PDA

View Full Version : UFOs and Wikileaks...



gzhpcu
2010-Dec-02, 11:43 AM
What with all the secret documents getting printed by Wikileaks, where are all the secret documents on UFOs the USA supposedly have? :dance::whistle:;)

tnjrp
2010-Dec-02, 11:53 AM
All the required evidence is available on teh Interwebz already, tho not in one place. You just have to have an open mind!

This information was brought to me on an Internet forum by a nic who regularly cites channelling sources such as Kryon so it must be teh truhts!11!1!

Jens
2010-Dec-02, 02:28 PM
Even Wikileaks can't go that far!

Strange
2010-Dec-02, 02:51 PM
"They" have given Wikileaks this "supposedly" "sensitive" information so they can pretend that there are no more secrets. But we all know The Truth ...

Buttercup
2010-Dec-02, 03:13 PM
They got "beamed up" of course. ;-p

tnjrp
2010-Dec-03, 06:29 AM
Or maybe Assange has been assimilated... "This is Effluotus of the Borg... Resistance is futile... Gigabytes of data will be uploaded..."

mfumbesi
2010-Dec-03, 08:12 AM
And the faked moon landing secretes.

kamaz
2010-Dec-03, 06:53 PM
What with all the secret documents getting printed by Wikileaks, where are all the secret documents on UFOs the USA supposedly have? :dance::whistle:;)

From Assange himself:



Many weirdos email us about UFOs or how they discovered that they were the anti-christ whilst talking with their ex-wife at a garden party over a pot-plant. However, as yet they have not satisfied two of our publishing rules. However, it is worth noting that in yet-to-be-published parts of the cablegate archive there are indeed references to UFOs.


Source (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20024525-503543.html). Emphasis mine.

kamaz
2010-Dec-03, 07:11 PM
While we are at it, Guardian reports (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/30/wikileaks-cables-gary-mckinnon-gordon-brown) that the cables mention UK-US negotiation about extradition of the UFO hacker, Gary McKinnon. The full cable is here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/228597), relevant part:



2. (S//NF) The Secretary's meetings with PM Gordon Brown and Foreign Secretary David Miliband likely will focus on the following key issues: [...]

-- Gary McKinnon Extradition Case - The PM will likely raise with the Secretary (as he has with the Ambassador) the extradition case of Gary McKinnon. McKinnon is a 43-year old computer hacker with Asperger's Syndrome who is wanted for prosecution in the U.S.; he is accused of hacking into U.S. government systems in 2001 and 2002. McKinnon has gained enormous popular sympathy in his appeal against extradition; the UK's final decision is pending. The case has also caused public criticism of the U.S.-UK extradition treaty. In August, PM Brown, in a one-on-one meeting with the Ambassador, proposed a deal: that McKinnon plead guilty, make a statement of contrition, but serve any sentence of incarceration in the UK. Brown cited deep public concern that McKinnon, with his medical condition, would commit suicide or suffer injury in imprisoned in a U.S. facility. The Ambassador has raised this proposal with AG Holder and would be happy to brief the Secretary in more detail.

NEOWatcher
2010-Dec-03, 07:29 PM
From Assange himself:

However, it is worth noting that in yet-to-be-published parts of the cablegate archive there are indeed references to UFOs.
So he's holding back (not releasing) information about something while releasing other information? Isn't that kind of hypocritical?

kamaz
2010-Dec-03, 07:50 PM
So he's holding back (not releasing) information about something while releasing other information? Isn't that kind of hypocritical?

The counter on wikileaks.ch now says 667 / 251,287 , and he claims that he will eventually release everything. His stated rationale for slow release is:



Why not release everything now?

The embassy cables will be released in stages over the next few months. The subject matter of these cables is of such importance, and the geographical spread so broad, that to do otherwise would not do this material justice.

We owe it to the people who entrusted us with the documents to ensure that there is time for them to be written about, commented on and discussed widely in public, something that is impossible if hundreds of thousands of documents are released at once. We will therefore be releasing the documents gradually over the coming weeks and months.


I don't like it either, because I have to wait several months to see things that I am interested in. Like the UFOs :)

ETA: The actual reason for slow release may be that the cables are censored by wikileaks (so far I've found that informants' names are X'ed out), and doing this simply takes time.

Strange
2010-Dec-03, 08:03 PM
ETA: The actual reason for slow release may be that the cables are censored by wikileaks (so far I've found that informants' names are X'ed out), and doing this simply takes time.

This is what I don't understand. Presumably the (claimed) motivation is that they don't think governments should keep things secret. But Wikileaks is allowed to decide what should be kept secret. Somehow they are of a higher moral standard than the rest of us and can make decisions on our behalf even though they are accountable to no one. No thanks, I'll stick with a reasonably democratic process thanks. Rather that than than the whims of someone who I don't know and don't trust.

Actually, I suspect the motive is purely self-aggrandisment: "Look at me, I can upset people, nah-nah". Infantile fool.

Ah, I feel better now...

gzhpcu
2010-Dec-03, 08:26 PM
Mr Assange,

have there ever been documents forwarded to you which deal with the topic of UFOs or extraterrestrials?

Julian Assange

Many weirdos email us about UFOs or how they discovered that they were the anti-christ whilst talking with their ex-wife at a garden party over a pot-plant. However, as yet they have not satisfied two of our publishing rules. 1) that the documents not be self-authored; 2) that they be original. However, it is worth noting that in yet-to-be-published parts of the cablegate archive there are indeed references to UFOs.
source: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/12/03/wikileaks.assange.qanda/index.html

The world awaits with bated breath....:lol:

NEOWatcher
2010-Dec-03, 08:37 PM
ETA: The actual reason for slow release may be that the cables are censored by wikileaks (so far I've found that informants' names are X'ed out), and doing this simply takes time.
I think the reason for the slow release is so they can match thier documents with hot topics in the news to gain more publicity.

Eric Vaxxine
2010-Dec-06, 01:11 AM
UFO ....Unidentified Flying Object......

The planet has seen many Nations and Governments
invest in flying vehicles worthy of the term.
Many have been identified.....and they aren't remotely 'alien' !!!!!

So lets make a distinction here.

UFO ..'Unidentified Flying Object'. Terrestial vehicle suspected..........

UFA...'.Unidentified Flying Alien' .....suspected

Make it so.....

Elukka
2010-Dec-06, 05:57 AM
Before Assange took up the task of PR guy they gained barely any publicity, never mind that they had several significant leaks. Leaked stuff is still essentially secret if it never hits mainstream media. Without publicity everything that might leak out is useless.

rommel543
2010-Dec-06, 03:24 PM
I think the reason for the slow release is so they can match thier documents with hot topics in the news to gain more publicity.

Definitely.. if you released all the documentation at once there would be massive publicity for awhile, then it would eventually die down. If you release little bits at a time you get a constant publicity with little bump-ups along the way. As well if you released it all together stuff would be missed. This way all of it gets looked at.

Being that the documentation is mainly military and defense related I would expect that there would be records regarding 'unidentified flying objects'. Whether they are aliens or just non-transmitting enemy aircraft is another matter.

Strange
2010-Dec-06, 06:48 PM
Definitely.. if you released all the documentation at once there would be massive publicity for awhile, then it would eventually die down.

Which confirms my belief that it is all about ego. "Look at me. Look at me." If it was all released at once, then it would all get looked at eventually if it was worth looking at (unless people realise that there really isn't anything much worth looking at). I am expecting that after a while the news reports will simply be "And finally, Wikileaks relased some more stuff today. And now the weather...".

Gillianren
2010-Dec-06, 06:50 PM
Which confirms my belief that it is all about ego.

Someone else's speculation confirms yours?

I'm not saying it isn't true; I'm saying that we don't know that it is. Simply put, no matter what the leaks reveal, the news these days would ignore the substantive stuff, as they're doing now, and focus on the sensational bits. I like to hope the sensational bits get people to look at what's there and then discover the substantive stuff, but I also know better.

rommel543
2010-Dec-06, 07:00 PM
Well the latest release was mostly fluff about what diplomats think of their fellow workers, like North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il's weigh problem and Italian Prime Minister parties that he throws behind closed doors.

Strange
2010-Dec-06, 07:01 PM
Someone else's speculation confirms yours?

You are right. I am being unreasonable. I just find the whole thing a bit ... immature.

Gillianren
2010-Dec-06, 07:51 PM
Well the latest release was mostly fluff about what diplomats think of their fellow workers, like North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il's weigh problem and Italian Prime Minister parties that he throws behind closed doors.

Yes, but there was a lot of stuff that wasn't, and all most average people remember is calling the French President thin-skinned.

gzhpcu
2010-Dec-06, 08:22 PM
Well the latest release was mostly fluff about what diplomats think of their fellow workers, like North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il's weigh problem and Italian Prime Minister parties that he throws behind closed doors.
Heck, you don't need Wikileaks to know that Berlusconi likes young women. The press has been talking about it, the 17 year-old Ruby, the bunga bunga, etc. Berlusconi just smirks and says the likes to collect a new joke and a new woman every day, etc. The average Italian likes him and admires his escapades.

tnjrp
2010-Dec-07, 07:20 AM
We'll have to see about these alleged UFO references... UFO information seems to have a bit of tendency to disappear before it actually gets released to the general public, or else it just turns out to be pretty lacklustre in nature instead of being the "smoking gun" variety. There are various "theories" as to why this happens of course, including but not limited to there having been nothing of interest there to see in the 1st place.

Jens
2010-Dec-07, 08:49 AM
The average Italian likes him and admires his escapades.

I think quoting a paragraph is OK. According to a press report from October this year:


The percentage of people who are unhappy with Berlusconi has reached a record high of 58 per cent compared to 55 per cent in September, according to the survey of 1,000 people conducted by the IPR Marketing Institute and published on Tuesday.

A recent poll by a left-leaning newspaper put his popularity at 35%. So it seems to me that opinion in Italy is pretty split right now about him. There seem to be a lot of Italians who don't like him, though of course I wouldn't deny there are many who do. And yes, there may be lots of Italians who admire his escapades but just don't like his governing style, or whatever.

JustAFriend
2010-Dec-08, 02:27 PM
Isn't it obvious??? Assange is a Reptilian just like in "V" and he's bringing down the system in preparation for the invasion...

;-)

Spoons
2010-Dec-14, 03:55 AM
I'm interested in why you think releasing these leaked documents is immature, Strange. I suppose such a conversation could easily slide into the inappropriate, but if you can answer it without doing so that'd be of interest to me.

Hlafordlaes
2010-Dec-14, 01:29 PM
I'm interested in why you think releasing these leaked documents is immature, Strange. I suppose such a conversation could easily slide into the inappropriate, but if you can answer it without doing so that'd be of interest to me.

I don't think the embassy cable release is immature, just many of the reactions to what should be understood as commonplace among all diplomatic corps. What is absolutely naive is to suppose there is no selective agenda here.

Strange
2010-Dec-14, 02:00 PM
I'm interested in why you think releasing these leaked documents is immature, Strange. I suppose such a conversation could easily slide into the inappropriate, but if you can answer it without doing so that'd be of interest to me.

You make me try and organize a load of half-formed ideas? Curse you!

[NB: This can't help but touch on political issues, but I hope that is OK because there is nothing in this (as far as I am concerned) that is specific to any particular country, government or party - partly because of the naive, scattergun approach taken by people like Wikileaks.]

OK, at one level it is just the naively idealistic attitude that governments should have no secrets at all. Which would be nice. And people shouldn't lie. And we should all be nice to each other. There, half the world's problems solved at a stroke.

But of course all organizations (and indivduals) need to keep some secrets and even lie occasionally. How would you feel if you had spent ages organizing a surprise family get together for your grandparents and then a few days before someone tells them about it "because we shouldn't have secrets". There are plenty of examples of diplomatic negotiations that only worked because all parties involved could deny vehemnetly to their supporters that they would ever talk to such people. But fine, lets derail those peace negotiations because "it would be nice if goverments didn't have secrets".

I'm sure there are all sorts of examples of wrongdoing that organizations (including governments) try to keep secret. So there is a place for responsible whistle blowing. But to assume that everything a goverment does should be public is on a similar level of intelligence and logic as the CT arguments that "it must be true because the government denied it and they always lie".

The important thing about a reasonably open government and a free press is that it (usually) allows the important stuff to be uncovered and published (no system is perfect). And the important point about a democracy is not that it allows you to choose your leaders but that it allows you to get rid of them. This should (in principle) keep them honest. Again, not perfect but the various forms of it around the world seem to be about the best we can come up with.

When challenged about putting out material that could endanger lives, say, Wikileaks tell us they have removed any sensitive information. But hang on a minute, we now have a bunch of people with the political idealism and nous of schoolchildren deciding what information is "sensitive" and what is OK to be released? Great. Why don't they take charge of schools, the TV news stations and censoring movies as well? Who gave these people the right to decide what information should and shouldn't be public? Not me.

But then, from what I have read about Assnage, it seems he is driven more by his ego and the desire for power and to make money from selling this information. Although some of these allegations were made by someone who "left" Wikileaks after Assange joined so may not be entirely unbiased. And, of course, Wikileaks itself is not a particularly open organization so we may never know (unless someone leaks some information).

Strange
2010-Dec-14, 02:06 PM
I don't think the embassy cable release is immature, just many of the reactions to what should be understood as commonplace among all diplomatic corps.

Well, I think the release is a bit childish. Why shouldn't diplomats, like everyone else, be allowed a bit of privacy to say what they think.

But I do agree that the reaction (in the press mainly) is somewhat overblown as there is nothing particularly shocking about the fact that the ambassador to some despotic country said that the rulers were depsots. Or whatever.


What is absolutely naive is to suppose there is no selective agenda here.

Good point. We are assured that Wikileaks is releasing everything, but of course we would never know if they kept half of it secret because it din't fit their agenda. Or even if they edited or faked stuff to support their ideals. Ironic, really.

Swift
2010-Dec-14, 02:09 PM
<snip>
[NB: This can't help but touch on political issues, but I hope that is OK because there is nothing in this (as far as I am concerned) that is specific to any particular country, government or party - partly because of the naive, scattergun approach taken by people like Wikileaks.]

You are doing great so far. But I will remind everyone that this issue is close to the borderline for BAUT, so please keep the discussion polite and non-partisan.

SeanF
2010-Dec-14, 02:14 PM
Good point. We are assured that Wikileaks is releasing everything, but of course we would never know if they kept half of it secret because it din't fit their agenda. Or even if they edited or faked stuff to support their ideals. Ironic, really.
Well, we do know that they are keeping stuff secret, don't we? I mean, isn't it a known fact that they are - at the very least - redacting names?

Strange
2010-Dec-14, 02:18 PM
Well, we do know that they are keeping stuff secret, don't we? I mean, isn't it a known fact that they are - at the very least - redacting names?

That is fine where they are clearly redacting soemthing (the "known unknowns") but how much might they be silently omitting (the "unknown unknowns")?

rommel543
2010-Dec-14, 03:25 PM
Honestly if ten years from now it came out that WikiLeaks is actually a covert government run operation to smoke screen other going ons, it wouldn't surprise me. That whole "Look over there at all that government dirty laundry, but don't over here while were doing this Ok." I mean look at the stuff that has come out. There was the military actions in Iraq that got some hand slapped because they killed some civilians and reporters, but they passed it off as casualty of war. There is the documents that list the important locations for the US sustainability, Oooo like that was a shock. The comments that people have made of foreign dignitaries that is more amusing than anything. Has really been anything released that would cause the world to stop what they were doing and say "WTF"?

I picture all the radio stations music suddenly stopping and everything completely quiet while people stand there in shock, crickets can be heard in the background. One lone person in the crown says in shock "WTF" then everyone starts talking about it.

Unless Wiki Leaks has something massive in their stash, something that will change societies views on things around them, I think that Wiki Leaks is going to fade into the background noise with only the government pencil pushers and ATM people listening in.

Gillianren
2010-Dec-14, 07:10 PM
I mean look at the stuff that has come out. There was the military actions in Iraq that got some hand slapped because they killed some civilians and reporters, but they passed it off as casualty of war. There is the documents that list the important locations for the US sustainability, Oooo like that was a shock. The comments that people have made of foreign dignitaries that is more amusing than anything. Has really been anything released that would cause the world to stop what they were doing and say "WTF"?

I think the hope is that the American people will know what's happening in their name. Though I utterly agree that the comments about foreign dignitaries aren't worth knowing. But yes, there was some information that was of import that no one seems to have noticed. It's not just that ambassadors to despotic countries think the leaders of said countries are despots. It is, for example, what some world leaders want us to do to other countries. But that gets missed, because it's easier to talk about personalities and stuff we ought to have already known. Though I maintain the average American didn't.

Spoons
2010-Dec-15, 02:34 AM
You make me try and organize a load of half-formed ideas? Curse you!
You've discovered my secret. Yes, I'm the devil. :)


OK, at one level it is just the naively idealistic attitude that governments should have no secrets at all. Which would be nice. And people shouldn't lie. And we should all be nice to each other. There, half the world's problems solved at a stroke.
Ok, if we can tackle this greed issue that's the other half right there.


But of course all organizations (and indivduals) need to keep some secrets and even lie occasionally. How would you feel if you had spent ages organizing a surprise family get together for your grandparents and then a few days before someone tells them about it "because we shouldn't have secrets".
WikiLeaks spilt the beans on my nan's party? Those mongrels! No wonder there are calls for his assassination! ;)

There are plenty of examples of diplomatic negotiations that only worked because all parties involved could deny vehemnetly to their supporters that they would ever talk to such people. But fine, lets derail those peace negotiations because "it would be nice if goverments didn't have secrets".


I'm sure there are all sorts of examples of wrongdoing that organizations (including governments) try to keep secret. So there is a place for responsible whistle blowing. But to assume that everything a goverment does should be public is on a similar level of intelligence and logic as the CT arguments that "it must be true because the government denied it and they always lie".
Fair points you're making, but I do wonder whether or not some of this stuff would be released or even threatened to be released if Assange wasn't feeling threatened whether he'd respond or make such threats himself. Back a dog into a corner...


The important thing about a reasonably open government and a free press is that it (usually) allows the important stuff to be uncovered and published (no system is perfect). And the important point about a democracy is not that it allows you to choose your leaders but that it allows you to get rid of them. This should (in principle) keep them honest. Again, not perfect but the various forms of it around the world seem to be about the best we can come up with.
Based on some of the stuff that has been released to date I think there is a strong case for some of this stuff being important to be made public. Obviously there is some info that could be less than helpful if put out there. However, if I was afraid of embarrassing behaviour being exposed the best counter is to not behave in an embarrassing fashion. Could such a body as WikiLeaks make people think first before doing stupid things? It seems almost like name and shame arrangements against members of the public which seem to be popping up more and more around the world. Is it a double standard that the public cops this treatment yet our representatives don't?


When challenged about putting out material that could endanger lives, say, Wikileaks tell us they have removed any sensitive information. But hang on a minute, we now have a bunch of people with the political idealism and nous of schoolchildren deciding what information is "sensitive" and what is OK to be released? Great. Why don't they take charge of schools, the TV news stations and censoring movies as well? Who gave these people the right to decide what information should and shouldn't be public? Not me.
Freedom of information doesn't require you or anyone else to approve the release of information. That's the thing. And your comparison of those involved ato schoolchildren seems a little unreasonable. What do you have to base that on? They did request assistance to ensure individuals safety wasn'tcomprimised, but their request was rejected, so they went to media groups and got what they could. People in high places have stated that nobody has been physically harmed or put at risk as yet by the leaks, so this argument of endangering lives doesn't seem reasonable to me. Sure, they should continue to make efforts to not endanger people, but they haven't made any mistakes there yet, it seems.


But then, from what I have read about Assnage, it seems he is driven more by his ego and the desire for power and to make money from selling this information. Although some of these allegations were made by someone who "left" Wikileaks after Assange joined so may not be entirely unbiased. And, of course, Wikileaks itself is not a particularly open organization so we may never know (unless someone leaks some information).
Again, you've got to be careful of where you get your information from. The little that I can take from what I've read is that he is proud of what he's achieved so far, and I don't think there's anything wrong with someone being proud of their achievements. I can't speak on any bias or lack of transparency, as I don't have any reliable info on that - you may be correct there, who knows?

Spoons
2010-Dec-15, 02:38 AM
That is fine where they are clearly redacting soemthing (the "known unknowns") but how much might they be silently omitting (the "unknown unknowns")?

That's just casting undefendable dispersions though, isn't it? Not really playing fair. I could say, "How many crimes is Strange guilty of that we don't know of? Maybe that infamous glove fits him." That would be wholly unfair.

I'd also just like to say that I have no reason to suspect Strange of anything untoward - he seems a very nice character. ;)

tnjrp
2010-Dec-16, 07:51 AM
Ooh shiny!

http://www.eutimes.net/2010/12/wikileaks-set-to-reveal-us-ufo-war-in-southern-ocean/

Strange
2010-Dec-16, 11:34 AM
http://xkcd.com/834/

Ara Pacis
2010-Dec-16, 11:43 AM
Ooh shiny!

http://www.eutimes.net/2010/12/wikileaks-set-to-reveal-us-ufo-war-in-southern-ocean/

Someone's been watching too many Stargate-SG1 reruns. In an unrelated note, a friend of mine may be going to work for the SGC, so if I hear anything....

tnjrp
2010-Dec-16, 12:33 PM
There are indeed several resemblances (such as the year and the "informing the Russians" bit) to the "battle of Antartica" from Stargate SG-1 but obviously that's just what they want us to think :shifty:

Forgot to add this little something on the author of the above piece of completely trustworthy investigative journalism:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread304918/pg1

Spoons
2010-Dec-17, 03:03 AM
There are indeed several resemblances (such as the year and the "informing the Russians" bit) to the "battle of Antartica" from Stargate SG-1 but obviously that's just what they want us to think :shifty:

Forgot to add this little something on the author of the above piece of completely trustworthy investigative journalism:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread304918/pg1

Of course it's like something on a tv show - where do they get the ideas from? I suppose Doogie Howser proves there are no geniuses too? :shifty:

rommel543
2010-Dec-20, 04:05 PM
Ooh shiny!

http://www.eutimes.net/2010/12/wikileaks-set-to-reveal-us-ufo-war-in-southern-ocean/

I was reading that, and some of the pages they linked to, trying so hard not to giggle. It was like every ATM post amalgamated into one article.

tnjrp
2010-Dec-21, 07:38 AM
It's a bit hard to take seriously to be sure. Off course all of us skeptics will have to eat humble pie "when" this actually gets up on the WikiLeaks... :shifty:

rommel543
2010-Dec-21, 03:31 PM
If something like that gets released by Wikileaks, I'm going to doubt everything that they've ever posted. Don't get me wrong, I believe that there is life out there beyond our planet. As far as we know, there my be life besides ours in this solar system. As for coming here and visiting or taking over. Ya I don't think so. Let's see, if they have the ability to come here they have a higher level of technology than we do so it's not for our Mac Books and IPods (they can have them as far as I'm concerned). As for resources, they are far easier to access everywhere else in our solar system than earth. The only thing that we have readily abundant is water, and honestly if an advanced civilization capable of space travel can't combine oxygen and hydrogen, then I don't think we have a concern if they attack.