Many readers will know the name Gary McKinnon, the “Scottish systems administrator and hacker who was accused in 2002 of perpetrating the ‘biggest military computer hack of all time'” (Wikipedia). This link leads to an interview with McKinnon in which he describes an Excel spreadsheet stored away in NASA computers that, he alleges, mentioned “non-terrestrial officers.” McKinnon does not believe these officers are aliens. Rather, he suspects that the U.S. military is running a secret space program.
Let that sink in. If this is true, it would have a lot of explanatory power for UFOs, one that would be very consistent with the “man-made UFO hypothesis.
But without the file, it’s hearsay, and useless as evidence. He says the file was full of names…but he can’t remember one name? It’s not even interesting hearsay.
True; it’s one of those things that would make sense if true, but its veracity can’t be determined at this point.
hearsay? you obviously like most who use that word don’t know what it means. It is something I heard someone say about someone else and I repeat it.
But this isn’t hearsay. McKinnon’s word is first hand witness not hearsay. and word without other evidence is still evidence if under oath and then you determine how credible it is.
McKinnon didn’t say that someone told him they saw these references. THAT would be hearsay. McKinnon says HE SAW these references HIMSELF. that is witness testimony.
> hearsay? you obviously like most who use that word don’t know what it means.
Yes, you are correct, as far as speech acts go. But the remove of the evidence from examination is what I was trying to get across (I should have chosen a more accurate term).
The McKinnon situation is analagous to hearsay evidence. In hearsay, we get statements like, “I know facts XYZ because Mr. X told me facts XYZ, but you can’t talk to Mr. X to verify or disprove my claim.” McKinnon states, effectively, “I know facts XYZ because file X contained facts XYZ, but you can’t look at file X to verify or disprove my claim.”
> McKinnon says HE SAW these references HIMSELF. that is witness testimony.
Testimony of something he cannot demonstrate in any way, and which no one can verify or disprove. It is totally useless as empirical knowledge (see Karl Popper.) Especially suspicious is that he can’t remember a single name from the file!
What good is that testimony? It does not add to our knowledge one bit.
Yes, ignore the big idea because of a misplaced word. The best evidence is the document. Which is itself hearsay if its author isn’t present to explain it. So go make yourself a dang quesadilla.
If technology is a laser-light show; admin/bean-counter culture is a boomerang.
Have you ever tried to explain the mechanics of what you do to someone who:
A. Has a “piece of you”,
and
B. Has absolutely no idea what you do,
?
All I’m hearing is, “Mien Fuhrer we have a cave gap!”.
…’cept they gave the guy in the wheelchair several billion $s and five decades to play.
The paradigm for the 1950s was, “Put some fins on it.”
The 2110s looks like “Shoot that *deleted*er into outer space.”
Yeah. I know.
I don’t think the Founding Fathers envisioned WasDC as a psychopathic day care center, but physically and Constitutionally… the inmates are running the asylum.
Yeah. I know.
Best, m
Well said! Did you hear that in Houston they indicted the two people that recorded the Planned Parenthood video? That’s right the court found nothing wrong with PP’s operation but found that the two folks that recorded video were heinous criminals(they used fake ID’s). Will this world ever make sense again?
This post being about conspiracies also reminds of the X-Files. What do you think about the revival? I can’t say I care for it too much. Seems they’ve gone too far to the loony left. Also, there’s too much revisionist history. I cringed at Mulder’s line about aliens sacrificing themselves to save us from our own folly. Disappointing, to say the least!
So far I’m okay with it. I liked the latest (monster) episode. I always like the episodes where they poke fun at the show. Hopefully they will stay true to the characters the rest of the way.
Mike,related to this story is the alleged photo of a dome on Mars. The internet was buzzing about it in December, but I’ve seen nothing new lately. Assuming it is even real, do you think NASA is just ignoring the story?
probably; I blogged about it a while back. Seems like nonsense.
“biggest hack”? LOL Wiki is hilarious. The things he “hacked” had the “password” set as “password”. This guy was duped plain and simple. The “info” he got was “noise” used to muddy the waters. Then after this our government said he did thousands of dollars worth of damaged and helped Britain re-write their extradition laws. This was CIA all the way. Hats off to the UK for fighting this garbage extradition.
Mike, I appreciate the sobriety of your conclusions and the scholarship of your work. The ancient alien hypothesis tends to run more on barnyard gas rather than integrity and veracity.
I do think however, that your comments on Mr. MacKinnon’s views aren’t entirely forthcoming. Although he does mention that he suspects a military or terrestrial fingerprint in reference to the names on spreadsheet, he doesn’t completely resist the view that non-humans may be part of the mix. From the link you provided:
“Mr McKinnon managed to gain access to the computers for several months without detection, and caught sight of an image that he believes could have been proof of alien life.
He said: “It was the hemisphere of a planet I assume was Earth.
“It was cloudy, but there was the classic cigar-shape (UFO).”
He added that he “did not feel it was man-made”.”
That’s fair, and it’s a good illustration of the “how would he know?” problem. If there’s a secret space program, there are likely secret vehicles — and why would such technology need to be non-human?
I think the terrestrial human origin of flying saucers has more objectivity than does ET visiting anyone, including us. There’s far more evidence for it and McKinnon’s claim isn’t far fetched unless you want to ignore human aerospace and technological developments and a DoD black budget in the $20-$50 Billion range annually.
The USAF does maintain its own space program and that is fact. How else do all of these spy satellites get into space without the Shuttle? We never hear about the USAF’s rocket launches into space, but they do them. I know as I have worked with at least two civilian heads of such projects and yes they actually build and send rockets into space frequently, and sometimes with NASA’s assistance (NASA technically reports to the DoD).
It is not far fetched to think that there is a larger orbiting ISS type USAF station that has its own classified personnel working on covert global survelliance.