CIA Science Analyst Ron Pandolfi does "not recall anyone making any statement that the meeting never happened, or that the data should be covered up."
Pandolfi stated, “I don’t recall trying to ‘keep the sighting hushed’ since it was already widely publicized.”
Maccabee "also did not recall anyone at the meeting trying to cover it up."
Everyone affirms that the sighting had already been widely distributed before the meeting in question.
Only Callahan discusses an attempt by the CIA to force the FAA to cover-up any findings or to claim that the meeting never took place. The CIA does not have the authority to make such demands, and given the internal, national-based characteristics of the meeting, it would be illegal for them to make such demands. I doubt that the CIA was even interested in the case, especially when any CIA actions adopted as a result of CIA attendance at such a meeting would be illegal.
Kean has ignored all of the above, and refuses to provide any contact information at all in regard to Callahan in order to request some clarity of the matter. In addition, she has refused point-blank to discuss the matter herself with Callahan in order to explain why multiple witnesses report information so contrary to Callahan's own story, and to the position adopted by Kean in her little UFO book.
Callahan's and Kean's insistence that a cover-up was being managed is also contrary to "the fact that the data was immediately released to Maccabee to do a full public disclosure immediately following the event", a confirmed fact that "blows both Kean and Callahan’s claim of secrecy completely out of the water." These cover-up claims are also contrary to what the FAA has repeatedly made public.
When such efforts are undertaken by someone who is completely aware of the facts and yet ignores them in order to maintain a point-of-view that depends entirely on the confirmatory role of only one man, even when she has the resources to clarify these matters, yet refuses to do so while refusing as well to provide any contact data or updated discussions so others could examine the testimony she refuses to examine herself, the only appropriate conclusion a sane man can make is that she is actively hiding something. This is orderly deceit of a kind that no one who wants to determine the truth would ever willingly adopt.
Look at it this way: if Kean insisted that Bigfoot regularly migrates across her front yard, and makes public these claims in order to prove to the world that Bigfoot is a nomadic species with her front yard establishing the primary migration pattern, and does so even in the presence of multiple video tapes showing her next-door neighbor running across her front yard with double-sized boots created to carry out a hoax, would you consider this behavior to be an honest appraisal? And what if some actual, intrepid journalist had discovered that these tapes might exist, but was unable to track or otherwise contact this neighbor to clarify the little story a bit, but was unable to do so, because Kean outright refused to pass on the man's name or address, and refused as well to ask a few penetrating questions directed at the neighbor for herself, would you consider her actions typical of someone who only wants to discuss the truth?
Kean's deceit has already been proven. The conscious manipulation of data used to elicit a conclusion that cannot be supported by the facts is a lie. If she were a district attorney and had done this in the context of a criminal proceeding, she would not only be in contempt of court, the judge would be forced to declare a mistrial, and she would likely be censured by the legal community who would be forced to consider disbarring her.
Nobody is jumping to conclusions here. Kean is a dishonest hack who refuses to clarify her own assessments, even when doing so would be as simple as making a telephone call, and the fact that she is purposely denying other investigators the means to examine this case for themselves is nothing short of a "cover-up". Unfortunately, she's the only one covering anything up...