4 ms·

> On a more serious note, I can't believe any government can keep a tight enough lid on something like that. Someone, somewhere is bound to defect or to leak it

> On a more serious note, I can't believe any government can keep a tight enough lid on something like that. Someone, somewhere is bound to defect or to leak it is somehow. Except that what you are swatting away with that comment is someone claiming to have heard that leak. One could also look at the NYT article as another leak, no? I would think that if one had something top secret like this that one desperately wanted to keep under wraps despite the inevitable leak, the best strategy might well be to intentionally sow lots of bogus UFO sightings and create a subculture of UFO paranoia, so that when the true leaks eventually happen they are lost in the noise. Which of course does not mean that is necessarily what has actually been happening.

rdtsc 9y ago
> are swatting away with that comment is someone claiming to have heard that leak. Yap. I'll swat a lot of online comments claiming someone heard there are aliens visiting earth from their uncle. I'll also swat away similar claims about contrail or lizard people. What would be the logical reason not to swat them away? You can ask what would take not to swat them away? How about specific details about aliens, new technology example or some breakthrough in physics or other science possible from this alien technology. A clear video or these spaceships not some blurry shape moving on the screen. > One could also look at the NYT article as another leak, no? Is it? It's a leak of the existence of UFO. There is not doubt UFOs exist, I am not sure that's proof of aliens. > I would think that if one had something top secret like this that one desperately wanted to keep under wraps despite the inevitable leak, the best strategy might well be to intentionally sow lots of bogus UFO sightings and create a subculture of UFO paranoia, I would also intentionally sow bogus UFO sightings if I wanted to hide program to test experimental aircraft.

rdtsc 9y ago

> are swatting away with that comment is someone claiming to have heard that leak. Yap. I'll swat a lot of online comments claiming someone heard there are aliens visiting earth from their uncle. I'll also swat away similar claims about contrail or lizard people. What would be the logical reason not to swat them away? You can ask what would take not to swat them away? How about specific details about aliens, new technology example or some breakthrough in physics or other science possible from this alien technology. A clear video or these spaceships not some blurry shape moving on the screen. > One could also look at the NYT article as another leak, no? Is it? It's a leak of the existence of UFO. There is not doubt UFOs exist, I am not sure that's proof of aliens. > I would think that if one had something top secret like this that one desperately wanted to keep under wraps despite the inevitable leak, the best strategy might well be to intentionally sow lots of bogus UFO sightings and create a subculture of UFO paranoia, I would also intentionally sow bogus UFO sightings if I wanted to hide program to test experimental aircraft.