Hacker fears 'UFO cover-up'

by **seemslikeadream** » Sat May 06, 2006 1:25 pm

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/4977134.stm" target="top">news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/4977134.stm</a> Hacker fears 'UFO cover-up' EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW Watch the interview In 2002, Gary McKinnon was arrested by the UK's national high-tech crime unit, after being accused of hacking into Nasa and the US military computer networks. He says he spent two years looking for photographic evidence of alien spacecraft and advanced power technology. America now wants to put him on trial, and if tried there he could face 60 years behind bars. Banned from using the internet, Gary spoke to Click presenter Spencer Kelly to tell his side of the story, ahead of his extradition hearing on Wednesday, 10 May. You can read what he had to say here. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Spencer Kelly: Here's your list of charges: you hacked into the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Department of Defense, and Nasa, amongst other things. Why? Gary McKinnon: I was in search of suppressed technology, laughingly referred to as UFO technology. I think it's the biggest kept secret in the world because of its comic value, but it's a very important thing. Old-age pensioners can't pay their fuel bills, countries are invaded to award oil contracts to the West, and meanwhile secretive parts of the secret government are sitting on suppressed technology for free energy. SK: How did you go about trying to find the stuff you were looking for in Nasa, in the Department of Defense? GM: Unlike the press would have you believe, it wasn't very clever. I searched for blank passwords, I wrote a tiny Perl script that tied together other people's programs that search for blank passwords, so you could scan 65,000 machines in just over eight minutes. SK: So you're saying that you found computers which had a high-ranking status, administrator status, which hadn't had their passwords set - they were still set to default? GM: Yes, precisely. SK: Were you the only hacker to make it past the slightly lower-than-expected lines of defence? GM: Yes, exactly, there were no lines of defence. There was a permanent tenancy of foreign hackers. You could run a command when you were on the machine that showed connections from all over the world, check the IP address to see if it was another military base or whatever, and it wasn't. The General Accounting Office in America has again published another damning report saying that federal security is very, very poor. SK: Over what kind of period were you hacking into these computers? Was it a one-time only, or for the course of a week? A bird or a plane?... Gary was not able to get a picture of what he saw GM: Oh no, it was a couple of years. SK: And you went unnoticed for a couple of years? GM: Oh yes. I used to be careful about the hours. SK: So you would log on in the middle of the night, say? GM: Yes, I'd always be juggling different time zones. Doing it at night time there's hopefully not many people around. But there was one occasion when a network engineer saw me and actually questioned me and we actually talked to each other via WordPad, which was very, very strange. SK: So what did he say? And what did you say? GM: He said "What are you doing?" which was a bit shocking. I told him I was from Military Computer Security, which he fully believed. SK: Did you find what you were looking for? GM: Yes. SK: Tell us about it. GM: There was a group called the Disclosure Project. They published a book which had 400 expert witnesses ranging from civilian air traffic controllers, through military radar operators, right up to the chaps who were responsible for whether or not to launch nuclear missiles. They are some very credible, relied upon people, all saying yes, there is UFO technology, there's anti-gravity, there's free energy, and it's extra-terrestrial in origin, and we've captured spacecraft and reverse-engineered it. SK: What did you find inside Nasa? GM: One of these people was a Nasa photographic expert, and she said that in building eight of Johnson Space Centre they regularly airbrushed out images of UFOs from the high-resolution satellite imaging. What she said was there was there: there were folders called "filtered" and "unfiltered", "processed" and "raw", something like that. I got one picture out of the folder, and bearing in mind this is a 56k dial-up, so a very slow internet connection, in dial-up days, using the remote control programme I turned the colour down to 4bit colour and the screen resolution really, really low, and even then the picture was still juddering as it came onto the screen. But what came on to the screen was amazing. It was a culmination of all my efforts. It was a picture of something that definitely wasn't man-made. It was above the Earth's hemisphere. It kind of looked like a satellite. It was cigar-shaped and had geodesic domes above, below, to the left, the right and both ends of it, and although it was a low-resolution picture it was very close up. This thing was hanging in space, the earth's hemisphere visible below it, and no rivets, no seams, none of the stuff associated with normal man-made manufacturing. SK: Is it possible this is an artist's impression? GM: I don't know... For me, it was more than a coincidence. This woman has said: "This is what happens, in this building, in this space centre". I went into that building, that space centre, and saw exactly that. SK: Do you have a copy of this? It came down to your machine. GM: No, the graphical remote viewer works frame by frame. It's a Java application, so there's nothing to save on your hard drive, or at least if it is, only one frame at a time. SK: So did you get the one frame? GM: No. SK: What happened? GM: Once I was cut off, my picture just disappeared. SK: You were actually cut off the time you were downloading the picture? GM: Yes, I saw the guy's hand move across. SK: You acknowledge that what you did was against the law, it was wrong, don't you? GM: Unauthorised access is against the law and it is wrong. SK: What do you think is a suitable punishment for someone who did what you did? GM: Firstly, because of what I was looking for, I think I was morally correct. Even though I regret it now, I think the free energy technology should be publicly available. I want to be tried in my own country, under the Computer Misuse Act, and I want evidence brought forward, or at least want the Americans to have to provide evidence in order to extradite me, because I know there is no evidence of damage. Nasa told Click that it does not discuss computer security issues or legal matters. It denied it would ever manipulate images in order to deceive and said it had a policy of open and full disclosure, adding it had no direct evidence of extra-terrestrial life.

by **OpLan** » Sun May 07, 2006 9:09 am

sixty years lmao. I hope he gets a good lawyer with a sense of humour who can make the government look as stupid as they sound. My ISP has a reputation of withdrawing services if they think you aren't doing enough to make your PC secure from hacker activity.Leaving passwords blank is kindergarten stuff.I'm not sure of the deals Micro$oft have with corporations,but I'm fairly sure that for us commoners,its 1 copy of windows per PC..you aren't allowed to install windows on a pc,make an image of the hard drive and copy that to the rest of your networked computers..and wouldn't copying images of windows involve some kind of alteration to the code in order for the copies to be recognised? How the hell do you do $5000 dollars worth of damage to a computer?I can't think of a single pc component that costs anywhere near that much.This man was monitored by british authorities,and they agree that his hacking activity was non destructive..the worst thing he did was install a remote control programme that is readily available to anyone. Leaving a password blank and then charging 60 years for walking through the unguarded door is not reasonable behaviour for a sophisticated society.Isn't it good to know that your government is taking care of all your security needs..all that tax money well spent indeed. Its curious why they want to make a big deal of this..why not catch a destructive hacker to make an example of?There would be a lot less sympathy for the culprit for a start. I would be embarrassed to bring this to court..his defence is going to raise the 'no password' issue,and possible copyright infringement re. windows..then his motive..its hardly Al Qeda stealing missile codes is it?Free energy and UFO information..this trial has all the ingredients for a top class farce..why?Whats REALLY going on here?

by **Avalon** » Sun May 07, 2006 11:52 am

What she said was there was there: there were folders called "filtered" and "unfiltered", "processed" and "raw", something like that. Yes, Sherlock. You don't just look at the raw images, you have to process them. Compensate for motion, for example. Having done so, you would naturally want to put them in folders that differentiated one group from the others. I'm not getting the feeling that this fellow is too good at discernment about what he is seeing.

by **RB1** » Sun May 07, 2006 12:31 pm

"...SK: So you're saying that you found computers which had a high-ranking status, administrator status, which hadn't had their passwords set - they were still set to default? GM: Yes, precisely...." I don't know how they can define the guy a "hacker" when all he did was access computers who had not set passwords to gain administrator status. If the guy never took any steps to actually crack system security, I don't see how the govenment can make "unauthorized access" charges stick. If I were McKinnon's lawyer, I'd get him away from the press. The only case the govenment has right now is his own statement in the interview about "unauthorized access." If someone is wandering around servers that have had their system security turned off by their system administrators, they have only accessed what anyone and everyone on the net could have wandered in an accessed.

by **thoughtographer** » Sun May 07, 2006 1:50 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I'm not getting the feeling that this fellow is too good at discernment about what he is seeing.<hr></blockquote> McKinnon's yammering about heavy cannabis use during his exploits not only discredits his own claims, but adds to the heap of negative opinion towards the credibility of cannabis users in general. If he's not getting paid for his antics, then he's providing some decent, free services to the intelligence community. "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=thoughtographer>thoughtographer</A> at: 5/7/06 11:50 am

by **Dreams End** » Sun May 07, 2006 2:17 pm

Not a real big fan of the Disclosure project, myself. Stephen Greer is a bit cultish for my taste (initial UFO claim to fame was taking groups out to "contact" UFO's mentally, etc. Some ties to the TM movement.) Danny Sheehan is also part of this...also pops up with TM and the Kucinich campaign of all things. I don't know what their game is, but disclosure isn't really part of it.

by **semper occultus** » Sun May 07, 2006 4:05 pm

Sorry ET, you're just a puff of plasma - Jack Grimston BRITAIN's defence intelligence chiefs have come up with a detailed scientific explanation to solve the mystery of unidentified flying objects. After a four-year inquiry, they have concluded that most sightings can be explained by a little-understood atmospheric phenomenon. Scientists at the Defence Intelligence Staff (DIS) describe how glowing "plasmas" of gas are created by charges of electricity. Air flows then sculpt the plasmas into aerodynamic shapes which appear to fly at extraordinary speeds through the sky. The document, marked UK Eyes Only and entitled Unidentified Aerial Phenomena in the UK Air Defence Region, analyses 30 years of evidence on UFOs. Only 11 copies of the report were made. "Credited with the ability to hover, land, take off, accelerate to exceptional velocities and vanish, they can reportedly alter their direction of flight suddenly and clearly can exhibit aerodynamic characteristics well beyond those of any known aircraft or missile," states the report. It goes on to recommend that the findings on UFOs — of which more than 100 are sighted in most years — could be developed for "novel military applications", adding that Russia is already investigating such weapons. Many of the other phenomena reported by UFO spotters can be explained by plasmas. For example, the report says the space between two plasmas sometimes "forms an area . . . from which the reflection of light does not occur", giving the impression of a "black 'craft', often triangular and even up to hundreds of feet in length". .....the scientists say such plasmas can play tricks on the mind, creating vivid impressions. They note that "local [electromagnetic] fields . . . have been medically proven to cause responses in the temporal lobes of the brain". As a result, UFO witnesses may not be mad but instead suffering from "extended memory retention and repeat experiences" induced by the plasmas. <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2168694,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2168694,00.html</a>

by **slimmouse** » Sun May 07, 2006 4:40 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Not a real big fan of the Disclosure project, myself. <hr></blockquote> Im not a big fan of 19 arabs with boxcutters did 9/11. Im not a big fan of Jesus being born on the 25th December. Im not a big fan of ET phenomena is bullshit types either. I guess we all have our foibles. Question ; Is the Disclosure project the "official line", or perhaps it is simply too Ickish for common discussion amidst 'intellectuals' ? It is ? Im a fan then lol. A good friend of mine has an old saying. It goes something like "Imagine the worse case scenario, and multiply by 10 for reality". Ive found little lately in where the evidence takes me to suggest otherwise Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=slimmouse@rigorousintuition>slimmouse</A> at: 5/7/06 2:45 pm

by **Dreams End** » Sun May 07, 2006 5:32 pm

I wasn't really impressed with the big news conference put on by the Disclosure Project when they first came into being. For those other than slimmouse who simply accept anything that comes along, I think a great source is Richard Dolan who pored over lots of FOIA docs. I think you'd have a hard time explaining most of those sightings as swamp gas...err...plasma. I actually know a little more about UFO's than I usually admit. If anyone has the English reprint of "Above Top Secret" by Tim Good (retitled Beyond Top Secret), I'm mentioned in the acknowledgements. I helped Good a little bit on his section on the "Battle of 1942" and helped him attempt to obtain a better copy of the famous photo of the searchlights converging on nothing...though that particular nothing has a suspiciously sharp oval shape. I actually tracked down several witnesses to those events. Maybe one day I'll get around to transcribing the report I wrote. Slim, I know it's comfy in a black and white world, but the truth is, every issue that has some interest on this board is both complex and also full of disinfo. Not only do we know for a fact that various agencies of government were covering up UFO information, we also know for a fact that they occasionally put out false information and overt hoaxes. The plasma theory is nothing new by the way, though I haven't a clue why such a conclusion would be classified. I first heard it probably a decade or more ago. The theory also runs that if you get too close to one you might have a sort of seizure and imagine yourself being abducted by ufo's. Needless to say, I don't find this the strongest explanation available. But because I don't like a particular organization or am suspicious of it is very different from suggesting I reject the whole phenomenon. Seriously, that is just horribly sloppy thinking. Jacques Vallee himself had an entire book on complex, government backed hoaxes he ran across in his investigations. What's more, the "Father" of American UFOlogy, J. Allen Hynek, was openly involved in CIA plans to debunk UFO sightings. The official reasoning was that the Soviets might use fear of UFO's to create a panic or in some other way compromise U.S. security. He contibuted a lot to the field and has an institute named after him, but his involvement in this is a known fact. Or you could go to William Moore, most famous for his involvement in the MJ-12 documents. He was provided "inside" information by the Air Force, but in exchange, he was to pass disinformation about alliances with Greys along to Paul Bennewitz, who subsequently ended up in a psychiatric facility as all his paranoid fears about alien alliances were "confirmed". He was probably chosen because he was studying a particular military base and they wanted to keep their doings, terrestrial or extra, secret. And UFO cults are, I'm quite sure, fertile ground for intel type experiments in controlling people. The Heaven's Gate cult comes to mind. Can't prove that one, but sure seems likely. Kinda like the Finders but with a Star Trek twist. Guess who owned the house they lived in? I'll leave that as an open question so you can practice your Googling skills. Like with Larouche, I often assume that where you find disinfo efforts you will often find a genuine phenomenon. As long as bad guys or crazy people are first on the scene and stake out the territory to claim for themselves, the "exposes" are self-discrediting. That way, when info leaks out, or events are beyond the control of the government, they don't have to plug every hole. You are free, of course, to accept any information uncritically that you wish. But keep in mind that if something is true, then critical inquiry will make the case stronger, not weaker, while failure to think critically will set you up to look rather foolish. Meanwhile, I'm happy to note that Richard Dolan seems to be getting somewhat close to winding up the second volume of his "UFO's and the National Security State." Somewhat less credulous than Tim Good, whose Above Top Secret was the best thing going till Dolan came along, in my view (though I don't have a good collection of pre 1980's UFO lit from back in the day it was a respectable field of inquiry...rest in peace NICAP), Dolan does a great job of laying out not only the most interesting cases, but their ties to the military and intelligence communities. Hence the title. He simply believes that all is cover up, and I think UFOlogists need to be careful of disinfo...but I can't wait for volume two. For those interested, and though I haven't listened to it yet, there is a TWO HOUR interview with Dolan here: <a href="http://www.keyholepublishing.com/Richard%20Dolan%20Feb%2027%202006.200227.0.mp3">www.keyholepublishing.com/Richard%20Dolan%20Feb%2027%202006.200227.0.mp3</a> His site is here: http://www.keyholepublishing.com/ The top story on his site (he's not updating as much as I'd like...but oh well) is a fascinating little "inside baseball" report on a document he found in Canadian archives in which Philip Klass is "warning" the RCMP about Stanton Friedman. Kind of interesting if you follow this stuff. Also, check out this <a href="http://www.keyholepublishing.com/UFO%20Secrecy%20and%20the%20Death%20of%20the%20American%20Republic%20-%20Richard%20Dolan.htm">essay</a> in which he's not afraid to criticize the whole national security state. Whether he's ultimately right about the reality of UFO's, he is the best UFOlogist I've ever seen who understands the whole national security state. In that essay you'll find his thoughts on 9/11 and his skepticism of the full story (even the Pentagon plane where I part company with him). Now, all that said, he also mentions in the above paper that during the cold war he went to EAST Germany to study German and hung out with dissidents. So, maybe he's a spook too. I really don't know. But there's sure a lot more material in his book that an independent researcher could verify him or herself. As opposed, to you know who.

by **slimmouse** » Sun May 07, 2006 5:48 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>For those other than slimmouse who simply accept anything that comes along,<hr></blockquote> But of course you always were. Arent you the guy who ultimately calls anyone who support Makow, Tarpley, Icke, amidst others to be some kind of followers of Fascism ? Arent you the guy who dismisses Anti's line of proof about how this game is played as nonsense ? I think if I was truly someone who would accept anything that came along, Id probably be reading your wallpaper a bit more <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)">

by **slimmouse** » Sun May 07, 2006 6:02 pm

Instead of piles of diatribe, and a whole host of "definite maybes", it might be of considerable benefit for you psychologically to form the odd opinion, however 'not Black and White' this whole complex world is. I hope you will forgive me for stating the obvious here. I would have thought that one of the key objectives of prointel is to fuzzy the waters. Fuzzy them so much, by confusing people to the point that they dont know what to believe or disbelieve. I look at your posts and think, in the words or Mozart ....." I heard it , and I instantly thought Salieri" Not that Im accusing you of anything, other than sheer fucking confusion of just about any debate you enter into. Unless of course, its Makow, Icke, or youre recent anti Tarpley crap. In which case, these are apparently some kind of closet fascists. I know, I know, Youre just trying to guard us against traps. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin">

by **Dreams End** » Sun May 07, 2006 6:29 pm

I have backed up everything I've said with the words of the writers themselves. You are fully aware of that. If Icke says it, you'll believe it. Period. Since Icke doesn't ever provide any sources to his assertions, nothing he says would be possible for me to verify even if I wanted to. So, for those other than slimmouse, you can obviously decide for yourself, but if you compare Dolan with Icke, I think you'll see what I'm talking about.

by **slimmouse** » Sun May 07, 2006 6:46 pm

Let us imagine. Ive got Icke for a source, and Ive got you. Ive got Icke who tells me in no uncertain terms how he sees it. Hes interviewed thousands of people, looked deeply into Burkes peerage ( I assume youve heard of it), and hes been to countries that most Americans havent even heard of. And not only that, he says what he thinks. He explains in candid detail how the official version of 9/11 is a pile of bollox, and in short, he tells me who's side he's on. Then Ive got you. A guy who considers Icke, Makow, and Tarpley of all people some kind of closet fascist. You do the maths my friend. "I heard it, and immediately thought, Salieri"

by **Dreams End** » Sun May 07, 2006 8:49 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Ive got Icke who tells me in no uncertain terms how he sees it. Hes interviewed thousands of people, looked deeply into Burkes peerage ( I assume youve heard of it), and hes been to countries that most Americans havent even heard of. And not only that, he says what he thinks. He explains in candid detail how the official version of 9/11 is a pile of bollox, and in short, he tells me who's side he's on.<hr></blockquote> I stand corrected. He's looked into Burke's Peerage AND he thinks 9/11 is a pile of bollox? Well, then, everything he says MUST be true. My apologies. Oh, Liebniz just called. He'd like his logic back. Oh, and while I was on with him, Occam called. He wants his razor back.

by **thoughtographer** » Sun May 07, 2006 8:53 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>What's more, the "Father" of American UFOlogy, J. Allen Hynek, was openly involved in CIA plans to debunk UFO sightings. The official reasoning was that the Soviets might use fear of UFO's to create a panic or in some other way compromise U.S. security.<hr></blockquote> Which is good evidence to support the idea that people like Vallee have put forward; that plans were made to do the same domestically -- friggin' copycats. I tend to see Hynek as a solid researcher who was pulled along for the ride -- a patsy, if you will. I'm open to other views, of course, but I just don't see a tendency for debunking as a negative right off the bat, though the agency backing said debunking is important to consider. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>He contibuted a lot to the field and has an institute named after him, but his involvement in this is a known fact.<hr></blockquote> I wouldn't say it's a "little known" fact, so much as it's not the sort of angle that most sensationalist authors tend to glom onto. Still, after all of these years, I don't know what to make of Hynek. Nice sense of personal style, though. "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."

Hacker fears 'UFO cover-up'

Hacker fears 'UFO cover-up'

Re: Hacker fears 'UFO cover-up'

Re: Hacker fears 'UFO cover-up'

Re: Hacker fears 'UFO cover-up'

Re: Hacker fears 'UFO cover-up'

Re: Hacker fears 'UFO cover-up'

Hmm.. maybe the hang-out !!

Im not really a fan of several things myself either.....

Re: Im not really a fan of several things myself either....

Youre a funny guy.

Oh and Dreams end.

Re: Oh and Dreams end.

Ive got Icke, and Ive got you.

Re: Ive got Icke, and Ive got you.

Re: ...

Who is online