Who's the Most UFO-Friendly Presidential Candidate?

Illustration: Sam Woolley

Today while the political world is fixated on a salacious tabloid story about Ted Cruz, eccentric news site operator Matt Drudge is concerned about aliens. He’s not the only one.

“They can bullshit me all they want but I’m not going to play the government’s game,” Stephen Bassett, Capitol Hill’s only registered extraterrestrial lobbyist, tells me. “This isn’t about ‘UFOs.’ The government uses that acronym in order to prevent disclosure,” he says. “‘Extraterrestrial craft’ is the proper term.”

Bassett is, as you might imagine, passionate on the subject—perhaps too much so. He told me that the acronym “UFO” itself is a slur used to “ghettoize” those who seek the truth, and compared it to racial slurs—specific ones, in fact, which he was not shy about using. Considering how many of his fellow truth-seekers use the term, it’s hard to avoid entirely.

“Since November, more political coverage has taken place on this subject than it has in 60 something years,” Bassett says. Since 1996, he has been waging war for the public’s right to know what information the government has about aliens and he thinks the time is nigh. “There is a very good chance that the truth embargo will collapse later this year, Hillary Clinton will be the one to push it and President Obama will have to address the issue!”

In case it doesn’t happen until the next president takes office, who among our top presidential candidates is the most UFO-friendly? Are there any extraterrestrial experts willing to rank them on a scale of 1-10?

“This will be easy,” writes certified UFO investigator—and 2014 TripAdvisor Certificate of Excellence winner for his Roswell UFO Tours—Dennis Balthaser, in an email to Gawker. “Every President since Truman, when the Roswell Incident happened in 1947, has tried to open the UFO Files and none have been able to. Don’t expect any of the current candidates to do it either. The President is a temporary employee (8 years max), they don’t have the security clearance or need to know. To answer your question on a scale of 1-10, I’d say 1.”

Everyone starts at 1.

Donald Trump

What the candidate said: Trump has remained (suspiciously) silent about aliens from outer space, but he’s the only candidate that was reportedly followed by an unidentified flying object in his own private jet. Sharp-eyed truth seekers have claimed to have seen his effigy in photos taken by the Mars rover. How do you explain THIS?! There is something going on with him that we don’t know about. We don’t know. We’re just saying.

Record on government transparency: Trump has never held office and has generally talked more about his dong than policy specifics. As a figurehead of the “birther” movement, he demanded the public be given President Obama’s birth certificate. The birth certificate was provided; Trump wasn’t satisfied; he doesn’t talk about it anymore.

Extraterrestrial disclosure friendliness: Based on his silence on the issue and his record of ‘seeking the truth’ then subsequently abandoning it, the Donald gets the lowest score.

1/10

Bernie Sanders

Photo: Getty

What the candidate said: “I am not aware of Sanders or any of the Republican candidates even mentioning UFOs, much less having any serious intention of getting to the bottom of the mystery,” says UFOlogist Dr. Thomas E. Bullard says via email. There is one mention of Bernie Sanders commenting on the aliens, via Conway Daily Sun’s Daymond Steer. Steer is quoted by Grant Cameron (full-time researcher of “the UFO mystery”) on his blog:

“After admitting that he is in fact, the same person as ‘Seinfeld” creator Larry David (who played him on ‘Saturday Night Live’) Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders was asked if he believed that extraterrestrials may have visited the Earth, Sanders said, ‘I have met many. I see them in Washington all the time.’”

Steer broke Hillary Clinton’s position on aliens last year, but, suspiciously, this account of talking to Bernie Sanders doesn’t appear anywhere outside of Cameron’s blog. We asked him. In an email, Steer confirmed that this actually happened. He also says he didn’t realize he was on record when he was relating the Bernie encounter to Cameron over Facebook.

Record on government transparency: GovTrack.us ranks Sanders among the top 50% of Senate Committee Chairs for sponsoring or co-sponsoring 3 of the 19 bills relating to increased government transparency that came up in the senate during the latest session. In 2015, he re-introduced the Federal Reserve Transparency Act. He’s the only top candidate who opposed the Patriot Act in 2001 and believes that Edward Snowden “played a very important role in educating the American people to the degree in which our civil liberties and our constitutional rights are being undermined.”

Extraterrestrial disclosure friendliness: Bernie is sick and tired of hearing about your damn flying saucers. What do little green men have to do with the skyrocketing level of income and wealth inequality that’s not only grotesque and immoral, but economically unsustainable? Sanders will probably not be giving this issue any time unless aliens are funneling all corporate profits to the top 1%. He gets an extra point for his record on government transparency.

2/10

Ted Cruz

Photo: Getty

What the candidate said: According to Steer’s now verified account, Cruz “was surprised at Hillary’s involvement with the UFO story while First Lady” and “stated he might check into Area 51 if elected President.”

Record on government transparency: At GovTrack.us, Cruz is tied for the lowest score on government transparency among Senate sophomores by sponsoring none of 19 recent bills relating to government transparency.

Extraterrestrial disclosure friendliness: Cruz is the kind of guy who could have first-hand experience with aliens and not give a shit unless there was some way to use it against one of his rivals. So if there’s an opportunity to drag Hillary into an investigation over it then yeah, he’ll move mountains to tell people what’s up at Area 51. We can’t say for sure that there are any liberals who would be harmed by those disclosures, we’ll split it at 5/10 and doc one point because Cruz hasn’t shown any interest in government transparency in the past. But he’s so unbelievably hated across all party lines that truth seekers should probably ask themselves whether they even want to hear the news if it’s coming from him.

4/10

John Kasich

Photo: Getty

What the candidate has said: According to Steer’s account, Kasich “does not believe.” But Kasich threw in a caveat, saying, “My brother-in-law says if I become president, his No. 1 thing is for me to open all books on Area 51.” On the phone, Kasich’s press secretary Joe Andrews could neither confirm or deny the existence of this brother-in-law and said he’d get back to us. We’ll update the post if he does.

Record on government transparency: As Governor of Ohio, Kasich has come under fire for his administration’s lack of transparency and weakening of transparency laws. He called Edward Snowden a “traitor” and he believes that programs instituted under the Patriot Act should continue. Minus 1 point.

Extraterrestrial disclosure friendliness: Like all things Kasich, his position is somewhere in the middle and is decidedly uninspiring.

4/10

Hillary Clinton

Photo: Getty

What the candidate has said: “I’m going to get to the bottom of it,” Clinton told Steer in the now infamous comment to Conway Daily Sun at the end of 2015. “I think we may have been (visited already). We don’t know for sure.” Clinton says that her campaign chairman John Podesta has made her “personally pledge we are going to get the information out… One way or another. Maybe we could have, like, a task force to go to Area 51.”

CNN characterized her remarks as a joke, but extraterrestrial lobbyist Stephen Bassett tells me he’s certain she was sincere. He says that all politicians have to lie to get elected but in this case, “It’s an extremely risky statement and it could only cause her trouble.” Furthermore, Podesta is a known disclosure enthusiast. And X-Files fan.

And then, on Jimmy Kimmel last night, to Drudge’s delight, Clinton said: “I would like us to go into those files and hopefully make as much of that public as possible. If there’s nothing there, let’s tell people there’s nothing there.” And if there is something there? “Well, if there is something there, unless it’s a threat to national security, I think we ought to share it with the public.” She even specified that. “It’s ‘unexplained aerial phenomenon.’ U.A.P. that’s the latest nomenclature.”

Record on government transparency: Hahahaha. In addition to using a private server for her government emails, Clinton also voted to authorize the Patriot Act in 2001 and re-authorize it in 2006 and she has condemned Edward Snowden as a criminal who should be prosecuted. The list goes on.

Extraterrestrial disclosure friendliness: “Of all the candidates I would consider Clinton the most ‘UFO friendly,’” confirms UFOlogist Dr. Thomas E. Bullard says via email. “The others seem pretty much blanks… She has shown some interest in the subject and has discussed it with Rockefeller” (Clinton met with Laurance S. Rockefeller about the Rockefeller UFO Initiative in 1995) “and Podesta. So, at least, it is not nonsense or—dare I say—‘alien’ to her.” But he’s not too excited about it: “Air Force, CIA, and NSA files have been released in considerable numbers over the past several decades, but the answers are never the ones UFOlogists want. Of course, [the UFOlogists] would not be satisfied until the government coughed up the Roswell wreckage and alien bodies.” That might be difficult. UFO researcher/Roswell tour guide Dennis Balthaser says, “Hillary will not get into Area 51 either. I’ve been there and the security is like none other on the planet.”

Clinton is the clear frontrunner here. Even extraterrestrial lobbyist Stephen Bassett says tells us every other candidate is “irrelevant, won’t touch it or is ignorant” on the issue. But her record on government transparency raises some questions. We’re going to knock off two points, one for each of her email accounts. And despite her recent “unless it’s a threat to national security” caveat, she’s still on top.

8/10

Andrew D. Basiago and Ed Baker

What the candidates have said: Basiago wants to see government transparency on “UFOs,” atomic weapons, the Moon landing and protection of the Sasquatch as an endangered species. Among the 100 proposals that Basiago lists on his website, he also wants all living presidents to admit that they were told about their impending presidencies beforehand. He believes that the government has had time travel capabilities for years and future presidents are always informed that they will be elected, a belief that does not bode well for Basiago’s prospects in November.

Baker may appeal to a more conservative voter. Along with “full disclosure of UFOs,” his platform/goals include “support of the Confederate Flag,” “deport illegal aliens,” “punish the bad guys.” Although he does list one of his goals as just “taxes,” without any further explanation, so that one could go either way.

Record on government transparency: While neither candidate has held elected office, Baker does have a record of sorts. His official site features a breakdown of his criminal history and how he has overcome it.

Extraterrestrial disclosure friendliness:

10/10

{ http://gawker.com/ }

What would it take to put an astronaut on Mars?

A joint European and Russian space mission - the ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO) - has left for Mars to study methane and other rare gases in the Red Planet's atmosphere, and drop a lander on its surface.

The TGO is expected to take seven months to travel the 500 million km (310 million miles) to Mars, and then almost another year to manoeuvre itself into position, meaning the satellite's observations will not properly start until late 2017.

What does this mean for plans to put an astronaut on Mars?

In 2010 President Obama tasked the US space Agency Nasa with the goal of putting an astronaut in Martian orbit, and later on to the planet itself.

But the challenges - technical, political and financial - are enormous. A recentreport from the US Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel raised safety concerns about the proposed transportation spacecraft and criticised Nasa for a lack of detail in its overall Mars plans.

Four experts - including two senior figures from Nasa - talk to the BBC Inquiry programme about what it would take to put a man on Mars.

Bill Hill: Getting there

Bill Hill is deputy associate administrator of the Exploration Systems Development division at Nasa. He oversees the Orion spacecraft and the Space Launch System.

"Keeping the weight down of the vehicle, the spacecraft, that's our key focus. The bigger you make the rocket, the more mass you have to lift off the surface of the Earth.

"Say you want to go for 500 days - you're going to have to take food, water for the crew to consume and use for hygiene, all the air, so it just multiplies the amount of weight that you have to lift off the Earth's surface.

"That's where the Space Launch System - the heavy lift launch vehicle - will come in. Where the Saturn V basically took up an Apollo capsule and a lander for going to the lunar surface, we're looking at 130 metric tonne lift capability that can put somewhere between 40 to 50 metric tonnes out past the low Earth orbit. It's a capability that, frankly, nobody else has today.

NASA's Orion spacecraft launches an unmanned test flight

Image copyrightGetty Images

Image captionOrion successfully completed its maiden, unmanned voyage in December 2014

"The crew spacecraft Orion can actually be used for up to about 1,000 days, and that's how we're designing the systems inside - the environmental control systems and life support systems to support a crew of four initially for up to 1,000 days. It'll have basic benches, crew interfaces, flat screen monitors, a toilet and some hygiene capability. It's basically for transportation, not necessarily to live in for the full duration to go to Mars and back.

"We would use a module, a habitat portion, for where the crew would live and work on a daily basis, [with] a much larger volume. That is going to need areas to store food, tanks to store oxygen and water. Our goal is to have some sort of closed loop system for life support where we will pull water out of the air, regenerate carbon dioxide into oxygen, and do similar things like we're doing on the space station today where we have a urine processor and reclaim the water for drinking.

"We'll probably not use it to enter the Martian atmosphere because then we'd have to figure out a way to connect it to something to lift it off the surface and bring it back. But we need the heavy lift launch vehicle and the crew spacecraft; using those two fundamental cornerstones as our initial capabilities to actually go out and explore."

Samantha Cristoforetti: Learning to survive in space

Astronaut Samantha Cristoforetti has spent longer in space on a single mission than any other woman, returning to Earth last June after 200 days. Her experience - and that of Scott Kelly who has just returned after 340 days in space - is vital to understanding the potential impact of a lengthy voyage to Mars.

"You lose muscle, because you're not using your muscles that much. But you also lose bone mass, because bone is actually a living tissue. All the time we have bone cells that die, and are replaced by new, fresh bone cells. In a healthy person, that is in balance, so that you always keep your overall bone mass.

"But what happens in space is because you don't have that mechanical load on the bones, you destroy a lot more bone cells than you've actually built.

**Image captionAstronaut Samantha Cristoforetti's extended stay on the International Space Station provides useful data on the effects of orbit**

What would it take to put a man on Mars?

"We try to induce some load on our muscles and bones by working out for about two hours every day. Believe it or not, we can do weightlifting in weightlessness. We have a really cool machine which is based on vacuum cylinders, and it allows you to do things like squats, dead lifts and bench presses.

"As soon as you get to space, fluids shift from the lower parts of your body towards the upper parts. Visually you can sometimes see it on astronauts, because they have what we call a puffy face and skinny legs, and that's really due to this fluid redistribution, because there is no gravity pulling the fluids towards the leg like it is on the ground when you're standing.

"We don't know everything quite yet. Quite a number of astronauts actually lose a little bit of eyesight when they are in space for a long time, and that might be related to an increased pressure in the head due to that bodily shift.

"In the Space Station we're still in an area close to Earth, which is protected from damaging radiation coming from outer space. Once you leave that protected environment, then you are much more exposed to dangerous radiations. So we will definitely have to come up with a good, solid plan on how to protect our crew on the way to the Moon or on the way to Mars.

"We are not really very isolated on the Space Station - we're in continuous contact with the ground. You can basically communicate in real time. We get the news. We even get to have video conferences with our families, which is all wonderful, but only a fraction of that I think would be possible if you went on a journey to Mars."

Jason Crusan: Working in deep space

Jason Crusan is the director of the Advanced Exploration Systems division at Nasa.

"What would they breathe? We would actually bring oxygen with us. Mars atmosphere has a lot of CO2 in its atmosphere so we can remove the oxygen out of it to create breathable air. Initially we'll bring a lot of the gases with us that we need to do that but over time we'll actually bring machinery with us to actually separate out from the atmosphere breathable oxygen.

Mars satellite hints at liquid water - BBC News

Nasa scientists believe that dark stripes on Mars are caused by trickling water. Data from one of the US space agency's satellites shows the features, which appear on slopes, to be associated with salt deposits. Such salts could alter the freezing and vaporisation points of water, keeping it in a fluid state long enough to move.

https://youtu.be/656H8qgVwjs

Jason Crusan - Pioneering Space: Not Your Great-Great-Grandparent's Manifest Destiny

https://youtu.be/l2p3SBIvp18

"When we first started, we didn't believe there was any water on Mars. It's a bit of a joke now because we've discovered there's a significant amount of water on the planet, and we would look at the ability to capture water from the surface of Mars and process it and use it, much like you would here.

"Food is a challenging area. We obviously fly all of our food into space today, we don't grow anything on orbit besides experiments. Food has a shelf life; bringing our own food reduces its nutritional value and we're talking about missions that are maybe a year to three years in duration. So we are looking at how we grow not our primary food sources, but food to augment the food that we bring with us.

"Near the Equator you would see temperatures that are kind of similar to a spring day here on Earth, but then you'd have night temperatures that would actually be quite extreme, going to minus 100F. The temperatures are extremely challenging, and so you always have to live within a spacesuit or some kind of rover or habitat while you're there.

"One of the best radiation shields is water, so that will be stored in key areas in order to provide shielding within the structures themselves. [We would] eventually have radiation sensors in orbit, monitoring for radiation events so that we can give a warning to the crew before a significant event so they can go into a sheltered area.

"The large dust storms that you see in [films] would not have the effect that you see in Hollywood, because the atmosphere is relatively thin. Even what would look like a hurricane force doesn't have the force to do significant damage to your habitat, but there'll be challenges if you're outside in it because your ability to see from all the dust will be impaired.

"I think logistics will be the biggest challenge. If something breaks, you're a long way from home to get a spare. Our entire experience in space to date has been an orbit around Earth or to the Moon, relatively close distances. In the space station today if something breaks you can send a replacement part.

"When we go to Mars, we have to take everything that you'd ever expect to break, and even those things we wouldn't expect to break."

Dr Jill Stuart: Political will

Dr Jill Stuart is editor-in-chief of the Elsevier Journal of Space Policy.

"There's the question of who has the money to do this, where will it come from, and what will their incentives be?

"I like the narrative of [the Moon landings] being about science and the frontier of human kind, but in reality, I would argue politics was very much behind it. It's very expensive, so in order to go into outer space, to have a manned space programme, you need to have political clout, the backing of your population.

"During the Cold War, the Soviet Union and the United States were competing with each other in the space race, and outer space was a proxy arena for them to compete in a way that didn't actually require military conflict.

"I don't think the space race analogy would apply so clearly now - it's a different environment.

President Obama launching his vision for Nasa at Cape Canaveral, Florida, on April 15, 2010

Image copyrightGetty Images

Image captionPresident Obama challenged Nasa to send humans to Mars by the mid-2030s back in 2010

What would it take to put a man on Mars?

"The US space programme is subject to political administrations; Americans like the idea of space exploration but there's not an obvious constituency for it in terms of voting, so it tends to get tacked on later on in an individual president's term, so it's difficult to say whether or not these plans for Mars will outlast multiple administrations.

"But if it does then I think that they are the most likely to have the next manned mission, and would probably involve junior partners who are political allies in order to shore up those alliances, and also to have the financial support.

"They would probably also partner with commercial entities such as Space-X or Blue Origin - new companies that are government-backed but private - and are providing a lot of the space infrastructure to get there.

"There are discussions amongst politicians and scientists and the commercial industry so I think it's definitely the next big prize. I do think it will happen, but I think the timeline will probably be longer than is being talked about right now. I'm going to say 2045."

The Inquiry is broadcast on the BBC World Service on Tuesdays from 12:05 GMT. Listen online or download the podcast.