Reddit mentions of Above Top Secret: The Worldwide U.F.O. Cover-Up

> I can see that this is one of those internet debates which can continue indefinitely. But I will answer the latest batch of challenges, after that I think I will move on.

I see this more of a conversation than a debate. I can't prove that aliens have come to earth. I'd fucking love to, but I can't with mainly testimony alone. Leaked government documents are so difficult to verify if they're legit or not.

> Your argument is that government would not want existence of alien races to become public knowledge because certain religious people would see it as a problem for their religion and would be upset. Anyone who is going to be upset is already upset by the publication of Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" and Christopher Hitchens' book "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" and by many other best-selling books which have exposed the fallacies of religion in the most clear and logical and inescapable manner possible. But even if it were true that religious people could get even more upset than they are already, why should governments care? It is not the job of government, even remotely, to protect people from the truth and to preserve their delusions. It's pointless.

The religious reason is just one reason the government has an incentive to hide the existence of alien races. The other theory I have seen, but is a far larger stretch but far greater reason for why, is because the governments work with aliens, not exactly something easy to prove either lol.

I don't know exactly why the government doesn't want the public to know. I only really have speculation and guesses about this. It doesn't change the testimony we have from reputable people about aliens, dozens of hours of testimony worth, even if we don't know exactly why govs hide it.

Again, religious people usually do not believe for rational reasons. All the Dawkins and Hitchens in the world does not matter when religion is used for a plethora of emotional reasons, fear of death, giving meaning/purpose, hope to be reunited with loved ones, desire for objective morality, etc.

Then there is the issue of rulers utilizing religion for their benefit. Both sides, republicans and democrats, utilize religion to help garner votes, republicans more so. You honestly think any politician is a good Christian? lol. The vast majority of today's politicians are almost as far from Jesus' preachings as possible, but you'll be sure to see them be public about being devout.

Religion is an excellent opiate for the masses, keeps them nice and docile, keeps them treating each other in the society generally well, and even keeps them submitting to authority by creating similar brain structures needed to do so. Rulers like religion and utilize religion often, and very well.

> Do I think that scientists would admit it if they had derived some kind of information or inspiration from an alien source, in coming up with a scientific advance? Yes, I do. You see, scientists actually believe in truth and are willing to state the truth even if it is shocking, unexpected, or violates existing beliefs. I think Einstein is a great example of how this works. The theory of relativity is incredibly bizarre in comparison to previous scientific concepts. The human race had always believed implicitly that time and space are constants, which cannot change and do not change. Einstein said no, time and space are affected by relative velocity, and by gravitational fields. Time can slow down, and space can bend. Sounds ridiculous. But since experimental results have confirmed those theories, they are therefore accepted as valid. What about alien beings? If we had actual evidence of alien beings, not concocted, fake evidence (which we have in abundance) but real, verifiable evidence, scientists would accept the evidence. Because that's how science works, you accept evidence and you devise theories which are consistent with evidence, you do not insist on theories which conflict with evidence. That is why science has been so successful, and why you and I are able to have a conversation by means of a computer. Scientists care about results, they do not care about preserving some pre-determined view of reality.

I agree with what you're saying generally. True journalists I think are similar to true scientists, wanting to state the truth even if it is shocking, unexpected, or violates existing belief. Yet, journalists are known to be supressed and killed by those in power when the journalist threatens their power. Why would this be different with scientists?

I don't believe a scientist that did have evidence of aliens could make it public without fearing for his life, the same way journalists must seek protection when uncovering things those with power do not want them to.

> You have NO EVIDENCE that during 2 minutes of radio silence, something happened which has been kept from public knowledge, yet you say that it was "awfully convenient" that it happened when it did. Just when Chthulhu stepped out of hiding and shouted "surprise". We know that happened because why else was there 2 minutes of silence? Every person involved in the Apollo program was dedicated to expanding human knowledge, not one of them would have wanted to conceal an important discovery for any reason. That is not how scientists think.

There is some evidence. Look at the Examiner article I linked. There are multiple books, Above Top Secret uses alleged government documents and Our Cosmic Ancestors is written by a retired NASA communications engineer. I have not read either of these, but you make me want to lol. More books to add to the list!

So while every person for Apollo didn't want to conceal an important discovery, most of them did not have a choice in doing so(job security for starters), but some of them did disclose what they saw and wrote about it.

Aldrin interview talking about the UFO he and his crew saw

> Finally, you conclude by saying you trust the two astronauts far more than you trust NASA. Which two astronauts are these? The ones who have admitted on national television that yes, they saw Chthulhu on the moon and they actually have his autograph? Because there are no such astronauts. The astronauts are not promulgating these conspiracy theories. Some pilots have come forward to say that yes, they have seen UFOs, but that is not the same thing - and remember, a UFO is an UNIDENTIFIED Flying Object, meaning an object whose identity is not known. That is not the same thing as an alien spaceship. It could be an alien spaceship, but it could be lots of other things as well; the fact that it is unidentified means we do not know what it is. And the fact that science does not know everything does not mean that science knows nothing. It actually means that scientists are honest enough that they do not make claims about things they do not know. It is an admirable feature of science.

Armstrong and Aldrin are the two astronauts I trust more than NASA.

Pilots have come forth and said a lot more than we've seen a UFO. In what little of the Citizen Hearing of Disclosure I have seen, high ranking military officials have claimed things like...they launched a missile, a ufo appeared, shot the missle with a beam from several sides, and the missle proceeded to fall out of the sky as if deactivated. Sounds fucking insane right? Here's a CNN interview with an American Lieutenant describing this exact thing.

> Based on your persistence in trying to refute my arguments, I would conclude that you have a commitment to conspiracy theories which is too profound to be overcome by anything that I might say to you, so do not expect me to continue these arguments indefinitely. I do hope, however, that I have given you something to think about (and yes, doubtlessly you hope that you have given me something to think about, but sorry, you haven't.)

I find conspiracy theories to be very interesting, and I cannot say I have considered both sides of a story if I have not honestly tried to prove the otherside also. I examine all sides of evidence, and let the evidence take me where it does. I have no commitment, I lose nothing if I'm wrong, and only gain more knowledge and growth when I am.