your burden of proof to claim this "Fact" is "irrelevant" to the hypothetical scenario in question would it not?







[edit on 9-10-2006 by lost_shaman]



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman
Well I don't really follow you here AD.

How do you see the fact that many U.S. Journalists are on the CIA payroll as irrelevant?

Are they? How do you know this is a fact?


(Remember under the hypothetical scenario here , you are supposedly releasing Classified information with the idea that it will not be intercepted and will become public and influence policy.)

Right but where’s the evidence that this hypothetical “classified” UFO information would be/could be intercepted? Is every media outlet in the world controlled and locked down tight?


Considering the Church Committee Reports state that U.S. Journalists are on the CIA payroll as fact, it would be your burden of proof to claim this "Fact" is "irrelevant" to the hypothetical scenario in question would it not?

Where does it say this, what is the context, and the stated purpose?

(Sorry but I’m not familiar with this report and don’t forget it’s over 30 years old.)



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 07:32 PM
link   
has Geraldo gotten his cred back yet?



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Access Denied : Are they? How do you know this is a fact?

Umm... Church Committee Reports.




Access Denied : Right but where’s the evidence that this hypothetical “classified” UFO information would be/could be intercepted?

Umm... Church Committee Reports.


Access Denied : Is every media outlet in the world controlled and locked down tight?

Umm... That would be legitimate CIA operations.


Access Denied : Where does it say this, what is the context, and the stated purpose?

In other words , your not familiar with the Church Committee Reports like so many others.


Access Denied : (Sorry but I’m not familiar with this report and don’t forget it’s over 30 years old.)


So am I.


What's the point?

Other than the "fact" there is documented evidence that Journalists were on CIA payrolls?

I gave you the name of the report if you can't read it and comprehend it then...

I always offer free information to those who are seriously interested and need "Special Attention".



[edit on 9-10-2006 by lost_shaman]



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by homeskillet
has Geraldo gotten his cred back yet?

I don't know... did he have any to begin with?


LS, I looked at that report and a search for "alien" or "UFO" turned up zilch. All I saw was a bunch of stuff about suspected subversive groups and domestic terrorism.

[rant]

By the way I don't think those who weren't there in the 60/70s realize what America was going through at the time... anti-war/establishment types had the government's back to the wall… what did they think would happen? Anyway, that’s a topic for a different forum… I just hope were not headed down that road again. There should be no excuse this time regardless of where you stand for the way our boys were treated and ignored when they finally got back home!

[/rant]

Now back to question I opened up for discussion…

So, who would you leak it to?



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied


LS, I looked at that report and a search for "alien" or "UFO" turned up zilch. All I saw was a bunch of stuff about suspected subversive groups and domestic terrorism.



That is because the Church Committee Reports had nothing to do with UFOs. What is relevant that the CCR's detail is the fact that many U.S. Journalists had been or have been or are on CIA payrolls. Despite the fact thet we are told domestic territory is out of CIA "bounds". The Church Committee Reports show this is not exactly correct with respect to U.S. Journalists. That is what makes the Church Committee Reports relevant here.




Originally posted by Access Denied

So, who would you leak it to?



I've already leaked the only "Damning" information I have by talking about my personal UFO experience here on ATS and also having reported it other places like NUFORC.

Think about that for a minute AD. It's not that I haven't properly reported a UFO event. It's really about the "fact" that you and others in the general public are ignorant of that "fact" that I personally reported a genuine UFO event.


[edit on 11-10-2006 by lost_shaman]



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   
I think this is an interesting question, Access. Now, while I often dont agree with Lost Shaman, I think he is right about this one.

What I was told by a need-to-know was that there were enough people on the payroll in the media that what little true news leaked out was regulated. HOw it is regulated, I can only guess.

Whether that is sufficient to contain an explosive leak, or exactly what percentage of the media, I dont know.

But it was implied that the coverage was sufficient, which I take to mean, covering all major news outlets of reputation.

As a result, I feel one can legitimately be concerned that if you went to a major news source with Supermassive Conspiracy information, it could very likely be identified by an employee, reported in, and then a cover reaction would be emitted globally to minimize the whistle blowing impact, as deemed necessary.

Therefore, this directly addresses your question, because it might be very foolish to go to the Washington Post or NBC News, CNN, Fox, the Boston Herald, etc.

I believe that the best people to talk to will be people one knows personally. This is primarily a problem of trust, and barring independent corroboration, one must rely upon the dependability of people one knows. Sadly, few of us have such dependable relationships with the media we rely upon.

[edit on 11-10-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]

[edit on 11-10-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman
I've already leaked the only "Damning" information I have by talking about my personal UFO experience here on ATS and also having reported it other places like NUFORC.

Think about that for a minute AD. It's not that I haven't properly reported a UFO event. It's really about the "fact" that you and others in the general public are ignorant of that "fact" that I personally reported a genuine UFO event.

We are? You can post about it here or any number of other public forums and nobody will try and stop you (some particularly obnoxious whack jobs excluded of course)… even if your story contains alleged evidence of a conspiracy within the government. If your story (or anybody else’s) is compelling enough you might even get news coverage, a book deal, or if you're really lucky, a movie made about your experience. Take the Disclosure Project for example… nobody is trying to shut any of those alleged whistle blowers up. As a matter of fact their 2001 National Press Club conference was covered by LOTS of MAJOR news outlets. Did all these alleged CIA moles in the press take that day off?

On the other hand, if you're a skeptic like me who sees serious problems with every major UFO story (not accounts like yours) that has managed to turn a profit and you try to “report” on it objectively, sooner or later you become a target of those who stand the most to lose by the real truth being exposed. I’ve been warned about this by other skeptics and in retrospect I probably should have taken their advice and not wasted so much of my time on it. For example, as you well know, all 450 or so of my posts and threads on ATS have been deleted (without ANY warning OR explanation) including the 24 page “Roswell Proof: Where is it?” thread that contained at least one source of new evidence if not more.

Now tell me where is the real conspiracy to suppress the truth?




posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied

We are? You can post about it here or any number of other public forums and nobody will try and stop you (some particularly obnoxious whack jobs excluded of course)… even if your story contains alleged evidence of a conspiracy within the government.



Well right that was what I was saying. Many people see UFOs and are willing to report them.



Originally posted by Access Denied

If your story (or anybody else’s) is compelling enough you might even get news coverage, a book deal, or if you're really lucky, a movie made about your experience.



I think thats an overly cynical view to have of people willing to talk about what they've seen. It just seems like "painting with a big brush" , and a caricature.

In my opinion the vast majority of people who come forward to talk about a UFO sighting they've had are not money hungry people seeking fame or attention, but like myself just regular people who are willing to step up and say "Look, I've personally seen a UFO and there's a chance you or anyone else could see one yourself."



Originally posted by Access Denied

Take the Disclosure Project for example… nobody is trying to shut any of those alleged whistle blowers up. As a matter of fact their 2001 National Press Club conference was covered by LOTS of MAJOR news outlets. Did all these alleged CIA moles in the press take that day off?




Your question almost seems naive. When in the past has the Press not been willing to cover UFO stories?

In this case the Press covered the Press release and then it was over , that was it. The Press never followed up with major stories exposing the Government coverup of UFOs did they?

It's an interesting coincidence that you can see this posted on the Disclosure Project home page.




• MEDIA CONTROL DOCUMENT - CIA Memorandum Subject: Task Force Report on Greater CIA Openness - dated December 1991 (Page 10 is missing) - June 2004

"PAO [Public Affairs Office] now has relationships with reporters from every major wire service, newspaper, news weekly, and television network in the nation. This has helped us turn some intelligence failure stories into intelligence success stories, and it has contributed to the accuracy of countless others. In many instances, we have persuaded reporters to postpone, change, hold, or even scrap stories that could have adversely affected national security interests or jeopardized sources and methods."




new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join