Jumping in here: Is there any process by which classified information can be/should be declassified. And just here we're found mired in the quicksand trap of either/or thinking. Understanding "system" as process, of course there is, called judicial oversight, either by courts or by legislative authority. The key word is oversight, and the key understanding is that the overlooking authority has the final word. And of course the problems that arise are those of competing interests, those resolved in the agon of debate or legal contest. — tim wood

I thought this quick Google AI search is relevant:

Nuclear Weapons Information: Information related to nuclear weapons is subject to a separate statutory scheme established by Congress under the Atomic Energy Act. This information cannot be automatically declassified by the President alone and requires extensive consultation with executive branch agencies, including the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense.

I believe any actual UAP materials are classified at levels even higher than those governing nuclear weapons. Given the nature of these phenomena, and assuming they are real, they may fall under the jurisdiction of the Atomic Energy Act. If that is the case, even the President may be technically limited in what can be revealed without going through formal channels.

Full disclosure would likely require several things working together: a deliberate act of Congress, a President who is genuinely committed to transparency, and cooperative gatekeepers within the intelligence and defense communities. If any one of these parts fails- if Congress hesitates, if the President stays quiet, or if the gatekeepers resist- then meaningful disclosure probably will not happen.

I appreciate that this is a hypothetical, so it's not entirely right to question the premises that you've asserted as given, but we do need to consider the reality that Donald Trump (as an example) is not a reliable means for dispensing and withholding information based upon his reasonable assessment of what information can be handled by the populace.

And where I use "Donald Trump," I really mean anybody. This suggestion that information is controllable, and even if it were, that those controlling it have any idea what to do with it is a dubious notion. At the microcosm level of an office environment, for example, it seems impossible to control gossip, and those in charge of controlling it are particuarly bad at it. It's for that reason I find it hard to fathom how these alien beings have been able to surgically reveal their identity to the earthling leaders without tipping off any random jogger or pigeon feeder and those leaders then kept the information under wraps.

If that could happen, I would have much more trust in my government officials and I would likely be willing to submit to whatever gradual ontological shock process they thought was best because clearly they're playing 4-D chess that I cannot understand.

On the other hand, assuming most people are playing tic-tac-toe and sometimes even checkers, I would rather they just tell me everything at once because as they tried to control the information, all they would actually do is leak things they weren't supposed to and bring about confusion.

I'll go back to quaint adage of "thou shallt not lie," and just expect the people installed to represent the people to tell us the truth. It creates an interesting game to lie and dance around the truth, but the shit is going to hit the fan eventually, so maybe do it in a way that will maintain one's credibility once that happens. That is, I use ancient wisdom to answer your questions about futuristic dilemmas.

Hmm. I think some of the responses sort of miss the point I'm getting from this TE.

if these things are the case (person on the trolley track, brain in vat etc...) the reason doesn't seem to matter to the question at hand. The teletransporter is a great example. The context is irrelevant - is it you on the other side?

The trolley problem - the person is innocent. We know they are. Would you kill them to save five? That's all it asks.

In the present thread, we have sufficient information to answer the specific question, I think. The 'powers that be' are as-described. So I can attempt an answer without what I see as prevarication in much of the above responses: No, an all-at-once revelation would be disastrous. The fear, loss of frame and cosmic uncertainty would likely lead to intra-human civil wars along lines like "That's our God" or "You caused this" and what not..

That said, It seems to fly in the face of the reasons given for the initial preclusion. So, I think its incoherent that this would happen anyway. They wanted to avoid ontological shock... why would that suddenly not be the case?

I appreciate that this is a hypothetical, so it's not entirely right to question the premises that you've asserted as given, but we do need to consider the reality that Donald Trump (as an example) is not a reliable means for dispensing and withholding information based upon his reasonable assessment of what information can be handled by the populace. — Hanover

True, when the truth is buried under layers of confusion and half-claims, even extraordinary revelations start to seem unbelievable. If a major political figure were to announce alien disclosure, how many people would immediately assume it was just a distraction from some unrelated scandal? The timing alone would lead to suspicion.

We’ve reached a point where public shock is so frequent that even the biggest shock of all could be overlooked. What should be a solemn, world-changing moment risks becoming another round of partisan doubt and media noise. Instead of focusing on the weight of the information itself, people would focus on the motives of the messenger, questioning why now, why this way, and what else is being hidden.

And where I use "Donald Trump," I really mean anybody. This suggestion that information is controllable, and even if it were, that those controlling it have any idea what to do with it is a dubious notion. At the microcosm level of an office environment, for example, it seems impossible to control gossip, and those in charge of controlling it are particuarly bad at it. It's for that reason I find it hard to fathom how these alien beings have been able to surgically reveal their identity to the earthling leaders without tipping off any random jogger or pigeon feeder and those leaders then kept the information under wraps. — Hanover

Well, there’s no shortage of people over the past 80 years claiming sightings—some of them from highly credible backgrounds, not to mention all the stories about alleged abductions. If we assume there’s any truth to it, and these beings are advanced enough to reach Earth, then it stands to reason they’d also be capable of hiding easily. Some theories even suggest they’ve established bases in remote or inaccessible areas, like deep beneath the ocean.

And honestly, if they can pull that off, avoiding detection by conventional military tech shouldn’t be too hard for them.

But one thing that’s always seemed a bit strange is the crash angle. How do they make it here across vast interstellar distances with that level of advancement… and then crash once they get here? Seems unlikely—unless something extreme happened. Either an unforeseen atmospheric or energetic anomaly, or maybe even intentional crashes as part of an experiment or contact strategy.

Another possibility is that these aren’t accidents at all but highly controlled incidents, maybe decoys, or maybe a kind of data collection or seeding operation. Because if they’re smart enough to get here, you'd expect they’d be smart enough not to crash into a hillside in New Mexico.

Unless, of course, we're completely misunderstanding what their craft are or how they function.

Either way, it’s the combination of high-level secrecy, the volume of eyewitness accounts, and the long timeline that makes it harder to dismiss the whole thing outright. Something’s going on. The only question is what-and why hasn’t it been fully acknowledged?

If that could happen, I would have much more trust in my government officials and I would likely be willing to submit to whatever gradual ontological shock process they thought was best because clearly they're playing 4-D chess that I cannot understand.

On the other hand, assuming most people are playing tic-tac-toe, maybe checkers at best, I’d rather they just tell me everything at once. The more they try to control the flow of information, the more they risk leaking things they didn’t intend to, and the result is confusion and distrust. — Hanover

So that leads to more questions:

Is there a kind of power in keeping secrets? What does that power really amount to?

What kind of information should we, as citizens in an open society, have a right to know?

Why is there such a strong assumption that disclosure would trigger some existential crisis?

Would it really be that devastating unless it was revealed that the visitors are hostile?

If anything is being kept, it’s probably technological debris or biological samples-not live aliens. If these beings were as advanced as suggested, would they really just agree to sit quietly in some underground facility? If they’re that capable, couldn’t they have done far more already? Unless, of course, some kind of agreement exists. What the nature of that would be, I don't know.

Certainly, the current president wouldn't seem to be read-in on all of it, one would think. I would imagine it being compartmentalized so that only a handful of people know the whole picture, and only the most loyal are read-in.

No, an all-at-once revelation would be disastrous. The fear, loss of frame and cosmic uncertainty would likely lead to intra-human civil wars along lines like "That's our God" or "You caused this" and what not..

That said, It seems to fly in the face of the reasons given for the initial preclusion. So, I think its incoherent that this would happen anyway. They wanted to avoid ontological shock... why would that suddenly not be the case? — AmadeusD

Do you have reasons for your assessment? Why would this disclosure automatically lead to civil war? As for why there would be disclosure, perhaps there are enough whistleblowers now, and the powers that be have decided that the original reasons for secrecy no longer apply. For example, the Cold War has ended, the public may be more accepting, and there has already been a slow rollout of disclosure over time.

Instead of focusing on the weight of the information itself, people would focus on the motives of the messenger, questioning why now, why this way, and what else is being hidden. — schopenhauer1

This actually seems to be occurring now. For some reason Fox News and the right have a sudden obsession with UFOs. I tend to think the claims more bullshit because of this partisan leaning.

Either way, it’s the combination of high-level secrecy, the volume of eyewitness accounts, and the long timeline that makes it harder to dismiss the whole thing outright. Something’s going on. The only question is what-and why hasn’t it been fully acknowledged? — schopenhauer1

But this is just poor epistemological reasoning. It says not to look at any specific account for proof, but instead just look at the whole without looking too close. It's like if I brought you into a warehouse with thousands of boxes of evidence for alien existence and every piece I examined closely offered no proof, but you said "yeah, but just look at this warehouse of stuff" as if that's proof enough.

I don't want 1000s of blurred bigfoot pictures to prove bigfoot exists. I want one bigfoot in a cage.

Another possibility is that these aren’t accidents at all but highly controlled incidents, maybe decoys, or maybe a kind of data collection or seeding operation. Because if they’re smart enough to get here, you'd expect they’d be smart enough not to crash into a hillside in New Mexico. — schopenhauer1

If they're playing 4-D quantum mental chess, then sure, they've out foxed us all. But then again, I don't know what that even means.

If anything is being kept, it’s probably technological debris or biological samples-not live aliens. If these beings were as advanced as suggested, would they really just agree to sit quietly in some underground facility? If they’re that capable, couldn’t they have done far more already? Unless, of course, some kind of agreement exists. What the nature of that would be, I don't know. — schopenhauer1

You really believe in this? I think it horseshittery.

This actually seems to be occurring now. For some reason Fox News and the right have a sudden obsession with UFOs. I tend to think the claims more bullshit because of this partisan leaning. — Hanover

Well, glad you can substantiate the claim as an example, I guess?

But this is just poor epistemological reasoning. It says not to look at any specific account for proof, but instead just look at the whole without looking too close. It's like if I brought you into a warehouse with thousands of boxes of evidence for alien existence and every piece I examined closely offered no proof, but you said "yeah, but just look at this warehouse of stuff" as if that's proof enough. — Hanover

Until about a year ago, I would have agreed with you. But then why haven’t Elizondo, Grusch, or the dozens of others who have testified before Congress been charged with perjury, or at the very least, been lambasted for wasting time and taxpayer money on a fringe topic? You could argue that anyone can make up anything, and technically you’d be right. However, once someone is “read in” and granted access to classified information, they tend to take the matter more seriously.

That said, who really knows? It’s entirely possible that the UFO narrative has always been a convenient cover for classified terrestrial crash retrieval programs. As I’ve said before, it’s frustrating because the same people pushing for “disclosure” can also profit from it, playing a long game where answers always remain just out of reach. The issue only becomes serious when government actors get involved. Then it’s no longer just conspiracy theorists at conferences trading stories and building “lore.”

Here are the more pressing questions:

Why can’t Congress get access to the so-called gatekeepers in these programs or industries?

Can we establish a framework for falsification? For example, if A, B, and C are investigated and nothing is found, can it then be ruled a hoax? Should there be consequences for misleading Congress and wasting resources?

How do we determine when an investigation is complete? The challenge with classified programs is that the information is, by nature, hidden. Would Congress need to conduct field hearings at places like Lockheed Martin or Wright-Patterson AFB?

That’s a logistical nightmare, and not how government usually works. Even if such visits were authorized, it's not difficult for entities to obscure access or hide materials. And so the mystery keeps perpetuating itself.

(Yes, I get it—many would argue Congress wastes money by default. Fair enough.)

Why would this disclosure automatically lead to civil war? — schopenhauer1

I said likely. I am open to you re-stating your question.

For example, the Cold War has ended, the public may be more accepting, and there has already been a slow rollout of disclosure over time. — schopenhauer1

This last part flies in the face of the example and what was asked. Well done.

My comment is reasons for the "No". Quite hard to know what you want here, particularly given the mischaracterizations.

My response would be to look at how that went over during Covid-19, tbh. If you lie for a "good reason" and then get caught, people will still call you a liar. I also think you have to consider that, in this scenario, NHI would theoretically have moral rights as well.