Chuckleberryfinn
Paranormal Maven
My opinion on this issue is that the military certainly has acted in suspicious ways during many, many UFO investigations. Their consistent refusal to admit that UFOs represent anything anomalous points towards the existence of a big secret, I think. Just look at the Redmond, Oregon, incident of 1959. Richard Hall's UFO Evidence from 1964 contains a good discussion of that case. In it, we learn that the military had 4 different explanations for what was obviously an extremely bizarre, unknown craft flying around town. It was tracked on radar and NICAP even obtained certified copies of FAA flight logs. Multiple witnesses, including a police officer who chased the object around town, saw the object close to the ground or else hovering just above tree top level, flitting about here and there. Each time the military explanation didn't stick, they'd make up a new one. It was false radar returns; it was a mass hallucination; it was a weather balloon; no, finally, it was the planet Venus. Never mind the 6 jet interceptors scrambled to chase the object. One of them even reportedly came feet from colliding with the object during the chase. Clearly, the military knew that something damned mysterious was going on, yet instead they chose to deny the episode in its entirety. It made them look stupid and foolish, just like a liar. They lied about this incident.
And, of course, I could easily have cited a great number of cases just like this one. We also have documents, such as those coming from Winston Smith, which indicate that the subject of UFOs "is the most highly classified subject in the United States, rating higher even than the H-Bomb."
All of this isn't absolute proof of a UFO conspiracy, sure. It could be as Kimball says. It could be that they are interested in the phenomenon but, like us, don't really know what it represents. This hypothesis depends on a number of very shaky assumptions, however. One example is the surprising number of high level government and military leaks regarding recovered saucers; well, Kimball has to discount all of these leaks (forgive me, Mr. Kimball, for referring to you in the third person here, since you'll probably read this).
I should also add that Kimball isn't alone in discounting the UFO conspiracy thesis. A few other UFO researchers, good ones, do the same thing. David Jacobs argues that the government takes their cue from the scientific community who says there's nothing to the phenomenon (Condon). I'm not sure what Dr. Haines thinks about this subject, but sometimes I get the impression that he shares Kimball's view. So clearly it's not all that uncommon and indeed appears to be sustainable, even though I don't agree.
As for the 9/11 argument, I think that Cottonzway made some very cogent remarks about the validity of the 9/11 Omission Commission. I don't see how anyone who has read this report, which I have, can come away with the view that it was a fair and accurate representation of the facts. It just blows my goddamned mind that Kimball holds this view. Since Kimball didn't engage Cotton, I suppose he doesn't really want to get into a debate about the 9/11 Commission. I cannot say I blame him, since his view is totally unsustainable in the extreme.
And, of course, I could easily have cited a great number of cases just like this one. We also have documents, such as those coming from Winston Smith, which indicate that the subject of UFOs "is the most highly classified subject in the United States, rating higher even than the H-Bomb."
All of this isn't absolute proof of a UFO conspiracy, sure. It could be as Kimball says. It could be that they are interested in the phenomenon but, like us, don't really know what it represents. This hypothesis depends on a number of very shaky assumptions, however. One example is the surprising number of high level government and military leaks regarding recovered saucers; well, Kimball has to discount all of these leaks (forgive me, Mr. Kimball, for referring to you in the third person here, since you'll probably read this).
I should also add that Kimball isn't alone in discounting the UFO conspiracy thesis. A few other UFO researchers, good ones, do the same thing. David Jacobs argues that the government takes their cue from the scientific community who says there's nothing to the phenomenon (Condon). I'm not sure what Dr. Haines thinks about this subject, but sometimes I get the impression that he shares Kimball's view. So clearly it's not all that uncommon and indeed appears to be sustainable, even though I don't agree.
As for the 9/11 argument, I think that Cottonzway made some very cogent remarks about the validity of the 9/11 Omission Commission. I don't see how anyone who has read this report, which I have, can come away with the view that it was a fair and accurate representation of the facts. It just blows my goddamned mind that Kimball holds this view. Since Kimball didn't engage Cotton, I suppose he doesn't really want to get into a debate about the 9/11 Commission. I cannot say I blame him, since his view is totally unsustainable in the extreme.
