Effectiveness of "vague" language in official reports to avoid lying.

[Calter]

A common argument I've seen people make is the government not using certain terms to avoid lying. An example of this is the UFO report saying "extraterrestrials" which some UFOlogist use to latch on to the idea that NHI are from this planet and/or from another dimension, so the government hasn't technically lied and isn't liable.

In the hypothetical case that it does all blow up and turns out that the government knew UFOs were actually some hyper advanced technology but just weren't "extraterrestrial", how valid would that wordplay be in actually defending themselves against any legal repercussions? Is there any precedence for some secret conspiracy that turned out to be true and the conspirators were safe because they weren't technically lying at any point?

Personally, I feel if any judge were to hear "we said there were not aliens but we never said there wasn't an ancient super advanced submarine base 3D printing drones in the middle of the Bermuda Triangle", then that judge would just laugh at them and just say they are guilty of whatever they were charged with. But I'm also not an expert on the law (let alone American laws).

 

[JMartJr]

I am having trouble wrapping my head around conspiracy theorists, of all people, believing that the/a government would be hesitant to lie and needs to cleverly parse words to avoid it.

 

[Ann K]

In the hypothetical case that it does all blow up and turns out that the government knew UFOs were actually some hyper advanced technology but just weren't "extraterrestrial", how valid would that wordplay be in actually defending themselves against any legal repercussions? Is there any precedence for some secret conspiracy that turned out to be true and the conspirators were safe because they weren't technically lying at any point?

You lost me at "defending themselves against any legal repercussions". The government does not have the legal responsibility to tell the general public anything, although there are entities within the government with whom they share information. I think the word "extraterrestrial" is just their way of saying (truthfully) "Yes, there are flying objects, and yes, some are unidentified, but there is nothing there to interest you alien-hunters", with an unspoken "...so stop bothering us and go away and find your own aliens because we haven't got them."

 

[MapperGuy]

In your hypothetical case the "lie" is not really being told by any specific individual, it is being done by an Organization. As in many people had input into the false statement, some of whom may not have known that the statement was in fact false.

Sovereign immunity would kill changes against a Federal Government organization.

I suspect there is very, very little chance of anyone ever being prosecuted in a situation like that.

 

[Calter]

The government does not have the legal responsibility to tell the general public anything, although there are entities within the government with whom they share information.

I assume that if the AARO report (or any government report) were literally all just made up lies and they give that to congress or whoever while saying it's true, then somebody would get in trouble for saying those lies. Otherwise, what's the point of making those reports if people can just lie to fit their narrative without even risking anything if they are discovered.

I agree that "extraterrestrial" is just a term to refer to "whatever alien stuff people are talking about".

But if tomorrow it comes out that actually part of the alien stuff people were talking about was true and the government knew, they just weren't extraterrestrials, would saying "well, we never said it wasn't that other stuff, we just said it wasn't extraterrestrials" actually work in any loophole fashion?

I know the general argument of an Ufologist that thinks this is filled with holes, I'm just curious if even if we ignore all the holes around the argument, the idea that it would actually work as a defense is also flawed.

As a comical example, if Kirkpatrick swore under oath that he knows of literally no programs that have extraterrestrials and then Grusch screamed "Objection!" like in Ace Attorney and showed Biden himself a picture of Kirkpatrick having a drink with 3 Greys, would saying "actually, those 3 Greys are from the underwater base in the pacific, so it's true that the program has no extraterrestrials since they are from Earth" actually work as a defense like Ufologists like to claim?

 

[deirdre]

The government does not have the legal responsibility to tell the general public anything,

Congress requested the report for themselves.
It's perjury to lie to Congress.

assuming of course he is referring to AARO's recent historical report
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/aaros-historical-uap-report-volume-1.13375/

Article:

Title 18 USC § 1001, often simply referred to as false and misleading statements, makes it a felony to knowingly and willfully:

Falsify or conceal a material fact in any entry or document; or
Make oral statements to government officials which are materially false and misleading,
To an official of the federal government in an investigation or official proceeding.

Source: https://www.iannfriedman.com/blog/2019/april/federal-charges-for-false-misleading-statements/

 

[Ann K]

Congress requested the report for themselves.
It's perjury to lie to Congress.

Congress isn't "the general public".

 

[deirdre]

Congress isn't "the general public".

i know. that's why i said the example given in the OP was referring to congress, not the general public.

 

[Mendel]

First of all, "NHI" is the vague term, encompassing everything from Dolphins to unmanned probes and angels.

Second, AARO has used unambiguos language.

Acting Director Tim Phillips: "And we found no actual UFO materials in any allegation or incident that was reported to us that we — or that was given to us by Congress." This is true no matter who you claim sent them. (See https://www.metabunk.org/threads/aa...l-1-press-conference-with-tim-phillips.13381/ )

AARO report, summary:

None of the programs mentioned by interviewees are UAP reverse-engineering programs, and all the authentic programs have been properly notified and reported toCongress through the congressional defense and/or intelligence committees.
AARO has no evidence for the USG reverse-engineering narrative provided by interviewees and has been able to disprove the majority of the interviewees’ claims. Some claims are still under evaluation.

Content from External Source

Again, "UAP reverse-engineering" does not indicate the source of the UAP.

There are no non-human spacecraft launched from this planet.
Another dimension would literally be another world, so AARO's "off-world" (used interchangeably with extra-terrestrial), would include that.

 

[Gary C]

A related problem is the requirement to protect classified defense and intelligence gathering technology and operations. Once all of the sensitive national security references have been removed from one's report, you are left with limited options in constructing proper English sentences. It's one of the factors that contributes to migraine inducing dullness of most Pentagon documents.

 

[jdog]

I am having trouble wrapping my head around conspiracy theorists, of all people, believing that the/a government would be hesitant to lie and needs to cleverly parse words to avoid it.

Yes, we're often asked to believe that there is an international conspiracy to withhold limitless energy and technology from the general public, but that the people in control of these phenomenal resources and with billions (or trillions) of dollars available to fund their plans can't get a cover-up report published without typos and contradictions, but care about the legal consequences of poorly phrased statements.

 

[MonkeeSage]

But if tomorrow it comes out that actually part of the alien stuff people were talking about was true and the government knew, they just weren't extraterrestrials, would saying "well, we never said it wasn't that other stuff, we just said it wasn't extraterrestrials" actually work in any loophole fashion?

The Clinton "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" kind of worked in some degree, I guess?

Article:

In his deposition for the Jones lawsuit, Clinton denied having sexual relations with Lewinsky. Based on the evidence—a blue dress with Clinton's semen that Lewinsky provided—Starr concluded that the president's sworn testimony was false and perjurious.

During the deposition, Clinton was asked "Have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1?" The judge ordered that Clinton be given an opportunity to review the agreed definition. Afterwards, based on the definition created by the Independent Counsel's Office, Clinton answered, "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky." Clinton later said, "I thought the definition included any activity by [me], where [I ] was the actor and came in contact with those parts of the bodies" which had been explicitly listed (and "with an intent to gratify or arouse the sexual desire of any person"). In other words, Clinton denied that he had ever contacted Lewinsky's "genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks", and effectively claimed that the agreed-upon definition of "sexual relations" included giving oral sex but excluded receiving oral sex.[40]

Two months after the Senate failed to convict him, President Clinton was held in civil contempt of court by Judge Susan Webber Wright for giving misleading testimony regarding his sexual relationship with Lewinsky, and was also fined $90,000 by Wright.[3][4] Clinton declined to appeal the civil contempt of court ruling, citing financial problems,[3] but still maintained that his testimony complied with Wright's earlier definition of sexual relations.[3] In 2001, his license to practice law was suspended in Arkansas for five years and later by the United States Supreme Court.[5]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton%E2%80%93Lewinsky_scandal#Perjury_charges

I have no idea if that could apply to the AARO report or Kirkpatrick though. But I kind of don't think it's even a question with the AARO report because regardless of the use of "extraterrestrial" and "off-world" and "UFO", the second part of the conclusion of the report seems unambiguous and would just have to an outright lie if it were untrue (bold in original):

Article:

SECTION IX: Conclusion
To date, AARO has not discovered any empirical evidence that any sighting of a UAP represented off-world technology or the existence a classified program that had not been properly reported to Congress. Investigative efforts determined that most sightings were the result of misidentification of ordinary objects and phenomena. Although many UAP reports remain unsolved, AARO assesses that if additional, quality data were available, most of these cases also could be identified and resolved as ordinary objects or phenomena.

Source: https://www.aaro.mil/Portals/136/PDFs/AARO_Historical_Record_Report_Vol_1_2024.pdf

"To date, AARO has not discovered any empirical evidence [...for] the existence a classified program that had not been properly reported to Congress" I don't think there's any getting around that.