Important Points Opposing Disclosure

Whereas most posts about disclosure are simply hopes of realising the existence of aliens, and also simply refering to the reaction of the public at large, here, i will point out some other, very interesting points, about the reasons to forbey disclosure.

1) To realise that extraterrestrials/aliens exist on other planets, would thus point scientific interest to those that are already on Earth, and thus, they might find themselves in danger, the target of experiments.

2) Extraterrestrial/alien beings might be considered a threat due to special abilities/attributes, and this might actually make the situation worse.

3) Technology can be a significant hazard, especially if the scientific community realise the existance of exraterrestrials/aliens, and thus any artefacts would be requestered to be reverse-engineered, and this is a problem as it can lead to dangerous technologies.

4) Any ventures into outer-space that we achieve by reverse-engineering alien technology, would also be a major issue if our activities cause us to be in disrepute.

I ask you to take the place of a government official, and share your comments, ideas, and warnings.

Personally, if it were up to a vote, I would disagree on disclosure.

reply to post by SystemResistor


OK, I'll throw my hat into the ring first.

Have you seen what happens when things like this happens:\

Brixton riot (1981)

The riots that erupted in Brixton, London were some of the worst the UK has ever seen. On the evening of April 12, police arrived at the scene of a stabbing to question the young, black victim. As they tried to get him into a car to take him to the hospital, civilians tried to intervene. The police were attacked, but eventually managed to quell the situation. Because of the incident, police increased their numbers patrolling the streets. The very next day, angry citizens began to pelt police cars with bricks, and rioting broke up. When all was said and done, 279 police and 45 civilians were injured, over one hundred cars were burned, 150 buildings were damaged and thirty were torched.

LA Riots

On April 29th, 1992, a jury acquitted two white police officers for charges of the videotaped beating black motorist Rodney King. As a result of this verdict, thousands of citizens rioted for six days. Mass amounts of looting, murder, arson and assault took place, resulting in over a billion dollars in total damage, and the loss of 53 lives.

Detroit Riot of 1967



When police performed a raid on a Detroit after hours drinking club, they found 82 people holding a party for two returning Vietnam veterans. The police arrested all of these people, and this resulted in widespread rioting. The riots began in the northeast section and spread to the east over the course of five days. Widespread looting, fires and murders took place, and the situation got so bad that the National Guard and the 82nd airborne division were mobilized to quell the violence. When it was over, 43 people were dead, 1189 were injured and over 7000 people were arrested.

Watts Riots

In August of 1965, police pulled over a motorcyclist believed to be intoxicated. The driver, Marquette Frye failed to pass a sobriety test and was arrested. As the police ordered to impound the cycle, a crowd slowly began to form. Dozens grew to hundreds who began throwing rocks at the police. Racial tensions grew over the course of the next couple days until a violent riot broke out claiming the lives of 34 people and injuring 1,032.


2007 Nairobi, Kenya Riots



Political unrest turned into deadly rioting in what has been called the biggest threat to East Africa's most stable democracy. Citizens of Nairobi, Kenya believed that the reelection of Mwai Kibaki was a sham, and some of the most violent rioting in history ensued. From Nairobi to the Coast, hundreds were killed and buildings were burned by machete wielding rioters. Club carrying police officers tried to restore order by firing tear gas and live bullets into the immense crowds. Crowds moved across villages, torching buildings, raping women and killing. Hundreds fled in fear from this violent demonstration of human beings at their worst.


2005 Civil Unrest in France



From October to November of 2005, a series of riots and violent demonstrations raged throughout the streets of France. When police were called to a construction site to investigate a possible break in, three teenagers fled, apparently thinking they were being chased. The teens hid in a power station. At some point that night, the boys were electrocuted and two of them were killed. This broke pre-existing tensions over the supposed history of police brutality, and the riots began. Cars were burned, buildings were set ablaze, hundreds were injured and one lay dead before order was restored. Over-all property damage was estimated at just under 200 million dollars.


PLUS MANY MANY MANY MORE.....................


AND YOU WANT TO TELL US WE'RE ABOUT TO BE PROBED??

RIOT IN 3, 2,...............................

Probably the most important point opposing 'disclosure' is:

There's NOTHING to Disclose.

SystemResistor
Whereas most posts about disclosure are simply hopes of realising the existence of aliens, and also simply refering to the reaction of the public at large, here, i will point out some other, very interesting points, about the reasons to forbey disclosure.

1) To realise that extraterrestrials/aliens exist on other planets, would thus point scientific interest to those that are already on Earth, and thus, they might find themselves in danger, the target of experiments.

I believe that such beings as there might be ,under your hypothetical example, would have to receive a sort of diplomatic status, preventing forced experimentation by any nation or organisation, if their existence were to be revealed to all parties.

2) Extraterrestrial/alien beings might be considered a threat due to special abilities/attributes, and this might actually make the situation worse.

Right... There are people on this planet who have unusual talents and abilities, people who can hit a thrown paracetamol with an arrow, people who can cut a two hundred mile per hour projectile out of the air with a katana, people who can kick five individual arses while mid jump, take a sledgehammer to the balls with the same aplomb that I take a shot of rum, others who can work complicated mathematics while playing ping pong, and still others who can crack difficult codes without the assistance of computer aids.

These people are not under threat, simply because they are amazing, and have near inhuman abilities. They are only at threat to the same degree that the rest of us are.

3) Technology can be a significant hazard, especially if the scientific community realise the existance of exraterrestrials/aliens, and thus any artefacts would be requestered to be reverse-engineered, and this is a problem as it can lead to dangerous technologies.

By dangerous, what exactly do you mean? Of most interest to our species, would be propulsion technologies. While making it possible to travel vast distances in instants could be POTENTIALLY dangerous, you could argue the same about any high velocity transit method. Jet engines are hardly huggable objects when active after all!

Another thing to point out, is that no technology by itself poses danger to a human being. It is what we choose to do with that technology that could be dangerous, and frankly, if that was a major concern, then we would not be operating nuclear power, or fossil fuel power stations.

4) Any ventures into outer-space that we achieve by reverse-engineering alien technology, would also be a major issue if our activities cause us to be in disrepute.

I ask you to take the place of a government official, and share your comments, ideas, and warnings.

Personally, if it were up to a vote, I would disagree on disclosure.

edit on 30-12-2013 by SystemResistor because: (no reason given)

It is not the right of government officials to decide whether the people have access to information regarding the existence of alien intelligences. If, IF, such things exist, and are known to the governments of the world, then the governments of the world have no business keeping that from the species as a whole. Some would argue that national security is more important than freedom of information, but I would argue that a nation is more secure when it's citizens are directly responsible for that security, it's maintenance and solidity.

Put simply, I trust myself far more than I trust my government, or for that matter, the government of any other nation. I know my motivations, which is more than can be said of the motivations of the powers in the world.

If having data would risk our species existence, through panic and war, then I say that we ought to damned well burn if we cannot handle it.

reply to post by SystemResistor


Because we are here and what we today know, the first point is just about factual verification (or acceptance by the general public, since believing in non factual things is not strange to us). Scientific interests in outer space has been always high, higher even than interest for what goes about this blue marble, what we lack is political (or should I say economic) interest in it. My view is that the lack of factual data and economical (or should I say political) interests are connected

In any case the validation of point one it would only result in fear and disillusion, fear for the unknown and disillusion because we cease to be special and humans as a group of individually like to be special above all else.

As for those that are already on Earth the chance we might get our hands on one is shown by the past record this also answers who has been experimenting on whom...

The second point correlates to the first. If we get ourselves cornered and end being contacted and not contacting we start already at a disadvantage, technologically and strategically, they will have the initiative an so the control over the situation. They do not need to be magic, their technology already makes them special enough...

As for the third point that again correlates to the previous one, technology is always hazardous it depends on the hands that wield it, and that is often only limited by its complexity. Imagine if we finally find out that "free" energy (there is no such thing as free) is cheap and simple to produce, now think about the potential to making destructive devices using that energy from bombs to electromagnetic weapons (lazer and microwaves), even the simplest things like cultural contamination could be disastrous (like how we introduced the concept of land property, markets and money to aborigines).

As for the forth point it should be a given life is messy, it is not by chance that the first reaction to any intruder is often violence. It establish control and dominance and reduces competition, I don't see why we should expect that any technological superior race that contact us (that would probably have emerged from a predatory species, fallowing our own experience) would have any good will towards us, at best we should hope that they just want to annex/merge with us (as they seem to be doing). That last fact answers well why we don't get any proper information on them, we don't have the option for disclosure, just consider the steps one takes to keep a secret and extrapolate ...

reply to post by SystemResistor

4) Any ventures into outer-space that we achieve by reverse-engineering alien technology, would also be a major issue if our activities cause us to be in disrepute.

You Earthlings have about as much a chance of reverse engineering a starship as an undiscovered tribe from New Guinea have of reverse engineering a Boeing 747.

reply to post by DJW001


Excellent reply. And hello, long time no see? Or is it just me?

CaptainBeno
reply to post by DJW001

 

Excellent reply. And hello, long time no see? Or is it just me?

I was indisposed for several months earlier this year. Got better. Thanks!

So how is disclosure suppose to go after we get past all the warm fuzzy 'we are not alone' bit?

Sorry humans but you are not at the top of the food chain, don't worry about all the genetic and hybrid breading programs, they have been going on longer than most may think. It has not all been bad with some technology influx and a few other perks, but if you don't like it tough, what can you do about it?

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite


I would just like to say that you made it into my most annoying list

I've been following your comments for a while...and I'm impressed...universe holds no mysteries for you. You seem to have all the answers to many puzzles that make us mortals curious.

reply to post by SystemResistor

 

OP. Although I would want eventual disclosure...I think you got valid points for non disclosure.

reply to post by SystemResistor


Other possibilities:

a) disclosure only hurts without ET driving it. Doing so otherwise only induces even greater ridicule and lowers already low opinion of government.

b) ETs have threatened any government against disclosure for their own inscrutable reasons. In this case, would you blame the Men In Black? Suppose they are preventing us from being invaded & subjugated by a million Klingon stormtroopers?

reply to post by SystemResistor


Suppose that ET's actually want to free all of the people of the earth from the Debt Slavery system, because it is a hideious affront to free will.

This explains the lack of disclosure far better than any of the other weak and pathetic attempts to do so.