Slashdot Mirror


White House Responds to ET/UFO Petitions

An anonymous reader writes "The White House has responded to two more We the People petitions. These new inquiries ask the government to acknowledge formally that aliens have visited Earth. The response from Phil Larson of the White House Office of Science and Technology is: 'The U.S. government has no evidence that any life exists outside our planet, or that an extraterrestrial presence has contacted or engaged any member of the human race. In addition, there is no credible information to suggest that any evidence is being hidden from the public’s eye.'" I'm glad that's cleared up. Now our government can get back to important work like developing caffeinated jerky.

161 of 232 comments (clear)

  1. yeah... by dmacleod808 · · Score: 2

    I bet if the government was asked about any other super high security classified information, they would similarly deny it.

    --
    There Can Be Only One...
    1. Re:yeah... by tysonedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The use of the phrase "no credible information" is going to drive the conspiracy theorists crazy for decades, 'cause aliens are incredible man! We want to see the incredible information!

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
    2. Re:yeah... by scubamage · · Score: 2

      Yeah, was anyone expecting anything different on this one?

    3. Re:yeah... by Soilworker · · Score: 2

      "Immediately disclose the government's knowledge of and communications with extraterrestrial beings"

      What kind of moron write a petition implying he undoubtedly KNOW THAT THE US GOV. had communication with extraterrestrial beings, no one can take a moron like that seriously.

    4. Re:yeah... by Arlet · · Score: 1

      Seriously. Even if the government was withholding information, some silly on-line petition isn't going to chance anything.

    5. Re:yeah... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ah, you underestimate the true conspiracy theorist's(don't let yourself be fooled by the plants) capacity for discerning the sinister complexity of the labyrinthine wheels within wheels...

      By craftily wording their inquiry as though it were merely a risible question about aliens, our petitioner has forced Them to reveal that there is "no credible evidence" to suggest that the US Government has communicated with extraterrestrial beings, such as the so-called 'astronauts' who participated in the moon landing hoax, or 'space probes' that allegedly disprove the Hollow Earth theory!

    6. Re:yeah... by MoonBuggy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nope. What I'd like to see some more signatures on this one, actually - not that I expect any tangible results, but it'd be at least mildly entertaining to see how they respond to it.

    7. Re:yeah... by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      More logically the phrase "no evidence" versus the more commonly expected "no knowledge". So perhaps no recovered alien vessels and no captured aliens versus no knowledge of unknown space vessels, presumably not operated by humans.

      Of course one need only look at the reply for marijuana versus say this story http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2008/jul/23/significance_us_govt_cannabinoid which leads you to http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6630507.html. So the US Department of Health has a patent on what the US Government in turn denies is of any value.

      Then of course who could forget wikileaks and embassy cables, basically the US government lying all over the place, again and again and again.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    8. Re:yeah... by SomePgmr · · Score: 1

      What's important is the appearance of a transparent and responsive government.

      Of course that's no more true than it's ever been, but it's a brilliant show.

    9. Re:yeah... by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 2

      They also said "outside our planet." That still leaves wide open the whole "ancient astronauts from Earth" camp. Better still, we now have a leading statement that provides additional credibility to the theory. Call us crazies will you? Hah! One day, we'll prove that the last ice age was caused by nuclear winter from our ancient ancestors. These aliens don't keeping telling us nukes are bad for no good reason. They lived through what could happen!

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    10. Re:yeah... by gtall · · Score: 2

      " Then of course who could forget wikileaks and embassy cables, basically the US government lying all over the place, again and again and again."

      Really, take this acid test, write down everything you say about your place of employment for a year and then send it to your boss, your boss's boss, and shove it all the way up the chain of command. Information wants to be free, y'now.

  2. They're out there man by masternerdguy · · Score: 1

    They could be made of water.

    --
    To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
    1. Re:They're out there man by grimmjeeper · · Score: 2

      Maybe they're the kind of water that works in the 100 MPG carburetor the government is hiding too...

    2. Re:They're out there man by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      100mpg is doable with modern technology... just not if you want to keep up with the safety and air quality regs.... stuff like antilock brakes, airbags, and catalytic converters add weight. and the catalytic converter in particular also restricts airflow through the exhaust system, which limits the capabilities of the engine.

  3. Air Force Caffeine Department by bobsacks · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Kind of off topic - I was buddies with a guy in the air force that worked on the caffeinated stuff. He came to visit one time and brought some caffeine pudding with him. Hell of a drug.

    1. Re:Air Force Caffeine Department by ThurstonMoore · · Score: 1

      A drug is a drug. Why are they using a shitty stimulant like caffeine. Why not use amphetamine it works much better?

    2. Re:Air Force Caffeine Department by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      Um. The Air Force uses "go pills" all the time. But why would they not always be looking into alternatives?

    3. Re:Air Force Caffeine Department by fynydd · · Score: 1

      people can get a little nuts on amphetamines

    4. Re:Air Force Caffeine Department by ThurstonMoore · · Score: 1

      Because caffeine is such a shitty dirty buzz. No stimulant is good but amphetamine is a much better choice than caffeine. Ive taken both and caffeine sucks.

    5. Re:Air Force Caffeine Department by ThurstonMoore · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People start getting nuts when they use any stimulant inplace of rest.

    6. Re:Air Force Caffeine Department by smelch · · Score: 1

      Right, right. I totally take your word on what sucks and what doesn't, because Sonic Youth is a good band.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    7. Re:Air Force Caffeine Department by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      Caffeine is also less addictive, and has less negative side effects than amphetamines. Nobody ever "borrowed" a tank and took it for a joy ride after drinking a cup of coffee.

    8. Re:Air Force Caffeine Department by stackOVFL · · Score: 1

      Crack and peanut butter sandwich, delicious!

  4. Don't blame Phil by paiute · · Score: 1

    It's just the probe speaking.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  5. Jerky by Andrewkov · · Score: 1

    Mmmmmmm, Jerky.

  6. As the world collapses around us... by RazzleFrog · · Score: 1

    People are bothering the White House with this type of bullshit and Congress is voting to reaffirm our national motto. Can we just call a do-over and kick everybody out of office and start over?

    1. Re:As the world collapses around us... by RazzleFrog · · Score: 1

      It's a fake email address so I am not all that concerned (and not exactly what you were trying to prove). I actually voted against the people who are currently representing me in Congress - can't help how my neighbors vote.

      And while the principles of OWS have a sound basis - their methods are horribly flawed.

    2. Re:As the world collapses around us... by cdrguru · · Score: 2

      You misunderstand the function of the government. If we wanted an "efficient" government we would have 100x the laws we currently have. The government would be able to pass new funding resolutions, new laws, new regulations on the content of food, etc., etc., etc. and they woudl be able to do this very very quickly. Hundreds of news laws each week.

      Instead, what we have is a system that is designed to provide gridlock, obstructionism and anything but efficiency. The very notion of a bicameral debating society insures that little is going to get done unless it is really, really important and everyone agrees right away. So we have endless periods where they find something that people can agree upon, like naming a post office after some dead person. And every once in a while a new law actually does get passed, usually by the slimmest of margins.

      This is the way it is supposed to work, and if it wasn't working so incredibly inefficiently we would all be in lots of trouble. Dictatorships are efficient. Monarchies can be efficient, until they get bogged down with endless ministers and advisors. Parlimentory systems are never efficient and anytime you have a bicameral system you know it was designed from the beginning with a lack of efficiency in mind.

    3. Re:As the world collapses around us... by jythie · · Score: 1

      The problem is, the people in office are a product of how people think and vote. They only do exactly what will allow them to keep their jobs... if you kick everyone out and hold elections you will end up with the exact same types of people in office again, because voters have not changed.

    4. Re:As the world collapses around us... by JDG1980 · · Score: 1

      Instead, what we have is a system that is designed to provide gridlock, obstructionism and anything but efficiency. The very notion of a bicameral debating society insures that little is going to get done unless it is really, really important and everyone agrees right away. So we have endless periods where they find something that people can agree upon, like naming a post office after some dead person. And every once in a while a new law actually does get passed, usually by the slimmest of margins.

      This is the way it is supposed to work, and if it wasn't working so incredibly inefficiently we would all be in lots of trouble.

      Nonsense. Most European countries have parliamentary systems. This means that if a party campaigns on a platform and wins election, it can actually enact its agenda without having to jump through 20,000 flaming hoops in the Senate. Does this mean Europe is a totalitarian hellhole? Of course not. You'd be hard-pressed to claim that, say, Swedes or Norwegians are any less free in a meaningful sense than Americans are.

    5. Re:As the world collapses around us... by RazzleFrog · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about letting those people vote?

    6. Re:As the world collapses around us... by Scarred+Intellect · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      So let's get started. If you aren't actively pursuing this, you are part of the problem (the problem being our country's quiet acquiescence to total government control).

    7. Re:As the world collapses around us... by kiwimate · · Score: 1

      In reverse order...

      Can we just call a do-over and kick everybody out of office and start over?

      Well, duh, yes, of course you can. It's called an election. You don't have to vote the incumbents in, you know.

      However -

      People are bothering the White House with this type of bullshit

      Sounds like you are targeting the wrong group of people and what you really want is to kick the entire country out of voting privileges and start over.

    8. Re:As the world collapses around us... by RazzleFrog · · Score: 2

      Total government control is not the problem - Total Corporate control is and that is a much tougher battle to fight. It's hard to say - don't support evil corporations - because unless you plan on living on a farm and growing everything you eat and wear it is almost impossible to not give your money to some evil corporation.

      This is an issue that crosses party lines but our current government is so polarized and dysfunctional that nothing is getting done to fix it. The worst part is I have no chance of winning office as an atheist so the best I can do is try to educate and inform as many people as I can - which as my friends will tell you, I do.

    9. Re:As the world collapses around us... by Dracos · · Score: 1

      Well, duh, yes, of course you can. It's called an election. You don't have to vote the incumbents in, you know.

      Elections stopped working years ago. It's time for an Article V convention.

    10. Re:As the world collapses around us... by icebraining · · Score: 1

      If an European party wins with less than 50%, it still has to negotiate with one or more parties of the opposition to pass new legislation. Sometimes they form a coalition, but that doesn't always happen, and even in that case there can be internal negotiations (after all, they're different parties with different platforms).

      In fact, that's why we (Portugal) had elections before the expected date: the government resigned because they were unable to get their "legislation package" approved.

    11. Re:As the world collapses around us... by Scarred+Intellect · · Score: 1

      Well said. Being an atheist does give some hurdles to the election process, and you're probably right; I doubt you could get elected to any serious position that had a possibility of effecting some change.

      So spreading the word is the best you can do, same with me for now. Too often I hear people that just complain and don't do anything except say how much things suck. Myself, I actually started a website, but had to take the server down due to an unfortunate series of events that cause me to lose my free hosting.

    12. Re:As the world collapses around us... by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful
      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    13. Re:As the world collapses around us... by RazzleFrog · · Score: 1

      You are talking about direct attacks - I am talking about indirect attacks. How many people do you think were ultimately killed by the effects of smoking?

    14. Re:As the world collapses around us... by khallow · · Score: 1

      You are talking about direct attacks - I am talking about indirect attacks. How many people do you think were ultimately killed by the effects of smoking?

      I'm talking about using force to kill people. You're talking about voluntary activities that happen to shorten someone's life. They're not even remotely similar.

    15. Re:As the world collapses around us... by RazzleFrog · · Score: 1

      Except that those "voluntary" activities were encouraged using ad campaigns aimed at children and sold products intentionally designed to enhance addiction.

    16. Re:As the world collapses around us... by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      What would you recommend as an alternative? (serious question, not being snarky)

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    17. Re:As the world collapses around us... by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      Total government control is not the problem - Total Corporate control is

      There's very little difference at this point.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    18. Re:As the world collapses around us... by khallow · · Score: 2

      Except that those "voluntary" activities were encouraged using ad campaigns aimed at children and sold products intentionally designed to enhance addiction.

      They remain voluntary activities despite your "scare quotes". When Phillip Morris sticks a gun to your head and forces you to smoke cigarettes for forty years, then you'll have a case. Until then, you're just blowing smoke.

    19. Re:As the world collapses around us... by khallow · · Score: 1

      So governments kill the people and the corporations get the blame. Can you give an example of this BTW that compares to the worst excesses of government?

    20. Re:As the world collapses around us... by JDG1980 · · Score: 1

      That's true enough, but the point is that with 50%+1 support in the legislature you CAN pass legislation. There's none of this crap like in the US where 41% of the Senators can block the other 59% from getting anything done (and due to the way the Senate is apportioned, those 41 filibusterers may represent as little as 10%-20% of the US population).

    21. Re:As the world collapses around us... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Think how crazily US policy would have zig-zagged over the past 20 years without the filibuster. We replaced most of the Dems with Reps for 6 years, then replaced most of the Reps with Dems for 6 years, and now we're 3 years into replacing most of the Dems with Reps again, after which we're sure to change once more.

      Ultimately, the voters are very change advers when it comes to policy, and yet keep chaing the policy makers as fast as possible. Eventually, someone will figure out that what the voters really want is not one or the other party agendas, but instead some plan that both left and right agree makes any kind of damn sense. And that would require actual leadership, to break bad news to the voters - I'm not holding my breath.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    22. Re:As the world collapses around us... by lgw · · Score: 1

      I see more and more of this "the people can't be trusted to govern themselves, we should have an aristocracy instead" bullshit these days. It's not like "the smart people should lead" hasn't been tried before (guess who gets to define "smart" - it's not you). Total ignorance of history. This will not end well.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    23. Re:As the world collapses around us... by RazzleFrog · · Score: 1

      The only example I can come up with of a country that was governed almost exclusively by an intelligent "aristocracy" was the early United States. What other examples do you have?

    24. Re:As the world collapses around us... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Name a non-democratic government where the leaders didn't claim to be the smartest and most fit to rule? Sure, there have beeen a few anti-intellectual (mostly communist) dictatorships, but for the most part dictatorships and totalitarian states self-describe as rule by the best and smartest.

      "Oh, ho!" you cry, "I meant rule by the actual smart people". Yeah, again, the problem is "who defines smart". Answering "the smart people" doesn't help any. Answering "the guys who currently have power and rig the game in their favor will continue to have power and rig the next game in their favor" is realistic, and shows why aristocracies are nothing but power-grabs.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    25. Re:As the world collapses around us... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Think how crazily US policy would have zig-zagged over the past 20 years without the filibuster. We replaced most of the Dems with Reps for 6 years, then replaced most of the Reps with Dems for 6 years, and now we're 3 years into replacing most of the Dems with Reps again, after which we're sure to change once more.

      The problem is that you use FPTP, which means that you end up with only two big parties, and, as a consequence, those two parties adopt views that are extreme opposites on a wide range of issues. With any voting system that guarantees more proportional representation, you'd have something more sane, like two or three major parties splitting 2/3 of the seats but only rarely having a 50%+1 majority (much less a supermajority), and a bunch of smaller fish filling the rest of the sits that side with either of the big guys depending on the specific issue at hand, and have to be compromised with.

    26. Re:As the world collapses around us... by Sique · · Score: 1

      "Aristocracy" means just that: Government of the Best, from greek: (aristos) = the best and (kratein) = govern.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    27. Re:As the world collapses around us... by disbroc · · Score: 1

      Here is another good one that might actually make it! Take these petitions seriously

    28. Re:As the world collapses around us... by lgw · · Score: 1

      The problem is that you use FPTP

      I wish this myth would die. It's geek intellectual masturbation, nothing more.

      Each party is a coalition, which operates according internally to parliamentary politics, much like many other governments. That's what the primaries are all about, and the primaries are where real change happens in America. The general election is just a sanity-check on the primaries - sometimes through clever coalition building the Nazis (or whatever) end up leading 51%, but the general election puts a damper on that.

      You know what the coalition is before you vote for it, instead of after when you have no control.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    29. Re:As the world collapses around us... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      That's BS. In a normal system, coalitions happen after parties are elected, and they know how many seats they're getting in the parliament - when they know whom they're forced to compromise with to achieve their goals. What you describe isn't even remotely the same.

      By the way, promotion of systems other than FPTP is not "intellectual masturbation". They're widespread around the world. I lived in a country which uses MMP, and seen the effects on the political system first-hand.

  7. Dear Citizens! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

    We warmly welcome any further inquiries concerning matters distant from pressing issues that make the questioner look slightly insane for doubting us!

    In fact, just in the spirit of openness, we voluntarily announce that neither we, nor the British royal family, are Pod People, or Reptoids from Delta Reticulon Minus. If you have any further requests for information or policy change that we can easily dismiss as being outside the window of political consideration, please let us know.

    1. Re:Dear Citizens! by The+Grim+Reefer2 · · Score: 1

      In fact, just in the spirit of openness, we voluntarily announce that neither we, nor the British royal family, are Pod People, or Reptoids from Delta Reticulon Minus.

      Of course the British royal family are none of those. They're werewolves.

    2. Re:Dear Citizens! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      There is absolutely nothing sinister about the abnormally high specificity of my spontaneous candor. In particular, there are no such things as "Reptoids from Delta Reticulon Plus" for us to definitely not be.

  8. Area 51 Syndrome by k6mfw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is one place government officials do not discuss, do not acknowledge it exists, etc. Yet there is this immense desire by people wanting to know what's going on at this place. This gives opportunity for creative people to say there are space aliens freeze-dried from the Roswell crash. OK, prove them wrong. You can't, only thing that can be done is debate among different groups. Unless US govt declassify the area, permit tours, photos, etc. but until then Area 51 remains a good place for conspiracies, movie plots, whatever.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
    1. Re:Area 51 Syndrome by Soilworker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even if there is no alien in area 51 they still have new technology, missile and stuffs that you don't have to see.

      If I don't want you to come at my house to see inside It must be because I have a trapped alien in it.

    2. Re:Area 51 Syndrome by mister_dave · · Score: 3, Informative

      I watched a (UK TV) documentary by a defence journalist a year or so back, where he suggested that the whole UFO business dating back to Roswell was a dis-information campaign by the USAF to disguise their new product testing - now Area 51. I thought he made his case well.

    3. Re:Area 51 Syndrome by Greystripe · · Score: 3, Funny

      So what exactly are you doing with this trapped alien and did it come in peace?

    4. Re:Area 51 Syndrome by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      I don't know how much you know about Area 51 but my impression is that many top secret military aircraft were and are developed and tested there. Why would the government want to declassify that? I remember some UFO conspiracists saying that UFOs were triangular in shape not round as evidenced by what he saw flying out of there. Years later the government acknowledged the stealth fighter and the stealth bomber. There are rumors that a Mach 5+ spy plane code named Aurora is being developed there. I would favor Occam's razor in that top secret military projects are there instead of wild conspiracy theories about alien technology.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    5. Re:Area 51 Syndrome by GReaToaK_2000 · · Score: 1

      Huzzah! Common Sense wins out in this post. Mod this right the heck up!

    6. Re:Area 51 Syndrome by timholman · · Score: 1

      Unless US govt declassify the area, permit tours, photos, etc. but until then Area 51 remains a good place for conspiracies, movie plots, whatever.

      It wouldn't do a bit of good. Even if the U.S. government declassified every object and scrap of paper from Roswell and Area 51, and showed that there was zero evidence of alien visitation, the conspiracy theorists would just claim that the "real" evidence was still hidden or had been destroyed.

      Trying to prove to a conspiracy theorist that aliens aren't visiting Earth is like trying to prove to a religious man that God doesn't exist. No amount of evidence will sway him; it is a matter of faith, not facts.

    7. Re:Area 51 Syndrome by simcop2387 · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that by denying the existence of a place known to exist it creates jobs... Someone needs to get on this!

    8. Re:Area 51 Syndrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      ... and did it come in peace?

      Well, originally, yes.

    9. Re:Area 51 Syndrome by ildon · · Score: 1

      Even if they had tours etc. the conspiracy theorists would just say they moved them somewhere else and cleaned it up after the fact. You can't satisfy these people.

    10. Re:Area 51 Syndrome by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      I was watching a documentary on Fort Knox. In the late 70s there were all sorts of conspiracies that the government had moved/spent all the gold. Finally, the fort allowed some Congressmen and a TV crew inside the facilities to personally inspect the vault which was stacked full of gold. Then the conspiracists said no one was watching the fort the next day when a caravan of trucks took the gold away. Of course they had no photos of said trucks but it shows you people who really believe are not swayed by evidence.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    11. Re:Area 51 Syndrome by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Unless US govt declassify the area, permit tours, photos, etc. but until then Area 51 remains a good place for conspiracies, movie plots, whatever.

      Then the conspiracy theorists would say it's been scrubbed clean and everything moved to an more secret facility. In fact, why are they trying so hard to prove it didn't happen if it didn't happen? That's why you have to ignore them, because the more evidence you give that it didn't happen the greater the proof it's a cover-up. Just forcing the government to acknowledge they're there and pose questions that "need" answering is like lighting a flare. I particularly remember the crop circles, that the same nutters took as definitive proof of aliens - or a couple pranksters with a plank, rope and a bit of wire. There's absolutely no way the US government can prove to them the aliens are not there, if so they're brainwashed by the alien mind control rays. Better wear your tinfoil hat.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    12. Re:Area 51 Syndrome by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      show me proooooooof. Speculation and rumor does not prove anything.

      --
      Good-bye
    13. Re:Area 51 Syndrome by khallow · · Score: 1

      Good point. It's not likely that the US would move large amounts of gold from Fort Knox, even if they did sell it off. If I happened to buy a few hundred tons of gold from the US government, I'd probably rather store it in Fort Know for an appropriate fee than have to deal with the security headache of moving it to another secure location.

    14. Re:Area 51 Syndrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So what exactly are you doing with this trapped alien and did it come in peace?

      This just in: thanks to their technological advancements, the alien was able to come at the speed of light.

    15. Re:Area 51 Syndrome by crakbone · · Score: 2

      Does the alien clean and do the yard work? That's what my aliens do.

    16. Re:Area 51 Syndrome by grimmjeeper · · Score: 2

      Pretty much. Area 51 is a government run airport that they use to test various new systems and even new aircraft. I seem to remember something I read about the stealth planes being tested there before the programs were acknowledged. I'm sure they still use Area 51 to test all the new secret whiz bangs and gizmos they put on the planes. Being an airport in a remote area away from prying eyes makes it pretty good for that kind of work.

      I'm pretty sure that if there are alien space craft anywhere here, they're nowhere near Area 51. The government doesn't do anything to dissuade the alien freaks who focus on Area 51. In fact, their insistence on not answering questions may be specifically done to keep the UFO crowd focusing on Area 51. While everyone is focusing on Area 51, all of the research and what not is being done at a nondescript warehouse in Cleveland or St Louis or some other big city with a large warehouse district. Classic redirection and distraction.

    17. Re:Area 51 Syndrome by k6mfw · · Score: 1
      >nondescript warehouse in Cleveland or St Louis

      Hanger 18 in Arizona? Probably not, that state is very anti alien.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    18. Re:Area 51 Syndrome by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Such capabilities are well outside anything we have technologically or will have for some time.
      You are far too modest. Those capabilities are in fact well outside anything that can exist in the physics of our universe.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    19. Re:Area 51 Syndrome by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      Nobody denies Area 51 exists. It's famous for reasons other than the alien business; it's usually known in the Air Force as Groom Lake or Dreamland, and it's where they test all the new and experimental aircraft.

      The F-117 was flying there for ten years or so before the Air Force actually admitted its existence. They never denied that they had things they weren't telling us about, though.

    20. Re:Area 51 Syndrome by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      ...but now it's in pieces.

    21. Re:Area 51 Syndrome by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      This was also where they took captured Soviet aircraft for testing. A lot of the earlier MiGs were unpainted, so when people saw a shiny metal object flying at high speeds around the base, they thought it was a UFO. The Air Force had not qualms about reinforcing that belief.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    22. Re:Area 51 Syndrome by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      >nondescript warehouse in Cleveland or St Louis

      Hanger 18 in Arizona? Probably not, that state is very anti alien.

      Hanger 18 is actually supposed to be at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio. Although, I doubt they would keep alien bodies/artifacts on a base that is open to the public and with a fairly popular military aviation museum. As a side note, parts of WPAFB are also supposed to be haunted.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    23. Re:Area 51 Syndrome by gtall · · Score: 1

      The U.S. gov. declassifying Area 51 would do no good, the Believers would simply believe all the incriminating evidence had been moved prior to the declassification, demand to see the hidden evidence, and then take any response to the effect of "what evidence?" as proof the government was lying.

    24. Re:Area 51 Syndrome by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      ...but now it's in pieces.

      That's a shame. Have you still got the assembly instructions?

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    25. Re:Area 51 Syndrome by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      You live in the trunk of Harry Dean Stanton's car?

    26. Re:Area 51 Syndrome by terjeber · · Score: 1

      OK, prove them wrong. You can't,

      The number of things I can not prove wrong (or right for that matter) is infinite. Assuming that there is a conspiracy because some nut says he thinks there is, is about as rational as belief in God, Santa Claus or the Spaghetti Monster. Sadly conspiracy nuts don't see it this way. They conveniently forgets two very important things. Firstly, in general government agencies are inept and incompetent, and secondly, three people can keep an important secret if, and only if, two of them are dead.

      Area 51 is with a likelihood bordering on 100% exactly what the govt says it is. Nothing interesting.

    27. Re:Area 51 Syndrome by terjeber · · Score: 1

      His wife is reportedly not happy about this development. She'd prefer less speed.

    28. Re:Area 51 Syndrome by terjeber · · Score: 1

      A number of high level government military and intelligence officials have gone on record as saying the US Govt has known for decades that some of the ufo's seen in the skies over the USA are in fact craft from other star systems.

      That's not what they said, they said it was Santa.

  9. According to polls by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    14% of Americans think they've seen a UFO. An additional 20% haven't seen one, but believe they exist.

    Somewhere around 10% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing.

    This says something about the United States, although I'm not sure exactly what.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    1. Re:According to polls by chemicaldave · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It says two things. 1) People are willing to lie in surveys to feel special, and 2) The rest of America doesn't disapprove of Congress as a whole, just the other party.

    2. Re:According to polls by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      Well, it suggests that ancient near-eastern science fiction writers are still holding up pretty well compared to contemporary science fiction writers, since the figure for Americans who believe in angels is 55%, fully 16% higher than UFOs...

    3. Re:According to polls by RazzleFrog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      90% believe in a god, 55% believe they are protected by guardian angels, 54% believe in psychic abilities, 41% believe in demonic/devil possession.

      People believe in a lot of really dumb things.

    4. Re:According to polls by uigrad_2000 · · Score: 1

      People in the U.S. are very cynical when it comes to believing UFO claims. We have by far the greatest number of non-believers.

      I believe Mexico and Russia are at the other end of the spectrum. Very few people in either of those countries doubt that aliens are the cause of most UFO outbreaks.

      I think public perception in the US is changing, though. For example, the former governor of Arizona has admitted that he did cover up what he knew about the 1997 Phoenix lights, and has now revealed that he and his wife did witness them also, and believes it was an alien ship. Once high profile people start coming forward as believers, the general public follows quickly.

      --
      Free unix account: freeshell.org
    5. Re:According to polls by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

      I saw a UFO, until the baseball hit me in the head. I just don't approve of congress bailing out the already rich baseball players, and then refusing to prosecute them. If *I* threw a baseball at someone's head I'd probably get in trouble.

    6. Re:According to polls by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      It says its easier to imagine on the billions of little chemical interactions required to give rise to complex life forms, could and have occurred some place else, or that God an omnipotent being exits and created a second group of intelligent beings take your pick. After all that you have to imagine those people were able to solve the seemingly impossible challenges of physics get from where they are across the vast cosmos to come here.

      You know what now that I think on it a little bit that is all way more plausible than 535 people we have in Congress being as inept as they apparently are.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    7. Re:According to polls by RazzleFrog · · Score: 1

      Ignorance and idiocy is a worldwide occurrence. In the US our neighbors seem to prefer believing in religious bullshit and in Russia and Mexico I guess it is alien bullshit. It just means we have to work harder on all fronts to fight this type of stuff and not encourage it.

    8. Re:According to polls by danlip · · Score: 1

      Almost everyone has seen a UFO, which is to say they have seen something in the sky they could not identify. That is all that UFO means. That doesn't mean that most of those people believe they have seen an extraterrestrial space ship. We really need a different word.

    9. Re:According to polls by lexman098 · · Score: 1

      I think it says less about the US than it does about how seriously random polls should be taken.

    10. Re:According to polls by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      The thing about UFOs is that the first word is "unidentified". If you don't know what an object is, and you see it in the sky, you have no way of knowing how big it is or how far away it is, or how fast it is moving. Lacking this information leads to further uncertainties as to the identity of the object.

      I've seen objects in the night sky that I couldn't identify. I'm sure most people who watch the sky have. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't be able to identify them i I had more information.

    11. Re:According to polls by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      14% of Americans think they've seen a UFO. An additional 20% haven't seen one, but believe they exist.

      UFOs aren't really that interesting in the general sense. Even a meteor that shows up is counted as a UFO until it's identified. (As such, there's preally tons of UFOs). In fact, in the dullest sense, there's probably UFO "events" on a daily basis until NORAD gets a plane in the air and actually sees what it is.

      Now, extraterrestrials, that's more interesting than UFOs (which aren often just manmade flying vehicles).

    12. Re:According to polls by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      90% believe in a god, 55% believe they are protected by guardian angels, 54% believe in psychic abilities, 41% believe in demonic/devil possession.

      People believe in a lot of really dumb things.

      I believe I'll have another beer...

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    13. Re:According to polls by KublaKhan1797 · · Score: 1

      90% believe in a god, 55% believe they are protected by guardian angels, 54% believe in psychic abilities, 41% believe in demonic/devil possession.

      People believe in a lot of really dumb things.

      If I had any mod points I would mod this up as being both insightful and true. People believe some crazy things

      --
      No keyboard detected. Press F1 to continue...
    14. Re:According to polls by ArmchairGeneral · · Score: 1

      Although it is important to discern the difference between a UFO and a flying saucer. I've seen Unidentified Flying Objects, but I'm not so quick to label it as an alien spacecraft.

    15. Re:According to polls by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I believe most people are reasonable, rational, and intelligent.

      Oh wait, I guess I'm just proving your point. nevermind.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    16. Re:According to polls by wye43 · · Score: 1

      So shall I !
      Let's start a cult on this, we'll call it ... I know: AA, oh wait ...

    17. Re:According to polls by hazah · · Score: 1

      The burden of proof sits squarely with you. That's how.

  10. Evidence for life by doconnor · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "The U.S. government has no evidence that any life exists outside our planet"

    The U.S. government does have some evidence life exists on Mars. There are the fossils in the Martian meteorites, and the controversial results of the Viking life detection experiments plus our understanding of how quickly life appeared on Earth and its ability to adapt to conditions like Mars currently has, by living in the rocks.

    While I won't claim there is enough evidence yet to concluded that there is life on Mars, there is more then "no evidence".

    1. Re:Evidence for life by AdamJS · · Score: 1

      I think they were just being frank.
      Or Phil, in this case.

    2. Re:Evidence for life by Frenzied+Apathy · · Score: 2

      I think we can assume he was referring to sentient life...

      [rolleyes]

      --
      The cake is a lie.
    3. Re:Evidence for life by Arlet · · Score: 1

      It's close enough. I doubt the petitioners were interested in possible bacterial life on Mars anyway.

    4. Re:Evidence for life by medv4380 · · Score: 1

      You're just nit picking now. Those are things that are all available to the public and from the science community they are still debating what those really mean (well some people). The petition was clearly intended to address those people who believe in aliens actively visiting the earth, and that the government is covering it up. Which is pointless because to those people any answer other then "yes there are aliens visiting use" only fuels the thought that the government is covering it up.

    5. Re:Evidence for life by RazzleFrog · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't fossils mean that life "existed" and not necessarily that life continues to exist?

      I think they also were talking more specifically about intelligent life.

    6. Re:Evidence for life by heironymous · · Score: 1

      While I won't claim there is enough evidence yet to concluded that there is life on Mars, there is more then "no evidence".

      I agree. Their response was careless.

    7. Re:Evidence for life by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      The full quote, FTFA, is:

      "The U.S. government has no evidence that any life exists outside our planet, or that an extraterrestrial presence has contacted or engaged any member of the human race."

      Keep in mind that the original petition demanded that the government disclose contacts with alien races and such. So, within context, the statement refers to "intelligent" life that might actually be able to contact us.

  11. I wonder how much is snark by AdamJS · · Score: 2

    Because I've certainly seen a UFO. I mean, it was probably just a plane or a helicopter and sometimes just a refraction of insects in the light from my glasses, but I seens thems, I'm sure.

  12. Mitchael and Webb said it best. by gurps_npc · · Score: 1
    Check it out here: That Mitchell and Webb Look - The Aliens

    The idea the government would keep aliens secret is incredibly stupid. Their reasons were:

    a. Keeping secrets is fun.

    b. To avoid having the government get blamed for something they are not responsible for - by doing something bad that would actually make them responsible.

    c. It's the sort of thing that governments generally do.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Mitchael and Webb said it best. by Arlet · · Score: 1

      Obvious troll is obvious.

    2. Re:Mitchael and Webb said it best. by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Why thank you for that obviously constructive, elegant, and insightful dialogue. I'm sure the rest of /. are all enlightened with what you added to the topic. Which is basically FUCK ALL.

      Where can I sign up for your fine art of dialogue since you are a such a master of it.

      Stupid git.

  13. NASA? by DarkOx · · Score: 1

    has no evidence that any life exists outside our planet

    I think we spent huge piles of tax dollars in order to get all excited that there was evidence of both water and bateria on Mars?

    If the White House can't get basic facts strait about recent and very public scientific develops, why should we take the rest of their response seriously. Its not like this is Slashdot we are talking about here with its lack of editing, these are professional publicity people who don't make mistakes and obvious omissions.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    1. Re:NASA? by Nevynxxx · · Score: 1

      Or put another way, if they can't even get their basic facts straight, how in the world can they keep up a multi-year, multi-party, lie involving hundreds, if not thousands of people?

  14. Also, according to polls by gshegosh · · Score: 4, Funny

    78,32% of Americans believe any made up numbers.

    1. Re:Also, according to polls by dkleinsc · · Score: 1
      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:Also, according to polls by oreiasecaman · · Score: 1

      78,32% of Americans believe any made up numbers.

      Homer - People can come up with statistics to prove anything Kent, 40% of all people know that...

      --
      This is a UDP joke, I don't care if you get it or not...
    3. Re:Also, according to polls by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

      Let me translate it to American for you...

      78.32% of Americans believe any made up numbers

      You see, some other countries use a comma for a decimal point...

    4. Re:Also, according to polls by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      78,32% of Americans believe any made up numbers.

      So is it 78 Americans, or 32% of Americans?

      Neither. It's 78,32 which is a made up number from a fairy tale land.

  15. Wouldn't that be amazing? by ZouPrime · · Score: 2

    After hand-waiving away the cannabis legalization and the software patent petitions, it would have been amazing to see the White House answers this one candidly. "After seeing such public pressure on the matter over decades, this administration has decided to come clean with the Martians and our contacts with them."

    1. Re:Wouldn't that be amazing? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      this administration has decided to come clean with the Martians and our contacts with them...

      ...and they want us to extend copyrights by another 20 years.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  16. You want proof there are no ETs on earth? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You want proof there are no ETs on earth?

    Look at the defense budget.
    Now look at NASAs budget.

    NASA's budget is tiny in comparison. Clearly the US sees other countries as much bigger threat than the anal-probers from outta space. Either that or they feel that a little humiliation for the drunk rednecks that spot them is acceptable.

    If we had discovered aliens do you really think we'd be slashing science spending and space exploration costs?

    Do you really think the US would be the only country to know about them and that all 200+ nations on earth are collaborating together to keep us in the dark.

    It is ludicrous. The one way you know that aliens have been found and secretly being kept away from the public is when the government starts putting higher priority on space funding and NASA's budget starts rocketing upwards instead of getting cut further and further each year.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    1. Re:You want proof there are no ETs on earth? by synapse7 · · Score: 1

      I agree with Oswald's "follow the money" line of reasoning.

    2. Re:You want proof there are no ETs on earth? by brokeninside · · Score: 1

      Or, alternatively, NASA has such a small budget because the real (and undisclosed) space budget goes to the top secret military space program rather than the mostly open civilian space program.

    3. Re:You want proof there are no ETs on earth? by delinear · · Score: 1

      If we already had all the space tech we needed, we'd already be colonising other planets, mining asteroids or deploying fuel scoops to avoid current energy worries. If we didn't have the tech but we'd met aliens and knew it was possible, we'd be seeing massive funding in the space programme to get us to the point the aliens are at. It's a bit of a stretch to believe that we have the tech to reach out to other start systems, but we're cutting funding to the "putting people in orbit around the planet in tinfoil tubes" programme to throw a handful of conspiracy theorists off the scent.

    4. Re:You want proof there are no ETs on earth? by Sumtingwong · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, the reduction of NASA to a much smaller budget must mean that we have already found the aliens and realize that they are of no threat whatsoever.

      --
      Word!
  17. Watching too much TV by Lev13than · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To sum up TFA:

    1. Aliens are almost certainly real. Those who refuse to believe in the likely existence of extraterrestrial life either refuse to acknowledge or cannot comprehend the vastness of space and (especially) the vastness of time.

    2. UFOs are absolutely real. There are lots of instances where people legitimately see objects in the sky that they cannot identify/classify.

    3. UFOs are absolutely not aliens. Those who believe that aliens have visited earth either refuse to acknowledge or cannot comprehend the vastness of space and (especially) the vastness of time.

    --
    When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire
    1. Re:Watching too much TV by HermDog · · Score: 1

      You left out the part about how the current administration has obviously misplaced all the valuable aliens and alien artifacts that have been collected over the past several decades. (I don't recall whether Bush denied *he* had any, so they must have been accounted for during the previous administration.)

      --
      JADBP
    2. Re:Watching too much TV by Lev13than · · Score: 2

      1. Lots of credible estimates out there. Wikipedia (which is never wrong, of course) provides an estimate for the observable universe of about 3 to 100 × 10^22 stars (30 sextillion to a septillion stars) organized in more than 80 billion galaxies. If you make an assumption on the average number of habitable planets per star (our solar system has one, for example), you have a rough guess.

      2. There is one known planet with life (earth), so the odds for life orbiting any particular star at any point in time over the last 13.75 billion years is going to be better than one in a septillion, or 1:1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000. I like those odds.

      3. Stars are very far apart, and 13.75 billion years is a long time. The odds that another planet close enough to earth has intelligent life which developed inter-stellar travel and visited earth in the same 500-1,000-year period when might we actually be able to notice them is vanishingly small. I don't like those odds at all.

      --
      When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire
    3. Re:Watching too much TV by tenaciousj · · Score: 1

      No, if there is sentient life out there and a means of travel exists to get them here, where are they all at? I mean surely if there is one race, there are more given the 'vastness' of space and time. If they truly do visit this planet a) Why do they try to hide? b) If they want to remain hidden, why are they so horrible at it?

      I mean these are life forms are supposedly so technologically superior to us it makes no sense what so ever. Why do they mostly visit at night? Seems like the worst time to remain hidden, because their ships are usually COVERED IN LIGHTS.

      And why do they keep taking people for anal probes? They've supposedly been coming here for thousands of years, I think they would have learned all they needed to know by now.

    4. Re:Watching too much TV by kiwimate · · Score: 1

      You missed a key point from the MSNBC article.

      Larson stressed that the facts show there is no credible evidence of extraterrestrial presence here on Earth. He pointed out that even though many scientists have come to the conclusion that the odds of life somewhere else in the universe are fairly high, the chance that any of them are making contact with humans are extremely small, given the distances involved.

  18. Interesting Petitions on the Site by ideonexus · · Score: 1

    Gotta say it takes some cahones for the administration to maintain a site like this. On the first page of open petitions are "We demand a vapid, condescending, meaningless, politically safe response to this petition." and "Stop Lying." I give Obama points for efforts like this, even though some of the petitions I see there are valid enough to make me detract even more points. I highly doubt this site will continue to exist in future administrations.

    --
    i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation
  19. Repurposed material by sixtyeight · · Score: 1
    Nearly a year ago, the FBI and NSA both released classified documents giving more information on the Roswell crash and saucers. It was all over the media.

    Now the White House firmly denies it.

    Regardless of the actual issue of aliens, whether they exist or not the government's use of the topic appears to be to keep the citizenry fascinated by ooh-and-aah topics and distracted from overhauling their political system into something more functional. "They exist... They exist not... They exist... Wait, who's Britney dating now?"

    --
    The Wolfpack Project: BitCoin + Crowdfunding = Political Accountability
    1. Re:Repurposed material by sixtyeight · · Score: 1

      I'd also like to know why we'd trust as our authority on extraterrestrial life an organization that has brought us the JFK assassination and Iraq's supposed WMDs.

      --
      The Wolfpack Project: BitCoin + Crowdfunding = Political Accountability
  20. No, we haven't had any contact... and here's why by whitroth · · Score: 1

    There are folks who think the technology of microwave ovens was given to us by aliens. But then, esp. in the US, we have the worst math and science ed among the general populace of any industrialized nation.

    The reason I know there's been no contact is that there have been *zero* amazing breakthroughs in the last century. We can look at every bit of original research that led to all technological advances.

    Had we actually had contact with aliens, even if they didn't give us technology, there would have been scientists (and every form known of observation) aimed at them, and just knowing that something (say, anti-gravity, or force fields) existed, would lead a very strong line of rapid development, to where we'd have something that did something like it, if it wasn't the same.

                              mark

  21. Skepticism by suomynonAyletamitlU · · Score: 1

    I saw a UFO while staring at the sky one day several years ago. That is to say, I saw something, and I don't know what it was. Given apparent distance, size, and motion characteristics, I can't match it to any known technology, physical effect, or biological creature. In fact, its behavior was unreal enough to make me doubt it was anything mundane. That doesn't prove that it's otherwise, and any suspicions I have that it could have been something alien are just that, suspicions.

    Skepticism can coexist with unknown phenomena. One data point doesn't convince me. Rumors of other data points doesn't convince me. However, in absence of an explanation of all such events, it would be naive to trust people who say "It CANNOT be alien, as Aliens don't exist." Those are the words of True Believers, not skeptics.

    And anyway, there's less evidence that Congress is on the side of the people than that there's aliens, so I don't know what you're trying to say. /snark

  22. That one is easy by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Because we elect new figureheads who appoint new staffers largely picked from within or by corporations (lobbyists,) duh!

    Naturally the temp guys who get in are going to be given access to everything and the civil servants will cooperate 110%.... except for that 1 time when the head of the CIA said there was a "need to know" or something of that sort to a President's information request; resulting in him being fired (along with an army worth of CIA agents) and then appointed somebody out of the loop... about 40 years ago.

    FYI, Clinton declassified the JFK stuff which "didn't exist" showing there was no magic bullet; and plenty of proof of a coverup. So it DOES sometimes work; when the documents are held to be released in 60 years you can get your elected executive to let them out early. I leave it to the reader to find the medical reports and other evidence which directly contradicted official report and that is why they were classified.

    1. Re:That one is easy by sixtyeight · · Score: 1
      That's a good argument.

      So we have politicians who are left without the wherewithal to execute their duties, yet have all the accountability. Never mind that the People haven't been holding them accountable.

      And we have corporations lobbying, civil service bureaucrats, and the alphabet gestapo agencies with all the wherewithal, but none of the accountability.

      This leaves us with all of them able to shift the blame around, nobody's actually reliable or accountable, and my question remains: This makes them a credible authority, how?

      --
      The Wolfpack Project: BitCoin + Crowdfunding = Political Accountability
  23. O RLY? by wstrucke · · Score: 1

    The U.S. government has no evidence that any life exists outside our planet

    Honestly, they're lying from the get go on this. Haven't we established without a doubt that there is life outside of Earth in our own solar system, in the very least, with one celled organisms?

    All they had to do was say "no evidence of intelligent life" and they would be good to go.

    1. Re:O RLY? by Arlet · · Score: 1

      Haven't we established without a doubt that there is life outside of Earth in our own solar system

      Have we ? I thought there was still plenty of doubt.

  24. This explains the cattle mutilations by codecore · · Score: 1

    http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/on_assignment/old-cattle-mutilation-stumped-feds

  25. Oblig. What do they want with Earth? Post by JSBiff · · Score: 1

    Seriously, if there were aliens so advanced they invented rapid interstellar travel technology, what could they possibly want with Earth? Maybe just to observe us to document our evolution and culture? Sort of alien anthropologists/zoologists?

    There's seriously nothing of value on earth, resource wise, which they shouldn't be able to collect a billion other places in the Universe. No, they don't want slave labor - high technology manufacturing, even here on earth, is far better than slave labor, and we are positing that their technology is far advanced of our own, so I have to reject the "Stargate SG-1" hypothesis - advanced aliens need no slaves, need no resources they can't get elsewhere, need no oil, coal or other hydrocarbon fuels, and they certainly wouldn't want our technology.

    1. Re:Oblig. What do they want with Earth? Post by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      There's a really easy answer to this.

      What would humans do if they found alien life on another planet?

      Study them? Bring back "samples" for testing? Document everything...

      Sound familiar?

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
  26. I have definitive proof... by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

    I know that the answer to the UFO question is that we, as a country, have never had any real contact with aliens in America.

    There is no possible way that a government as inefficient, inept and corrupt as ours could have kept alien encounters secret for nigh on 60 years. Records get hacked. People talk. Politicians use secrets to leverage each other. Opportunists leak information and sell out what they know. People make death bed confessions. There is absolutely no way that something as significant as contact with aliens could remain secret for so long if it were actually true. There would just be no way the government could keep a lid on it for so long. A few years, probably. A decade or two? Sure. 60 years? No freaking way.

  27. WAKE UP, EARTHLINGS! by xstonedogx · · Score: 1

    No, no. What this proves is that the aliens (or possibly the Illuminati - but trust me, I have proof) are so much in control of our government that they have taken all the evidence out of our government's hands. WHEN ARE YOU PEOPLE GOING TO WAKE UP AND SEE THE TRUTH?! They Live was a documentary!

    1. Re:WAKE UP, EARTHLINGS! by MaerD · · Score: 1

      for some reason I hear this in the voice of three-dog from Fallout 3.

      --
      I put on my robe and wizard hat..
  28. Very clever public relations by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1

    All they have to do is pick the wackiest petitions to respond to. They issue polite rejections or denials of the petitions. From there they make petitioners all look like wacka-dos. From their they can issue rejections of reasonable petitions that refer to serious issues with the same tone that implies insanity of the petitioners.

  29. It's a fair bet that there's life on Mars by mark-t · · Score: 1

    The probes we've sent did originate here... and life here seems to have a way of being quite pervasive and resilient... surviving extremes that have, prior to the last century, thought to be wholly impossible for anything living to live in.

    I would be quite surprised if the rovers and other apparatus that we've sent there are not home to many types of microbial life... and are now engaging in the long and slow process of adapting to a Martian environment.

  30. obligatory small print by Danathar · · Score: 1

    "And if there were any credible information that beings of extraterrestrial origin, such information would be classified as secret"

    The wrong question was asked. The right question to ask the White House is what the procedure and government position concerning how evidence of extraterrestrial visitation would be handled. You ask if the government would consider such information too dangerous to release.

  31. Just wondering... by SuperCharlie · · Score: 1

    Are there any petitions where the WH has said "yes", "sure", "ok", "we'll work on that"? Everything Ive seen has been canned "No" go away you insignificant twerps.

  32. They can navigate space, but not New Mexico by orphiuchus · · Score: 1

    I've always loved the theory that Aliens can travel hundreds of light-years through space, but New Mexico was just too god damned complicated for them.

    1. Re:They can navigate space, but not New Mexico by Fned · · Score: 1

      "Watch out -- this is bat country!!"

  33. They did *INDEED* see UFO ! by aepervius · · Score: 1

    Every time you see something in the sky you cannot identify it is an Unidentified Flying Object. The problem is that people jump to to the conclusion UFO=Alien star craft. It is not ! It just means what the word say : something was flying and was unidentified. I saw UFO, you probably saw UFO, we all did probably for all those which look up the sky, and lacks knowledge on what's flying up. Blimp were UFO'd , satellite, planet, weather phenomena , fiefly and other various insect etc....

    You have to udnerstand that UFO *do* exists. UFO only means the person did not recognize what's up in the sky. That does not mean at all that there were *ever* alien craft visiting us : there is no evidence of that. But UFO do exists because none of us have pefect sight and perfect knowledge.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  34. Wrong place for truth by wye43 · · Score: 1

    Politicians have their role in the society, but truth is not one of them. Searching for truth from politicians is wrong by definition. Why are people doing these wearethepeople crap? Why would we expect anything remotely useful out of this?


    Its like going to a hooker for relationship, family and career advice.

  35. Keeping secrets by terjeber · · Score: 1

    Three people can keep a secret if, and only if, two of them are dead. This basic insight escapes most conspiracy nuts. Don't know why.

    The government is incompetent, it simply doesn't have the skills that conspiracy nuts attribute to it.

  36. "Dodge the FOIA or the Earth is destroyed" by D4C5CE · · Score: 1

    ...were the actual words of the Alien High Commander when the government told them of the request. ;-)