Slashdot Mirror
Sci-Fi Channel Looks for LGM in NASA Files
SharkJumper writes "The Sci-Fi channel expects to file a lawsuit within the week against NASA. They are attempting to gain access under the Freedom of Information Act to classified documents concerning a 1965 UFO sighting in Kecksburg, Pennsylvania. The Department of Defense, Army, and Air Force are next on their list. Here's Sci-Fi's account of the story."
They have money to blow on stupid shit like this and yet they didn't have enough to keep Farscape going?
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
Is it trying to improve ratings by becoming something like the "hoax investigation" channel?
Instead of dumping money into lawyers pockets, why don't they instead go back to exploring Science Fiction history, or trends in current science fiction development on an international level?
Maybe they will try to hire off Geraldo Rivera from Fox News next. Or maybe Rush Limbaugh.
They should put that lawsuit money back into funding good shows, like Farscape (I'm a little biased. Sorry).
The Sci-Fi Channel has disappointed me so much to the point that I've stopped watching it, on principle. They've canceled good sci-fi shows like Babylon 5 and Farscape, only to replace them with pseudoscientific crap that costs pennies to make: Sightings, Jon Edwards, UFO "documentaries", and crop circle "documentaries", amongst others. They've even declared their intention to stop producing science fiction shows and focus more on fantasy shows. WTF?! This is the Sci-Fi Channel!
I'm hoping for a good science fiction channel that won't give in to spreading pseudoscientific bullcrap just because it might get them better ratings. I'm looking for a station with integrity to throw my support behind, and the Sci-Fi Channel is not that station.
Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable
And what is that reason, exactly? That's what the plaintiff is asking here. Can the government continue to offer a legitimate reason for keeping decades-old documents classified? If so, they'll stay classified.
Let's face it-- even if those documents contain information about state-of-the-art (at the time) US aircraft, it's somewhat unlikely that there's still a reason to keep them under wraps. If we didn't have mechanisms like FOIA to periodically re-evaluate the need for secrecy on ancient documents, everything would stay classified out of sheer inertia, even when there was clearly no longer a reason for secrecy.
Um----
If NASA wants to not spend money on a lawsuit, they can simply release the documents.
Why do they have to file a lawsuit? Why exactly is NASA keeping in secret?
How the hell is anything that is US/Russia aerospace research oriented still worth classifying 50 years after the fact?
If the administrators at NASA are willing to go the the wall protecting these secrets, then they damn well are secrets that I want to know about.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
One of my favorite lines from an old conspiracy show about aliens was a backlit, voice-modified guy saying "Look, it's not aliens; it's military research. The fastest non-rocket-powered vehicle in the air right now that the public knows about is Lockheed-Martin's Blackbird, the SR-71, and that was designed forty years ago. Forty years before that, the fastest thing in the air was a biplane, a Sopwith Camel. Forty years before that, the fastest thing in the air was a balloon."
"That hasn't stopped happening."
Mike Hoye
Things are classified for a reason.
In my limited experience in this arena, oftentimes documents, media etc... are classified for a number of reasons including: 1) That media may contain information that was collected using technologies that may not be disclosed. 2) Alternatively, the "collector" of that media may have been in a place at a time that they should not have been or 3) Often the media may document relationships that are intended to be known as "unrelated" for intelligence, military or political purposes.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
"Why would the military cover up something that would let them double their budget if it was revealed?"
Stefan
So long as the government has the authority to keep some things secret, it's well within that authority to keep things secret for fifty, or a hundred, or a thousand years.
You may believe that fifty-year-old secrets are "ridiculous", but you can't justify that belief without knowing exactly what the secret is.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Unless, the documents don't contain information about state of the art US aircraft and the US has no real idea what the hell it was. That would be a damn good reason to keep it locked up - and quite frankly, I'd agree with them.
Ahem.
Am I wrong in my assumption that the government of the USA exists to serve the public in the public interest? (You know, "Government for the people, of the people, and by the people?" Sure, it's bullshit, but it's bullshit worth striving for.)
In that case, the government has no right to hide information from the public, except in the interest of public safety. (For instance, the deployment of US nuclear submarines might not be good public knowledge.) There is no other good reason for the government to hide information from its people.
In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the government has a responsibility to keep the public informed of important events. I would go further: I would say it is the public's responsibility to audit the functioning of the government on a regular, intensive basis.
The FOIA allows this auditing, even if it is 25 years after the fact. The only information that might need to remain classified is some information which has not changed over 25 years.
The FOIA has revealed some very interesting facts, like the funding by President Kennedy of the longest-running terrorist campaign against any nation (Operation Mongoose, against Cuba, which ran for many years; it may continue to this day). To FOIA is there for us to learn about our government; the government does not have the right to select the information we learn about it.
That would be like Microsoft choosing which memos are admitted as evidence during its anti-trust trials.
As far as this UFO thing goes: there has been no plausible evidence or explanaition to support visitation from other planets. Occam's Razor indicates it's nothing more than a fireball, just a regular, crashing-to-earth rock that left a trail of vaporized carbon, ice, and rock.
But, who knows? Maybe there *was* some sort of alien landing.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
It's only taxpayer-funded if the government (NASA) refuses to cooperate. Since NASA exists on our dime to acquire knowledge for all our benefit the fact that they are not willing to voluntarily give up knowledge they acquired bothers me. Yes, it is a shame that anyone or any organization has to SUE to get information from the government. But if that's what it takes to get the government to be more open with those of us who fund it, I'm all for it.
The government has wasted money on things much less important than freedom of information.
To be fair, Bush actually improved upon Clinton's 1995 executive order on declassification. Ashcroft has encouraged challenging all FOIA requests, and Cheney is still fighting FOIA requests concerning his energy cabinet meetings.