So -- Gary McKinnon

[xiphias]

The BBC rebroadcast a piece of an interview they did with him last year.

The background of his story: he hacked into NASA and Pentagon computers in order to find out if they were hiding information about UFOs, aliens, and antigravity drives. This was remarkably easy for him to do, because many of the computers were Windows machines with blank Administrator passwords.

Frankly, I've got to ask -- if you're running Windows, and you don't actually set an Administrator password, and someone accesses your files, can you REALLY claim that they're hacking? I mean, c'mon -- if you walk through an unlocked door, you may be trespassing, but you're not breaking and entering.

Anyway. . .

So, McKinnon claims that
1. A NASA scientist said in an internal thingy that he found that they airbrush out the alien vehicles from pictures from Building 8 so that people don't see them.

2. He found the non-retouched pictures from Building 8, and there was an alien spacecraft in it.

3. He found Excel spreadsheets that were about personell transfers from one ship to another -- and several of the ship names show up nowhere else, and one of the personell spreadsheets was titled "Non-Terrestrial Officers."

So, I've been thinking about possible explanations for this.
Explanation #1: He's lying. I mean, that's always one that you've got to suspect. He broke into the computers, 'cause, well, if he didn't, why would the Pentagon be upset, but is just making up what he found.

Explanation #2: The things he saw in the photos weren't alien spacecraft, but rather, weird-looking scaffolding or something like that -- and the Excel spreadsheets were for a roleplaying game one of the NASA scientists was running, doing personal hobby stuff on a work machine.

Explanation #3: NASA and the Pentagon are covering up the existence of, not only alien spacecraft, but an entire spaceborne branch of the military.

Personally, I like #2 the best. Any other thoughts?

Comments

[mattblum.livejournal.com]

Having read some of the transcripts of interviews with McKinnon, I'm reasonably sure he's lying. Check this one out, in particular. He states:

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.

I believe that he didn't have a graphic file he could just save to his disk. But he doesn't explain why he couldn't have made a screen capture. Windows comes with screen capture capability built in, and has for years. He could also have taken a photograph of the screen (which wouldn't have come out that well, but it would be better than nothing).

He then says he was cut off while trying to download a frame of an image. He says he "saw the guy's hand move across." This is impossible without some kind of camera setup.

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

i haven't read much at all about this yet, but not knowing how to work one's software, and interpreting vague shadows in a manner that would give rorschach a wet dream doesn't translate to lying in my book. i make the same strong distinction between lying and craziness as burgundy above. (though not all craziness is 100% full-on, which explains why somebody like GWB can be deluded and a liar.)

i vote for #4 (mckinnon is a kook), but i like redbird's version best. :)

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I heard that he saw the guy move the mouse. He was remote logged in, with the remote desktop as a window on his desktop, and he saw the mouse pointer move when he wasn't moving it, which told him he was screwed.