By Micah Hanks
Hillary Clinton's long-held interest in the subject of UFOs has been no secret, especially over the last few weeks.
In particular, since the candidate's recent appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live!, where she was asked by the host about whether she would release UFO documents withheld by the U.S. government, many websites and news agencies have discussed the possibility that Clinton, if elected, may bring new information to light about the controversial subject.
Another recent campaign stop brought Clinton to East Harlem, as reported by Coast to Coast, where she again spoke about the UFO subject with Power 105.1 FM Radio's Breakfast Club.
For many decades, UFO advocates have lobbied to government about the release of UFO-sensitive information, in addition to combing the National Archives and filing Freedom of Information Act requests to various government agencies.
In 2011, the Obama White House officially responded to a pair of petitions on its “We The People” section of the White House website, which dealt with the UFO question.
Spearheaded by UFO lobbyist Stephen Bassett of the Paradigm Research Group, neither response managed to glean any official acknowledgement of an extraterrestrial reality underlying UFO reports.
While the UFO question has largely been addressed through such politically-minded action over the last several decades, there may also be pitfalls to the idea that reliance of government disclosure of UFO information is the most productive method of study.
As Clinton had noted during her most recent statements on the subject, “if there’s some huge national security thing and I can’t get agreement to open them, I won’t.”
In other words, there may be reasons that government agencies could deem such information -- if it truly does exist -- too sensitive for public consumption at the present time.
A recent analysis by this author sought to question the issues presented by reliance on a disclosure movement as the primary means toward understanding the complexities presented by the UFO subject.
Among these are the following considerations: 1) That no such data exists in the possession of government agencies, or 2) It does exist, but it is persistently withheld, despite political activism in relation to the UFO question.
In either case, the result would be that no new information on the UFO subject would be garnered as a result.
Because of this, a stronger case for the scientific study of UFOs is made, or “UAP” as Clinton has called them recently (employing terminology more commonly associated with existing scientific studies of the alleged phenomenon).
Applying science toward understanding the most credible UFO data, made available primarily through eyewitness reports over the last few decades, may yield more fruit; particularly in the event that governments persist in choosing not to address the issue publicly.
But should we abandon “disclosure” altogether? Of course not, as there is still the likelihood that some government data on the subject may indeed exist.
If Clinton, or others in government -- if elected -- choose to make this an issue, it may yet lead to the official acknowledgement of information about the UFO subject, which presently has remained out of the public sphere.
However, until that time comes, perhaps it is worthwhile to consider what, if anything, can be learned about the subject on our own, and in a manner that science can help us verify.