Whistleblowers - Whose horn are they tooting?

Even if the truth behind UFOs has been hidden by a massive cover up, surely the secrecy chamber can't be completely air tight, and a leak is bound to spring up somewhere. 

At least that is what some whistleblower proponents like to believe. I think that it is important that we examine whistleblowing precedents that have occurred (or not) in other matters pertaining to national security. 

How about we start with the mother of all compartmentalized national security programs - the Manhattan Project. If you take the time, as I have, to study the (already declassified) comprehensive security methods put into place to protect this very important and secret WW2 project, you will find that: 

• The security of the project was delegated to a dedicated group of project security personnel that reported through the strictest of channels only to Manhattan Project managers. 
• The men and women who were part of this security operation were hand picked and only the creme de la creme were selected. 
• This security apparatus vetted and carefully watched all project personnel. Those deemed a security risk were moved to positions of less trust and their access to classified material terminated. 
• Any public release of information, intentional or not, was dealt with swiftly and decisively. 
• Only a select few project personnel knew the overall goal of the project, namely to build an atomic bomb, and many project personnel only learned what the real goal was AFTER the atomic bomb was dropped on Japan. 

Why is this relevant to UFO secrecy? Well here we have a project of tremendous importance to the United States that had to be protected at all costs, but the tremendous size of the Manhattan project and the complex logistics that were required to pull it off, created security challenges on an unprecedented scale. 

Amazingly, the Manhattan Project security team did pull it off, so effectively, that even Vice President Truman did not know of the project's existence until he became President. Only a massive Soviet espionage effort managed to infiltrate the project. 

Manhattan Project documentation shows that project security personnel were worried about public whistleblowers who could expose project secrets to the American public and our enemies. The security team put into place failsafe mechanisms to effectively deal with such leaks. What they couldn't prevent however, as history shows, was the infiltration by Communist sympathizers who effectively hid their allegiances and maintained their positions of trust, so as to covertly provide project intelligence to their handlers. In other words, public release of information could be dealt with effectively but the same could not be said of covert release. 

Now let's apply this analogy to the UFO cover up which by most accounts was not instituted until after 1945. With the success of the Manhattan Project fresh in their minds, those security forces so tasked, would have adopted the same modus operandi in protecting the UFO secret. Again anticipating that someone on the inside could possibly divulge secret knowledge, safeguards would have been put into place to prevent this or squash it. 

So what are we to make of all of these UFO whistleblowers that have come forward and claim privileged insider knowledge? Can we believe their claims and their motives? Are they telling the truth? 

This is a complex question, so let's break the mechanics of whistleblowing into its essential components: - Whistleblower Identity - Whistleblower Scope of Knowledge - Whistleblower Motives 

Whistleblower Identity: UFO Whistleblowers that request anonymity out of fear of persecution DO have to be worried about their well being. They would not be "in the know" to begin with if they were not first carefully vetted and selected and then took a solemn oath to not divulge what they were made privy to. 

Normally taking a national security oath carries a tremendous penalty for violating it. If you are privy to and divulge classified information, the penalty usually entails time behind bars, but could involve the death penalty if serious enough. So anonymous whistleblowers are possible, but hiding behind anonymity will also leave their testimony suspect and unverifiable. 

How can you trust what a whistleblower is tooting their horn about if you can't verify that they were "in the know" to begin with? I also have to believe that the handpicked men and women who make up the UFO security apparatus are smart enough to track down leaks even if the whistleblower's identity is not divulged and that this mole hunting capability is repeatedly communicated to all involved personnel, to prevent it from happening in the first place. 

Even those whistleblowers who have not requested anonymity have difficulty getting their claims taken seriously. Bob Lazar and Colonel Corso did not hind behind anonymity but their claims are riddled with controversy. 

Whistleblower Scope of Knowledge: This is probably the part of UFO whistleblowing that I have the most trouble reconciling. If you were fortunate enough to have insider access to any part of the UFO puzzle, your piece of the puzzle would be so compartmentalized and so small that you would not be able to see the big picture of UFO secrecy. 

"Need to Know" is an essential component of any secret deep black project and is interwoven into the very fabric of the project. So the only really knowledgeable whistleblowers would be those at the very top of the hierarchy who are privy to enough pieces of the puzzle to know what the big picture is in the first place. Of course, they would also tend to be the ones who have the most to lose if the secret is let out. 

Whistleblower Motives: Ask anyone who has ever had a security clearance whether they ever willfully disclosed classified information outside of a need to know basis and the answer would most likely be No! One thing that always weighs heavily on your mind when you are put in a position of trust is the penalty for violating your national security oath. 

When I was in Army intelligence, I had access to material that is public information today, but I will still not talk about it. Oaths are taken seriously. So for a whistleblower to willfully violate their oath not only takes some big kahunas, but express knowledge that severe repercussions may follow. How many folks can truly say they are willing to take that risk? 

So before we label a whistleblower an all-American Hero for having the guts to come forward and put themselves in mortal danger for the common good of man and apple pie, we should first question their claims along these three lines: do they have the proper credentials, did they have a need to know and what is their motive for coming forward? If any of these three come up smelling funny, we should stop waving the American flag and wave a red flag instead, because something is awry.