Tuesday, November 22, 2005

How to Be a Real Whistleblower

Let's assume that a person is privy to above top secret information about the Cosmic Watergate / Conspiracy of Silence / Truth Embargo (etc., etc. - hereafter referred to as CWCSTE).

Let's further assume that this person wants to see the end of the CWCSTE, and wants to bring the whole thing crashing down. After all, bad things are being done, a free and democratic society is incompatible with the kind of secrecy the CWCSTE would require, and the people have a right to know. One could also assume that this person may have less altruistic motives, such as inter-agency rivalries, or personal grudges (passed over for promotion to the MJ-12 steering committee, perhaps), as Mark Felt did. The rationale is irrelevant - the point is that this person wants the information out there, where it will have a real policy impact.

So how does he or she go about it? Whom do they contact, and how?

This question brings us to the crux of the problem with UFO leakers / whistleblowers, past and present. If they were really interested in accomplishing any of the goals set out above, they would have done it in another way than the one that they currently employ.

The MJ-12 documents are real? Well, who would you send them to - two of the key Roswell researchers, Bill Moore and Stan Friedman, and a little-known filmmaker, Jaime Shandera? Not if you wanted them to be viewed objectively, and taken seriously, by the mainstream media and the general public. Not if you really wanted to use them to break the CWCSTE (note to legitimate whistleblowers - you wouldn't send it to me, either).

Someone like Michael Salla, perhaps, or maybe Steven Greer? Again, not if you wanted to actually bring about an end to the CWCSTE.


Because these people - big guns of varying sorts in the UFO field - in reality have a very small public profile, and even less public legitimacy, not because they are dishonest (although some ufologists definitely qualify as "Snake-oil salesmen"), but because they have, as Kevin Randle would say, a "dog in the hunt," i.e. they have already come to a conclusion. If you were to leak documents, or information, to them, it would always be tainted as coming from "those ufologists," and as a result it would never receive the widespread exposure necessary to accomplish your aim of breaking the CWCSTE.

So, who would you leak it to?

Well, conspiracists and some ufologists aren't going to like this, but the answer is simple. The same kind of people that Mark Felt leaked his information to - the media.

Not everyone in the media, of course. It would have to be someone, like Woodward and Bernstein during the Watergate days, who were young and hungry for a great story. They would also, however, have to work for an established and respected news organization, like the Washington Post. They would have to have the support of their superiors, and they would have to know who you were, and that you had the credentials to back up what you were saying. Most important, you would have to be able to trust them (this would require some research on your part).

That's what it takes to break a BIG STORY. Consider it the "Perfect Storm" of journalism, and it only comes along once in a rare while (of course, you also have to have the BIG STORY, but that's, well, another story for another day).

Now, when you look at the present crop of "whistleblowers" - and here I'm not talking about people who have seen UFOs (those are witnesses, not whistleblowers - there is a difference) - ask yourself, have any of them taken the course outlined above?

Bob Lazar?

Clifford Stone?

Charles Hall?

Philip Corso?

The alleged MJ-12 "leakers"?

Nope, nada, nyet, and non.

Not a one.

Is it because the mainstream media is unwilling to listen to evidence that the CWCSTE exists?

Absolutely not. If such a story were true, and someone credible came to a reporter under the conditions outlined above, you can bet that they would run with the story - just as they did with the Watergate story, just as they did with Iran Contra, and just as they are doing now (ad nauseum) with the Plame-gate mess. It would be a guaranteed Pulizter, and a ticket to what I like to call "Woodward-ville," and / or it's somewhat less well-heeled suburb, "Bernstein-ville."

The problem is that none of these people, or their documents, are credible. A real journalist would sniff that out in short order. So they go to the people that no true whistleblower / leaker would ever approach - the ufologists. Why? Because there are ufologists (not all of them, of course - you don't see these people "leaking" CWCSTE stuff to Dick Hall or Brad Sparks) who will believe them, because, as Karl Pflock has said, they possess the "will to believe," despite whatever inconvenient facts might pop up to the contrary. For the bogus whistleblower, this is their ticket to ride, i.e. (a) a book deal, (b) some television appearances, (c) some conference invites, or (d) just a sense of being a somebody, no matter how small the community is in which you live (that "big fish in a small pond" thing again, or, as it should forever be known hereafter, "Hellyerism").

In short, their motives have nothing to do with ending the alleged CWCSTE. How could they end it anyway, when they know nothing about it (again, assuming for the moment that it exists, which is far from proved)?

If they did, they would go elsewhere with their information. That they have not speaks volumes about who they are and what they want - and how desperate some in ufology are to believe them.

Paul Kimball


Don Maor said...

all i see in your post is "woulds" and "shoulds".

everybody can stand up and invent a "would be" story, of their own taste and choice.

for example, as you say: an agent trying to destroy another agent or agency "would" leak the data to some credible recipient.
but the leaking agent would probably feel fear of being punished by the law. You know there are very hard penalties to those who deliver classified information. In this case , the agent should go public, give detalied informartion to the receiver, etc. too much trouble.

So what the agent could do without giving explanations and without giving his identity? Easy. Send it to the ufologists, they shouldn`t ask because they should have the background to understand the documents and to validate them.
so the agent leaked the data and he is safe in his house, with no cops jumping over him! (just his wife, i hope)

i can invent more "woulds" and "shoulds" if you like, but i prefer dealing with facts...

things happen in the way they happen, not in the way they should.

i am defending some of the MJ-12 leaks, and of course I considerar that Lazar's-claims-modus-operandi has nothing to do with the modus operandi of the MJ-12 documents leaks.

Don Maor

Paul Kimball said...


Sorry, but what you see in my post is cold, hard logic (well, that might not be what YOU see, but there's not much I can do about that) - the kind that a lot of folks (although fortunately not all) within ufology seem to have trouble with.

Paul Kimball

Don Maor said...

It looks strange that we have a growned human civilisation filled with such a great amount of people who, when dedicated to deep research into something, do not use the cold and hard logic.

Paul Kimball said...


Oh, some people use cold, hard logic, just not very many in ufology, or so it seems sometimes. It's always those nasty little inconvenient facts, as Karl says, that seem to get in the way of most people. The shame is that when they get sucked into the side-alleys, they tend to lose sight of the big picture.

As always, agree or disagree, thanks for stopping by, and good luck with your new blog.

Paul Kimball