The Gossip and the tale of the Fisherman
Children and adults use to play a game in Portugal called what I think, the Tale of the Fisherman. I don't know if it's name is correct also has it's origins. I just want to focus on the play itself, and demonstrate that criativity and interpretation are constants on human's behaviours. That is also applied on a gossip or a information that cannot be confirmed as true or false. It will be necessary a confirmation or a "ping", in terms of comunication. If not, it's inevitable to speculate. To consider factual a speculation is almost similar as creating a urban myth. If the truth is wanted, some steps have to be take.
Now, the game:
The game stars with a word. Someone had randomly chose a word. It's his own secret and he will only pass it to the person that is next to him by whispering. A circled chain of people is part of the game and the one that had choose the word starts the game by silently whispering it to his next person. The process is recreated like a wave pointing to just one direction of the chain of people. They are telling what they've heard to their next fellas. The process ends when the last person of the chain whispers the travelling word to his creator. Now, we will tell everyone what the last person has just told him. We will also clarify everyone what was the primal word - the one he created from the start of the game. Both words are compared - the first and the last. Usually they are not the same.
This game does not allow premiditated changes in the process of telling, and it will work better as more people are involved.
The objective of this game is to have fun by the deturpation of word. At some point some noise or missinterpretation occur in the process.
This is basically the phenomena of the Gossip or the metamorphosis of information if not supported by solid arguments - myths could emerge from this metamorphosis.
To speculate and interpretate is part of Human's essence. It will demonstrate people's questioning, imagination and criativity. That's very healthy and lifts our own bounds.
But to assert as factual what is not supported by reasonable arguments is just not valid as factual, It's dogmatic has it rejects argumentation and questioning is not allowed. Comunication itself is broken. Does not help the pursuit of truth, every kind of truth in my opinion. But it has it's positive aspects if analised by an optimistic point of view. Demonstrates the path that shouldn't be trod and supossedly inspires ufology to follow more strenghtned plausible argumentations of extraterrestrial beings being more close than we know.
Reason and reasonable metodic systems were part of Philosophers legacy, important tools for what science has been contributing to Human's evolution as civilization. For good or bad it's one of our best tools to potencially preserve our existence. Indeed it shouldn't be face as a dogmatic perfect science, neither should be seen as everything. It would be paradoxal by so (plenty of discussion around this subject)as one of Science's directives is not to have asserted (frozen) facts, but facts that gathered the most reasonable arguments until a more plausible argument is shown. Science is a learning method and error is benigne - above all, it's a methodic system. Human's questioning lead to science, but science is also a abstract concept as is assembling together philosofie, human criativity, utopia, humanities, history, religion, maths, chemistry, politics, physics, etc, etc, etc... It's like the refined produt of human's future condition and wills.
Secrecy and what information is really, or what it could or may be, is a push arm game. Governments have the special tools and gather the optimal conditions to build a fortress around knowledge, therefore they have the best tools to create secrecy.
Democracy is a process of conquering, a constant battle to balance social classes as equitative share of information and rights. It's far from being just and optimal as world is suffering from economical industrial primary preferences, global warming and enviroment is becoming a turmoil and enterprises are schizofrenic as profit is still on the higher chain of events, making legitime the skepticism ans suspicion of the empowered ones. This could also be applied to the possibility of hiden extraterrestrial evidence, and conspirative theories aren't just that conspirative. They are the legacy of previous wars, paranoid governments that contaminated people's opinion by nations that fought weaponry and strategical economical advantages.
Sweden's Freedom of the Press Act of 1766 is the predecessor of Freedom of information Act in USA and is one of the most important conquests to make visible hiden and evaded information. It's a precise way to make thinner the gap information between government and people. It has been used as a powerfull tool for defensible argumentations, to demascarade oficial allegations, and to keep alive the flame of possibility, until there's not other way than to show the truth.
It would be paradigmatic - some say - if the genuine truth was put on the table. Religion would be shaked so radically that would be broken, our position in the universe would be so incredibly diminuished that only void would penetrate human condition. Our existence would sound so incredibly meaningless that mankind would not have the strenght to resist that condition. I think the fictioned historical novel by Umberto Eco - The Name of the Rose - illustrates brilliantly this paradigm - some knowledge is kept secret and some ghosts are created , alleging the reason for it's secrecy.
Some have acess to a more accurate version of truth, usually governments or higher economical elites or enterprises - what makes them as humans more prepared to face that astonishing paradigm? Shouldn't be the governments the spokesman of people? People will follow their told ideas, bad or good. People just need leaders and a better example. Everything's possible.
Could it be, following that notion of paradigmatic trauma, that the reasons why, if extraterrestrial are more close than we imagine, extraterrestrials haven't yet established contact with us, is just because we simply cannot face our primitive condition besides an evoluted condition, as if in instants a bonobo would had notion of his condition compared to our condition?
Like contemporary philosofical strings of biology say that one should not interfere with a biological system to make precise it's study?
Could we face the notion of our own species as a doomed failed attempt of inteligent evolution among billions of attempts lost in time, even wihout being registed in history? Could that be surprisingly shocking or surprisingly common?
Speculating, I can't prove or disprove it. I question why didn't any obvious sign reached us as an alien attempt of comunication. Are they camuflated? Or too much far way, or time is just too young for that happening? Could a massive universal extinction had blocked the possibility of an universal civilization gather enough technology that would allow comunication thrue space? Or the time travelling of that comunication is so immense that haven't reach us yet? Are we able to receive that comunication? Radio waves should be universal, or are they just universal on our perspective of our own sense of common? A boom of speculation is generated from a question without precise answers.
One fact is present:
Humankind has to change his own behaviour for and to themselves and the sorrounding exterior otherwize Humans or if whatever they will be in future, would never know those answers, because it would already been extinct by their own acts, specially if they had the knowledge to prevent or fix it.
Perhaps, or probably and eventually if things keep walking the same path of history errors, the usual elites thata have powers would be the next generations that like a virus perpetuate the IT so destoant from Humankind's utopic idea of themselves. There are entire cities bellow earth, vaults, prepared for a nuclear war - I think I wouldn't be allowed to have acess to it, me and billions.
Or, like every Homo that stood on earth, erased from history, is just and analogy for the ones that don't stand the trial of evolution? Will sacrifice be a constant on our own potential process of maturity and evolution? Is it not the only way of nature and by inherency, ourselves?
I would like to think that men will be able to impose his emancipation, not to himself, but to the point that he wouldn't be subordinated by the brutal laws of the universe. I would like also that somewhere there's some good in it's full sense, but these are just speculations and desires created by myself.
I think revolutions are possible. They were since times part of our History's evolutionary bursts, and nothing is certain. I think we gather the tools to mold our actions, we have at least that potential, we spare a lot of that potential also.