Disclosure is Bad.

An interesting thought came across my mind yet again ladies and gentlemen.

Perhaps the reason why closure on such topics as UFO's and the existence of Aliens, and most importantly benefits derived from reverse engineering, is not such a evil reason at all.

Humans aren't conditioned to live with the technologies that could have been gained. if we jump from our current life styles, to the life styles that disclosure would warrant, the result would be disastrous. humans, although we're adaptable beings, cannot adapt to such a steep revolution. The speed in which we're gaining technological advancement as is, is already exponential when compared to just 100 years ago. sooner, better than later, as it is said, is something that humans should strive for, however look at the condition of the world today! how can we be ready for space travel, limitless energy, whatever benefits might be brought from disclosure?
We kill ourselves, and war with each other. imagine disclosure occurring, and revealing technologies for limitless energy, some nation is handed this device to fuel their existence, and find out how to turn it into a weapon - poof. we're all dead.

As much as i would love for disclosure to happen tonight, tomorrow or even next week, i believe that until humanity unites, until humanity is ready, disclosure cannot, and should not, happen.

i'm sorry if this thread offends you, but it needs to be said. the anger that some people, even here, hold for those who maintain closure, is proof that even we, the 'informed' so to speak (outside the governmental vaults of information), aren't ready for disclosure.

I see your point, but I don't agree overall. In a way, we have free energy, but it's not flawless. We have solar power. I don't see anyone making any deadly weapons out of it, though I guess it's possible. But still, I think advanced technologies would benefit the world more than they would hurt it. The tech would solve more problems than it would create.

Originally posted by GrayFox
I see your point, but I don't agree overall. In a way, we have free energy, but it's not flawless. We have solar power. I don't see anyone making any deadly weapons out of it, though I guess it's possible. But still, I think advanced technologies would benefit the world more than they would hurt it. The tech would solve more problems than it would create.

thnx grayfox.
i just wrote a ton .. and was like.. this is a crappy post.. refreshed the page.. and you had summed up what I wanted to say .

I agree with grayfox.


-

Well, that is of course if there is anything to disclose in the first place. Also, it would probably depend on the kind of technology. And how much the scientists could backward engineer.

If they could extract all kinds of things from a single crashed spacecraft, then perhaps the aliens aren't as developed as we first thought... and perhaps we would be ready after all?

Originally posted by prevenge
i just wrote a ton .. and was like.. this is a crappy post.. refreshed the page.. and you had summed up what I wanted to say .

I think it's a good post and a good assertion.

I tend to agree with Grayfox, however. The benefits of certain technologies like extremely efficient power sources and advanced medical devices could save humanity from untimely extinction.

solar power is an example of what our own ingenuity has produced. i believe that destructive chemical lasers is something we've obtained from reverse engineering. it can be and is used as a weapon. isreal is developing it into a defensive system, but a satellite shooting chemical lasers would be devastating.
the problem with extremely powerful weapons using mainstream technology is energy. it requires alot of energy to make something very powerful portable. with a device like the one described by an astronaut, whose name escapes my mind, he was in jose escamila's UFO greatest story ever denied film; he describes a breifcase sized object that creates practically limitless, clean energy; would yes, be an amazing thing to release to the public, but it can also easily be used to power extremely devastating weapons. what's the point of giving everyone unlimited energy if some people are going to turn that energy into weapons, and kill people? guns are bad enough as is.

also, guys, this is a spaceship that we've reversed engineered.

from reverse engineering a space craft we'd get an energy source, propulsion system, a little medical supply, possibly weapons, possible shielding, new techniques for metallurgy, etc, etc. these things, if were disclosed, would have two effects: one, it would bring a huge leap in the way mainstream scientists do science, or apply sciences, or they would be the previously mentioned for military application by all the fricken psycho rulers all over the world. imagine Putin got his hands on portable, limitless energy. if he got his hands on shielding, or propulsion. it's just too dangerous.

[edit on 5-5-2008 by Crabmeat]

[edit on 6-5-2008 by Crabmeat]

Who gets to decide what is disclosed? are all caring and responsible government? If our tax dollars are funding these 'undisclosed projects', then we have a right to know. Let the truth be known.

Originally posted by Crabmeat
..what's the point of giving everyone unlimited energy if some people are going to turn that energy into weapons, and kill people? guns are bad enough as is..

Absolutely..it's the old 'kids with matches' scenario.

Googles of $ will be spent on developing these weapons..

The threat of global destruction will raise it's ugly head again...

>Insert Cold War here<

Then international protocols and agreements on weaponisation/ disarmament will have to be agreed upon and enforced...

There will be the rogue states that will secretly pursue this under the auspices of 'free energy' but with real aspirations to regional and global political and military clout and oneupmanship respectively

>Insert Mexican standoffs, Political Isolationism and regional skirmishes here<


..and another big wheel turns..

You see we've been there, done that.


The bigger danger IMO is not our extermination at the hands of these weapons but the tsunami-sized wave of gobal economic/trade/industrial/ideological/(insert anything energy related) collapse that this will trigger..

"Free Energy for All"


I'll repeat that;



>>!! FREE ENERGY FOR ALL !!

I'm confused OEAOHOO, do you agree with me or not?

It's true that the benefits of FREE ENERGY FOR ALL are so far beyond our understanding that it could be worth the risk, but all the dollars put into the energy industry, where do you think that'll go?

Ideally it should go towards bettering the human condition, universal health care, better funded education programs, free colleges, more cloning so we don't have to worry about hunger, water synthesis... the possibilities are endless. however, because humans differentiate amongst themselves, this huge influx of dollars will most likely go into furthering military black ops and other.

If America decided to disclose 'free energy' but keep it from the rest of the world, the technology will surely leak, and dangerous factions will surely reap from it's benefits.

Look, I'm all for free energy, free and plentiful energy, but I don't see humans as being ready for it. It takes too huge an amount of responsibility.

Maybe in 100 years. I hope I live long enough to see it, although that's unlikely.

So then we should still have poverty and people dieing left and right and warfare?

The aliens are being surpressed by human treaties and we would "go to war" with them and "weaponize" space.


How about we beat the Illuminati off the face of the planet then allow the civilians to have the surpressed technologies.

Find your path, bickering about what you think is futile, finding the truth and spreading peace is what will save this planet.

This is how i see it - you put yourself in the scientists position in the mid 50’s, what you see is that you’ve got a technology that if announced to the public would cause mass reactions in the economy in cultural reactions that could probably bring about the demise of the whole civilisation. A simple example would be this – as a scientist you come out in the mid 50’s and say we have a process which will allow us to get rid of tyres, allow us to get rid of the petrel engine, hence all the petrel, hence all the dependant industries. It will be available for you in 24 months time and will only cost you 3-4 thousand dollars. Now, what kind of person in their right mind would buy a new petrel engine car if you could have one of these new ones in 2 years that don’t need roads and run on electricity and no petrel necessary.

They’d all stop their buying trends that would then collapse the economies that would be building them in 24 months. If you had a central world authority then you announced when you controlled all the nations and you announced we’ve got a new car that does this, nobody would panic because they know that if their industry become redundant they would be retrained and payed while they were doing it in some other supported industry.

We don’t have that sort of facility at the moment because we’re greatly disordered and many of the cultures fight against each other. Scientists, industrialists, engineers I guess found this problem in the mid 50’s. Now we’re playing their parts – we sit here and we say ‘how do we get world unity?’ The united nations, the league of nations had failed, you couldn’t get any 2 or 3 of them to turn the sovereignty over to a third party, you couldn’t come out and build an army from the united nations or the league of nations or even a corporate army and tell the people of earth you’re taking over.

You can’t do that because mass resistance would be worse then the French resistance to Hitler, it would destroy the unity they were trying to get. So by peaceful discussion over the conference table and by force it wasn’t possible, yet as the scientific community looked at this new technology it reached into all human endeavour and touched many points of life, they said look, if we develop this, completely develop it into a social technological integrated model, away from the rest of people in islands or in backrooms, however we do it keep it quite even from the politicians. At some point later we’ll have it ready to announce to the world as a global system. Then all we’ve got to do is figure out how to convince them to give it a try, a unity.

Scientists aren’t going to come out, industrialists aren’t going to come out and say ‘ ok here you go, the new model for planet earth using this technology. It must be independent of any established government or order – it can’t be communists or capitalists, it has to be independent and the only way you can do it is an external culture. Whether it be from the ocean bottom or the Bermuda triangle or outer space, the public have got to see it in this way so that for a short time the masses will overlook their culture differences to unite to form this one world order. Then after 7 or 8 years you explain to them this is how we brought peace.

Originally posted by Crabmeat
I'm confused OEAOHOO, do you agree with me or not?

It's true that the benefits of FREE ENERGY FOR ALL are so far beyond our understanding that it could be worth the risk, but all the dollars put into the energy industry, where do you think that'll go?

Ideally it should go towards bettering the human condition, universal health care, better funded education programs, free colleges, more cloning so we don't have to worry about hunger, water synthesis... the possibilities are endless. however, because humans differentiate amongst themselves, this huge influx of dollars will most likely go into furthering military black ops and other.

If America decided to disclose 'free energy' but keep it from the rest of the world, the technology will surely leak, and dangerous factions will surely reap from it's benefits.

Look, I'm all for free energy, free and plentiful energy, but I don't see humans as being ready for it. It takes too huge an amount of responsibility.

Maybe in 100 years. I hope I live long enough to see it, although that's unlikely.

Exactly..I agree with you 100% ..the caveat is always responsibility and moderation.

Humans will forever find ways to make something marketable.
I'm guessing it will definitely become a services based global economy with probable trade still in perishable commodities and free energy-technologies, both good and bad.

Any economists here to weigh in on this??



[edit on 6-5-2008 by OEAOHOO]

Whilst i understand the point of view from the original poster, the whole idea that disclosure is "bad" is utter rubbish. Being lied to is far worse.

reply to post by andre18


Although I agree with your reasoning I think there is much more to the story than fear of collapsed economies. The economy will collapse with disclosure, but who cares. Anyone can see that. Disclosure ultimately means that the technologies that power alien civilizations will be given reach to human populations. Basically meaning that currency is no longer necessary. Esp. when you have machines that can provide creature comforts like a perfect virtual reality where we never grow old, or machines that can read your thoughts and assemble whatever you desire. This also means that countries will fade away as primitive resources become plentiful - eat as much as you want, kill anything with no repercussions, boink pretty blondes all day. This will result in the end of (human) wars which are basically excursions for food, pride and sex.

Also the introduction to new technology will probably not result in humans developing death rays or other such nonsense because the aliens would probably have sophisticated monitoring systems to check human ambitions. Heck it's thought that these creatures have a way to warp time to their wishes, and thus the evidence of UFO teleporting as well as weird missing time reports by abductees (i.e. arriving back on Earth before you were taken.)

No the real reason for the lack of disclosure is mainly the fact that humans will DEMAND immortality from these aliens. Why allow your parents, siblings and pets to die when you know that a Lazarus machine exists on the recently landed UFO. And these aliens, if you study abductee lore, are concerned for the planet. Period. They mostly see humans as a function of the planet, much like we see cattle as a function of a barnyard. We are part of a competing energy web. If humans are given the means to genetically and even telepathically augment their bodies so quickly we'll start to imbalance the Earth with an unlimited purse of energy to do so.

We'll use no discretion simply because human need for status, aka pride, is bone deep. Think of the Earth as a massive obstacle course designed by master builders to house little kids. What would happen one day if the kids were set free and given the keys to the builder's bulldozers? Would they know how to put things back together after they've destroyed it?

We'll also begin to make demands on these alien civilizations to take us places beyond the moon. We'll learn what the new valuables are for advanced civilizations and directly compete with these alien creatures for whatever resource their governments find valuable, which would probably not be our concept of energy since obviously they would have tapped into an infinite supply. It'll be like us making a chimpanzee smart. After the chimp clears his forest we'll learn that now all of his relatives want a job on Wall Street.

Finally as for the lack of disclosure in the 50's, remember these aliens have an incredibly advanced perspective on fundamentals such as time, energy and death. The US leaders who encountered these creatures at the time probably were given info on the real source of history, such as Jesus, alien manipulation of wars and the fallibility of religion. Or at least the creatures lied to the US military and made them believe these ideas. Anyway the general public had a strong sense of Christianity in the 50's and commanders were aware that it was this self-deception that kept the majority of people from becoming predators. If aliens confirmed that the afterlife was consequence-free then the last thread of doubt that kept people from acting selfishly would have been removed.

Also the commanders probably learned how trivial humans were regarded by these beings. That we were abducted, tortured and mutated at leisure for centuries. That we are space fodder, giving American women little reason to have babies.

Free energy, in my opinion, is bad. Energy, itself, is a form of effort. No effort at all to get energy means - no need to work to pay for this "free energy". People then get this free energy, become even more gluttonous and sloppy. An analogy is computing power. Back in the 70s and 80s, computer programmers spent hours trying to make their programs work in small memory and run as efficiently as possible. However, today, sloppy programmers use many GB of memory to produce crap code and have it run slowly (ie. Windows, Java and all that) on today's fastest CPUs. Double the CPU power? Sloppier code could be written by people paid less in overseas markets.

Who is really ok through all this technology gain? Neighbors of mine. Amish farmers here in SE PA don't care about energy or technology much at all. They live year after year with very little technology gain. They enjoy good cultural conditions and healthly lifestyle (well, some inbreeding is causing some DNA issues, though). They seem happy. If we had a nation of hard-working people like the Amish - we'd really have something. We really want to unleash free energy so everyone has more time to watch Judge Judy, Judge Joe, Divorce Court, Jerry Springer and American Idol? Great. Looking forward to that!

Aliens and their craft don't seem to give us what we really need. Love and divotion. Care for others. That kind of thing. Maybe Aliens brought prophets in past centuries to us to try to help us and heal us through their preachings (Muhammad, Buddha, Jesus, various indian gods and so on).

Maybe Love is actually free energy itself? Maybe it's not the kind of energy we are expecting.

[edit on 6-5-2008 by bonaire]

I'm personally all for disclosure. If it means re-examining who we are and where we really came from, Great! So far nothing else has worked. I believe that the truth could reverse a lot of the bad conditions the world is suffering now. A new energy source wouldn't spell the end of jobs, it would create more and better jobs. Our education system would improve, our medical problems would be reduced, I could go on and on. Our reliance on petroleum is bringing us to the brink of extinction and a cadre of extremely greedy people is orchestrating how it will happen. The only thing that is standing in the way is fear. Fear of change, fear of admitting that we as a civilisation have made the mistake of hiding the truth. Thanks.

reply to post by michial


I'm not against disclosure at all. I was just pointing out the possible reasoning as to why it hadn't come sooner. Aliens are like the scientists and we are the lab rats demanding the cages be opened.

reply to post by Crabmeat


Yeah, well I agree it is difficult IF there is a choice between:

1. Disclosing information that could allow anyone/group with (relatively) modest resources to produce technologies that could wipe out everything

and

2. Concealing the same information even though it may solve a lot of problems

I imagine to some extent this is a real choice. Perhaps there comes a point in the evolution of civilization when things are poised here. What would you do if you could disclose technology knowing that if the how to got into the hands of lunatics, we may all be gone?

Good question, I wonder aobut this aspect often.

Disclosure also has some good things like:

- Way better technology

- we could meet new types of people in the universe.

- we could learn new alien languages

- instead of going to florida or las vegas for your next vacation, you could visit a alien world for the first time. Just think of how exiting that could be.

Humans aren't conditioned to live with the technologies that could have been gained. if we jump from our current life styles, to the life styles that disclosure would warrant, the result would be disastrous. humans, although we're adaptable beings, cannot adapt to such a steep revolution.

You should Google on the Brookings Report, said essentially the same thing.

However, I'll add a caveat... Unless such a disclosure would improve society, one simply would keep a lid on it. So, that also lends credence to the idea that whatever is known about it...likely isn't something we'd want to hear...

Disclosure would have to be done carefully...start with getting people used to the idea of ET microbes, then maybe ET plants, small animals, etc. on planets other than Earth.... Only THEN, could the people at large handle the idea of ET sentient life actually existing...