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.

 

"You have no right to know." -Donald Rumsfeld

page: 1
25
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+1 more 
posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
If you asked someone a question and they said "You have no right to know," you would assume there is "something" to know, correct?

This is what happened when Dr. J Allen Hynek, the father of ufology, asked Donald Rumsfeld about the truth of a UFO coverup in the 70's.

Rumsfeld lectured Hynek, and during the course of Mr. Rumsfelds lecture, he spoke the words:

"You have no right to know."



About five years after Blue Book had lost what remaining credibility it had with the American public partly due to such controversial explanations, Hynek met privately in Washington with then President Ford's Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. Hynek didn't mince words when he demanded to be told the truth after twenty years of service simply to be dismissed with no answers from the Pentagon. Hynek was of the opinion that he had faithfully maintained the Air Force's status quo and had earned the right to be told the truth. Clearly, the good professor felt he had intentionally been left out of the inner circle. Hynek had dutifully arrived at the conclusion that someone was controlling the access to the truth about the UFO phenomenon. Not the least bit moved, Rumsfeld forcefully lectured Hynek that he "had no right to know." At the least, Rumsfeld's remark can be interpreted that there remains "something to know." Hynek's reprimand only fueled his desire for the answers all the more.


(Source)

This is perhaps one of the rare occasions when someone at the top tier of the government made a very arrogant remark that revealed much more than they intended to.



So the question is: What could be so important that Dr. Hynek had no right to know?



edit on 16-9-2011 by v1rtu0s0 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-9-2011 by v1rtu0s0 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by v1rtu0s0
 


the question is how do we know this conversation ever happened or that what was said was said in the context that you are painting it in?



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by v1rtu0s0
 


This is a very interesting story and all but what's your source? We all know things are taken out of context, especially in the UFO field. So where did you get this info from?



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by v1rtu0s0
 


the serfsssss have no rights... or did you miss the memo?



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by v1rtu0s0
 


Can you please post a reputable source of this information you posted? Thank you.

Edit after source posted: Sounds to me like Hynek had an 'Entitlement' mentality demanding from Rumsfeld, then Secretary of Defense, to be told information he was not granted access to, which is not the way the DoD operates. The DoD operates on a 'need to know', not a 'want to know' basis. Sorry Charlie.
edit on 9/16/11 by Ferris.Bueller.II because: Added 'after source posted' addition.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by v1rtu0s0
 


I cant find any proof any of that was ever said....



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   
I've read this quote in a magazine and have seen it on several websites, and it's part of Hynek's story.


Check the OP, i added to it.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Exactly what the posters above said. We need a source, because I have a feeling the context isn't right. For example, he may have told Hynek he had know right to know something classified, which would make sense. Hynek wasn't even a consultant for the Air Force, so had no clearance.

For those who would argue, check your facts. He was a consultant for Project Blue Book only, and they didn't use him for long because of his off-hand comments, and inability to allow the project's director to have any idea what he would say in public. The AF also got annoyed that he was touting himself as a consultant to the AF, which is nowhere near the same as being a project consultant. My point is that he doesn't have a good track record anyway, just in case this is something he said. But I think it was someone else taking it out of context. Maybe the OP, or maybe whomever he got the information from.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   
I found this interesting read about the hearing, but I could not find what the OP mentioned. I like the way Rummy just signs off because "it's going to be a long afternoon." (and this is going to get close to the truth so I'm outta here
)

Mr. RUMSFELD: Because of the fact it does look as though we will have a busy afternoon on the floor, I very likely will not be present for the remainder of the discussion. I would like to express the hope the other members of the panel might at some point comment on the two recommendations that Dr. Hynek has set forth in his paper. Further, I would hope that each member of the panel, during the afternoon session, might address himself to the questions of priorities.

Assuming that there is some agreement with Dr. Hynek's conclusion that this is an area worthy of additional study, then the question for Congress, of course, becomes what is the priority? This is a rather unique situation in that it is a scientific question that has reached the public prior to the time that anything beneficial can even be imagined. In many instances a scientific effort is not widely known to the public until it is successful.

Each of you are experts in one or more disciplines. I am sure there are a number of things on your shopping lists for additional funding. I would be interested to know how this effort that is proposed here might fit into your lists of priorities.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Guest List:
Dr. J. Allen Hynek, head of the Department of Astronomy, Northwestern University;
Dr. James E. McDonald, senior physicist, the Institute of Atmospheric Physics, the University of Arizona;
Dr. Carl Sagan, Department of Astronomy and Center for Radio physics and Space Research, Cornell University;
Dr. Robert L. Hall, head of the Department of Sociology, University of Illinois at Chicago;
Dr. James A. Harder, associate professor of civil engineering, University of California at Berkeley,
and Dr. Robert M. L. Baker, Jr., Computer Sciences Corp. and Department of Engineering, UCLA.


SYMPOSIUM ON UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS
__________
Monday, July 29, 1968
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science And Astronautics
Washington, D.C.


Peace,
spec
ETA: Interestingly, the more I search the subject, the more 404's and 'no file exist' I get, hmm.
edit on 16-9-2011 by speculativeoptimist because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Here's a source from a magazine:

OpenMinds Magazine: UFO News and Investigations

August/September 2011, Issue 9

Page 59.

Article by Donald Schmitt:


Clearly, the good professor felt he had been intentionally left out of the inner circle and had dutifully arrived at the conclusion that someone was controlling access to the UFO phenomenon. Not the least bit moved, Rumsfeld lectured Hynek that he "had no right to know."



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by v1rtu0s0
 

I think more importantly Rumsfeld should have been asked, not only on this matter but also regarding so many more, what made him think he had a right to know himself while keeping information from US? I realize some things need to be kept secret, such as those keeping our enemies in the dark, but it seems some secrets are only secret to protect individuals or groups from embarrassment, like maybe the Vatican or something, should information be revealed that refuted belief or policy. "Keeping society safe from upheaval" is used as an excuse, but isn't revealing and learning the truth important? Being kept in the dark at someone ELSE'S discretion kinda bothers me!

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth" Albert Einstein

"Men in authority will always think that criticism of their policies is dangerous. They will always equate their policies with patriotism, and find criticism subversive" Henry Steele Commager

"I have just as much authority as the Pope, I just don't have as many people who believe it" George Carlin



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   
I'd love to see an extremely wise US attorney argue this case under equal protection. If Rumsfeld knows then each and every American citizen has the right to know, too.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by cry93
I'd love to see an extremely wise US attorney argue this case under equal protection. If Rumsfeld knows then each and every American citizen has the right to know, too.

I'd love to see it, too, just for the epic smackdown the judge would give the lawyer as he threw the case out of court.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by v1rtu0s0
 


A simliar, albeit less arrogant, encounter on this topic occured with Cheney. His answer when asked about the UFO issue was he couldnt discuss it.

Any person who makes the argument the people have no right to know if their is intelligent life / life in the cosmos should be smacked in the nose with a rolled up newspaper and told to sit in the corner.

The wikileaks / UFO issue was one very rare issue I actually agreed with wikileaks on. Knowledge of ET is not a government issue, its a human kind issue, and we should make the determination if we are reeady or not and not the government.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:08 AM
link   
Good thread. Star and flag. I think this is pretty obvious. But they have lots of reasons to hide beyond their hidden technical advantage. There are real ETs but they deal with so few of those. They deal with what Alex Jones calls the Clockwork elves, though a benign term for old empire and negatives. Just how are you going to bring out what they deal with to the public. And as for real ETs how to explain their attack on them, non stop?
Choppers chase the crafts if they linger like ours did. And pick up both your communcations and whatever energy signature they're looking for so when you're having contact, for 2 nights in a row, their scout planes, joined by a TR3B that went directly over the roof very low, scoured the back. How do they explain that they're not the good guys here and they don't deal with the good guys.

They don't even deal with what I call ET. Et to me is someone who comes from a culture, in bodies, families, can somehow produce offspring, high tech way or not, in our universe plane or another, who has at least a mixture of positive and negative akin to most humans, and we're kind of bottom of the heap, to positive and eutopians.

Negatives are NOT ET. They're something else.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by liquidsmoke206
reply to post by v1rtu0s0
 


the question is how do we know this conversation ever happened or that what was said was said in the context that you are painting it in?



That's a fair question but the story of this supposed exchange between the two has been circulating for a while going back a good many years. This isn't the first time I've heard about it
S & F

I'd like to hear some open discussion about it by some of our members.


edit on 17-9-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
This is perhaps one of the rare occasions when someone at the top tier of the government made a very arrogant remark that revealed much more than they intended to.

So the question is: What could be so important that Dr. Hynek had no right to know?
I think this question is answered in the area 51 documentary that's aired on TV several times this year. They interview former area 51 workers, who lament that even though they worked at area 51, they didn't have a right to know what went on there.

When there was a secret test taking place they weren't personally involved in, they were shut inside in a windowless area so they couldn't see the test. Every separate project on the secret base was a need to know basis and even the people that worked there didn't have a need to know about the other parallel projects.

It's not hard to put Rumsfeld's comments in context after seeing those interviews. The time frames might even be similar since the area 51 workers are talking about history decades ago.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:18 AM
link   
With all due respect to Dr. Hynek, he was a very small fish in a very big pond. When working as head of Blue Book, his job was to not excite the public. Everybody knows that Blue Book was a charade. The government had never made it a policy to be open with him and Blue Book. It was public relations, and when it became obvious it was a fraud, it was killed.

Not a chance in hell would the government and the military, let alone Donald Rumsfeld, choose to tell him everything (or even just a few things) after the fact. They used him to mislead or distort (not always willingly on his part) and then dumped him.

This is not meant to be a knock on Hynek. I admire the man. But it would be incredibly naive on his part to expect Rumsfeld to tell him anything. 1) It's Rumsfeld. 2) It's UFOs. 3) It's Rumsfeld. 4) Rumsfeld has never come across to me as someone who has a whole lot of respect for scientific inquiry. 5) It's Rumsfeld.

I think Hynek probably knew the truth already. Maybe he was just looking for further confirmation or something. But Rumsfeld saying that doesn't surprise me one bit.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 04:27 AM
link   
reply to post by liquidsmoke206
 

You don't actually know who Dr. J Allen Hynek is, do you?
If you did, you would not ask this question.
Dr. Hynek was the scientist (a professor of Astronomy) in charge of Project Blue Book for the US Air Force. He was the guy they trooped out in front of the cameras to tell the public that the witnesses had seen 'swamp gas' or 'Venus rising'. Until he began to realize that many of the witnesses had really seen something mysterious...



new topics

top topics



 
25
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join