Sci-Fi Channel Looks for LGM in NASA Files 622
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."
Classified Documents (Score:3, Interesting)
Pretty Dumb. (Score:3, Interesting)
typical (Score:3, Interesting)
Fuck you, that's why.
The government doesn't care that we want to know. There is no REASON for them to tell us. Sure, we elect them and all, but until you get at least 51% to vote to make a law to make the processes of government more open, it will never happen. Most likely, this issue will remain forever closed (or at least withheld) forever from us. It was probably missle testing or something that the public does not "need to know". If you want to find out what was/is inside Area 51 or who really killed JFK, you are better off inventing a time machine and reading about all of this later in the history books. Either that, or run for president and divulge all this information to the public (not likely).
Re:That's one reason for FOIA (Score:2, Interesting)
Same deal with the B-2.
Both planes are (almost) decades old, and still highly classified.
This is not to say that I don't want to see the disclosed documents. I'm just saying that decades-old documents could still be VERY sensitive and revealing.
Re:Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit (Score:3, Interesting)
"A famous UFO case may actually involve a real U.S. government cover-up, but UFO buffs are on the wrong side. Instead of exposing the truth, they may be unwitting pawns in deception."
Re:Classified Documents (Score:4, Interesting)
He said the items ranged from "Holy Cow! I can't believe we know this and I can understand why it is classified." to articles cut out of the newspaper and classified.
Clinton's policy was to try to release as much as possible and spend time/money to make a decision on old documents.
G.W. Bush's policy is to not release anything unless forced to by a court.
Re:Well, this is obvious. (Score:5, Interesting)
Can anyone say "Taxpayer-funded publicity stunt?"
Look, every dollar NASA spends on lawyers is a dollar it could have spent on space exploration. And it's a dollar a government already trillions in the hole will have to spend. In a word, screw this.
And as another poster pointed out, this could set an interesting precedent: Networks suing the government every time their ratings slip.
Re:Well, this is obvious. (Score:2, Interesting)
Is it just me, or does it seem odd to anyone else that the same people who believe that NASA faked the moon landing also believe that NASA is covering up actual evidence of a UFO?
Why do they believe that NASA would tell the truth about UFO's (under FOIA) but that they would lie for years about the space program?
From the little I've looked into it (Score:3, Interesting)
My take is that something DID occur in Kecksburg, but it wasn't alien-based. More likely this was some form of military test vehicle or satellite. There was some suggestion that it might have been a crashed Soviet COSMOS satellite (nuc powered) but there were no such satellites in orbit and over the area at the correct time for an errant crash.
This was what, 1965? Height of the Cold-War, also at the height of the Apollo program. It could have been a NASA test vehicle, complete with simian occupants (to explain the so-called scream/screech some reported after the military arrived).
It would be invalid, as far as I'm concerned, for there to be continued secrecy about ANY vehicles tested by NASA or the military at any point up to at least the 1970s. NOTHING that predates this is worthy of secrecy as any and all technology associated with it is pathetically outdated by now. There may be ethical/public health-related reasons why the military might be interested in keeping a lock on anything like an old black project (radiation leakage/exposure to the general public, etc) but even this is illegitimate, unethical (take your freakin' medicine for endangering citizens), and indefensible.
I hope the Sci-Fi Channel comes out with something for their troubles. It wont be extraterrestrial in origin but it will likely be interesting. And perhaps damning to those who deserve to be damned.
Re:Well, this is obvious. (Score:2, Interesting)
What good is exploration or knowledge if they aren't going to share it? I agree it's going to cost money (although it will cost less if they don't fight it), but I'd say it's worth it in either case.
instead of helping some entertainment company boost their ratings.
This is one of those situations where corporate greed works in our favor. They get their boost in rating and, hopefully, the public will have access to some information that we are rightfully entitled to.
Other cases of corporate greed working in our favor are, for example, ISPs fighting the RIAA. They aren't doing it out of the goodness of their heart, they're just watching their bottom line--but it happens to work in our favor and is in line with what we believe is right.
If SciFi can boost their ratings and make a buck while at the same time doing something that may benefit all of us, hey, I'm 100% for it! That's capitalism and freedom working hand in hand and everyone coming out ahead.
It's also possible that NASA concluded their "investigation" was such utter bullshit that the whole file consists of a crayon-written letter from a yokel, and a memo saying "don't waste any time on this crap. We have a space race to win!" and that was the end of it.
In which case they're going to look awfully stupid having not released information on the incident over the last 30 years and refusing a FOIA request. If that's all there is, that's all there is. It still should be out there for the public to see.
So SciFi makes an FIA request; NASA says "that's all there is," mostly because aside from this file that's all there fucking is
From what I've read, they haven't responded--they haven't said "that's all there is." They haven't given them anything. Do some surfing to read up on what happened. There are plenty of people wanting more information, not just the SciFi channel.
then SciFi sues, desperate not to scuttle a project they've already invested $n in, thereby wasting more time and money, but it's all okay because it's not their money,
Believe it or not, it's their money in the sense that it isn't zero-cost to sue NASA. It's going to cost them money and will only cost NASA money if they fight it. If they release the information then it will just cost them whatever it costs them to get the information together, but that's their responsibility anyway under the FOIA.
it's ours, and it's not being used on space exploration.
NASA hasn't done a whole lot to explore space since they started flying the Space Shuttle. And if there's a chance that they are sitting on information that is potentially more interesting and useful than what we're going to get flying in circles in LEO then I'd rather they spend some money in getting that information to the public.
On the other hand, if they have their little UFO episode this weekend and then promptly decide not to sue anyone after all then I'll agree it was just corporate greed, looking for ratings, and nothing more and will probably never watch their channel again. But if they follow through and go after the information they're seeking even after this weekend then I'm completely fine with them boosting their ratings in the process.
Re:Public vs. Govmnt (Score:4, Interesting)
As opposed to Batista's? Nice twist of logic.
Especially because he turned his island into a Soviet launch pad.
How dare he! Only the US is alowed to turn something into a launch pad!
Re:Public vs. Govmnt (Score:3, Interesting)
The Russians needed the Cuban missile crisis to convince the US that they had no viable ICBMs or long range missiles, only short range ones capable of hitting the US mainland from places like Cuba.
US intelligence backed this up and confirmed that the Russians had no long range capability. Boy, how wrong they were! The Russians had better Long Range capability than the US, and the "intelligence" that the CIA etc were gathering was stage managed stuff from the russians (Stuff like dummy impact craters being made in test rangesshowing missiles wildly off target, more than the needed gyroscopes in the missiles, jsut to make the operatives think they were needed and lower tech than the US ones.).
In all, the Soviets won the cuban missile crisis. They convinced the US that they had no long range capability, while at the same time constructing an agreement that the US would not support an invasion of cuba, bonus! The US realised they had been had when the first satilites went up for a look sometime thereafter, and saw the real test ranges with the suprising accurate impact craters, but they couldnt do anything at that point.
The cuban missile crisis was all a big sham, stage managed on both sides to their own agendas.
To say certain regimes have no right to exist does not mean that anyone has a carte blanche to remove those regimes.