"It looks to me like: 18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information says, "willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available", which would appear to include blabbing to the media or anyone else."
You cropped off the important part (and then replaced it with my own words instead). That’s called “cherry-picking.” That would be like me telling a reporter “I hate dogs that kill babies,” and then you broadcasting just the “I hate dogs” part to convince people that I have a problem with their pets. Not an honest debate tactic.
The full context illustrates that classification pertains to information and materials that have been specifically designated as classified. For example if somebody said “the range of a SPY-1 radar system is x number of miles,” they’d be in hot water because the specs about our most advanced radar systems is classified information. Some radar operator or pilot saying “I saw an unidentified object that outperformed our top jet interceptors” would not be classified for two reasons; 1.) it has no intelligence value, and 2.) that knowledge is already in the public sector and has been for decades. Information is no longer classified once it exists in the public domain – you can’t put the cat back into the bag. Anyway, here’s the full excerpt so people can see what kinds of material merits classification by the government:
(a)Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1)
concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2)
concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3)
concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4)
obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(b)
As used in subsection (a) of this section—
The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;
Not sure if this has been posted yet
Doesn't exactly inspire investor confidence does it?
I’m not thrilled that TTSA apparently acquired $400K in debt from TTS when it was absorbed by TTSA. But on the other hand, that’s not uncommon, and DeLonge contributed 6 or 7 figures in start-up capital to get TTSA up and running, which will eventually be repaid according to their prospectus.
But Tim Doyle’s analysis about the value of the shares is meaningless – this isn’t publicly traded stock, as I said before – you can’t buy and trade TTSA on any stock market. The structure is a kind of charity, not an investment vehicle. Nobody’s donating to TTSA with the expectation of getting their money back, or sharing in any future earnings. So that whole part of his analysis is predicated on the wrong business model.
And ironically, at the end he closes with “so if you’re expecting some type of ufo disclosure, you may be disappointed.” One month later we learned about the existence of the AATIP through the New York Times, and learned about the Nimitz case with two of our top fighter pilots telling their story, and we got the first military footage ever released which appears to be from genuine ufo incidents. These events led to the first national broadcast segments that I’ve ever seen in my life, which took this subject seriously. So from where I’m sitting, the people who donated to TTSA have already gotten their money’s worth, and I’m grateful for their contributions. Everyone interested in this field should be as well, imo.
My ¢2 worth: I remember listening some science program or documentary, where astronomer said to journalist that there is a legal requirement for them to not to talk to press, if they spot large asteroid on collision path with Earth. They first need to report to relevant government's department and wait for their further instructions.
I wasn’t aware of that, but I can understand why they’d do it: a false positive could incite mass public panic because it’s a clear existential threat to everyone on the planet. It's illegal to shout “fire!” or “terrorist!” on an airplane for the same reason.
But as SETI has said many times, there’s no law prohibiting them from announcing the discovery of an alien signal. Because learning that we’re not alone in the universe is an entirely different matter. Likewise some radar operator saying “I saw a ufo” isn’t dangerous, or a threat to public safety, and it doesn’t disclose any meaningful technical info about how they operate. But radar tracking data and clear gun camera footage
might, so that’s a different matter: nobody wants to give the Russians any key clues that could help them deliver a nuclear warhead over an American city at 24,000+mph.
Statistical landscape changes in a very drastic way.
You misunderstood me – I wasn’t saying that statistical analysis is worthless, I was saying that
one more case is just a drop in the bucket, and all of the existing water in that bucket is already public knowledge anyway.
Not even close.
@Thomas R Morrison and myself already discussed it at length. And Thomas won. There is only as far as one can take meta-information.
To persuade scientists and thus the general public, we need measurements. No measurements, no science. If you want measurements are uber reality-check. In science qualitative information, like witness testimonials, is considered low quality info, and most of scientist wouldn't even look at it.
That’s right – the dearth of credible scientific data is the primary reason that scientists won’t look at this subject. And without scientists looking at this and analyzing real empirical data collected from these events, the public generally doesn’t see it as a serious subject of inquiry either.
So in my view the kind of work that Chris is doing, could be the kind of game-changer that I’ve been looking for my entire life.
I don't really share the view that quantity and quality of data matter. The bigger issue is all the data and witness testimony can be faked. The public doesn't care if the science is sound; they don't even need to see it. They need someone they already know and respect to look at it and tell them it's okay to believe.
I disagree. Sen. Harry Reid validated the subject when he talked about the AATIP on the mainstream news, and it didn’t have much impact. People need to see credible scientific data and analyses by trained professional scientists. When that happens, public perception of all this will change dramatically. Science leads our culture when it comes to defining the borders between what’s real and what isn’t.
To rephrase it, you give scientists multi-spectral experimental data, for say 12 UFO observations (from mobile lab measurements), you'll soon find plenty of scientists of authority who will stand behind Extraterrestrial Hypothesis. You will completely swing pendulum to the other side.
Yeah that’s how I see it too. A lot of scientists are fascinated by this subject, but they can’t do anything with it because they don’t have the kind of evidence they need to examine and analyze and draw conclusions from.
Once that data is available, some brave souls in the scientific community will get involved, and that will tip the scales, as long as the data holds up to scrutiny.
