reply to post by samstone11
Originally posted by samstone11
If we were presented with absolute proof of disclosure by a sufficient authoritative body/individual, would that open them up to such intense scrutiny
on other paranormal/unusual/abnormal subjects that this alone could prevent them from stepping forward?
You presented a hypothetical scenario which presupposes that aliens are visiting, are relatively benign, and that the government has been in contact
with them. I will accept the above assumptions for my response.
I believe you can compare your question to any controversial topic of our modern day world. Somebody has already made a comparison to the war in Iraq
and the controversy over WMDs. We seem to have difficulty agreeing on the facts of an event and it's even more difficult when the information is
subjective. The question about WMDs is a good example. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if you could find somebody to argue the pro-WMD side to
this day despite the lack of evidence. So, the first point to consider is that you could never truly have "irrefutable" disclosure.
1.) Irrefutable disclosure is not possible
I know this was one of your original assumptions but I couldn't include it in the list above. My justification is that we have shown that we are
unable to agree as a society and people will believe what they choose despite evidence. Also, consider the prejudice built up from decades of movies
and UFO culture.
2.) To err is human
We are all born into the world in the same way - wearing our birthday suits. We all have a similar capacity for good, bad, love and hate within us.
Of course, there is a distribution across a bell curve but even the end cases are likely not significantly different when compared to the hypothetical
notion of alien intelligence. So the next piece to the puzzle is to ask yourself what you would do. Would you be afraid to release information about
secret treaties to abduct and experiment on the population which you had sanctioned?
3.) Information is compartmentalized
Even if a few key people had the majority of information, most people that were informed before the hypothetical disclosure would likely only have a
piece of the puzzle. This would probably be the biggest force from preventing any true disclosure. It would take a long time for the information to
percolate through the system. The more people that are exposed to the information the greater the chance of disclosure. This isn't just due to the
obvious effect of information leaks, but also the increased likelihood that the plan going forward would be evaluated from a ethical and moral lens.
In other words, people mature along with the information and the present cares little for the past (ex, JFK). I think the compartmentalized effect
plays a much larger role in the beginning than fear of reprisal.
4.) Values and social structures change with each new generation
This is probably one of the best adaptations for our species. It provides us with the flexibility to adapt to change while retaining the benefits of
stability acquired from rigid generational view points. Each generation adapts and builds on the successes of previous generations but they are able
to cast off problems from the past. The fight for civil rights today compared to the United States Civil War is evidence of this advancement. It
isn't always a straight path. So there is regression and advancement, but it is still an effective search algorithm for the solution to the
challenges of society as plotted across time.
I believe the points above would create a narrative as follows. An agency that made contact would keep it hidden in order to retain a competitive
advantage. There would be a small number of people that would know about it and it would therefore likely be kept secret. Your question implies
that the agency also engaged in unethical acts such as technology deals for abduction samples. This would be used to justify keeping the information
secret for a long time. The situation would stay this way due to fear despite the information spreading. However, it would eventually reach critical
mass as younger generations of people cycled through power. There would be a contradiction of reconciling past behavior with the need to make the
information public. History indicates that several factions would probably exist to resolve this contradiction. I speculate that the two factions
1. Full disclosure
2. Controlled release of info
(2) would result in muddying the waters and the need to disclose by (1) would create conflict. I think this would result in a lot of arguing, hate,
and conflict that we presently see in the world over far less trivial matters. This would also likely create a sense of community and compassion once
we got through our initial bickering.