Re: NASA's great conspiracy

On 7/12/25 8:35 PM, Malte Runz wrote:

> And their career will survive after they've been spilling the beans?
> Think, man. They are, as you claim, revealing some of the deepest
> secrets kept hidden for generations. How is that going to protect them
> and their career?

There are different levels of security clearances. If you are not
authorized to, say, read a report, and you come across it laying
in the breakroom table, you are absolutely positively NOT allowed
to go through it, do some reading. You are not, and you agree to
this when you get your security clearance.

Now look at Bob Lazar's story:  He was told to sit & wait in a
room and there before him, resting on the table, were all kinds
of TOP SECRET materials... files... lots & lots of reading
materials. He he went through them all, reading them...

Doesn't it look like "A test" of sorts? They fed him a boatload
of bullshit which, if he follows the rules, will never read, but
if he breaks the rules and reads it then his head is filled with
not just useless but self-marginalizing bullshit.

"Whistle Blowers" go to prison. Anyone telling you about government
secret programs and known aliens is not in prison, or you
wouldn't be hearing them. Thus, they are not a whistle blower.

> You're absolutely right. I'm way too dumb to understand these things.
> Explain, oh wise one, why would the government, who is trying to keep
> all things 'alien' hidden, allow "Pilots and military officials" to
> participate in public hearings, where they spill the beans? Yes,
> explain that one to me.

   ...reviewing & pre approving the testimony of these pilots and
officials.

As I've often said -- here and elsewhere -- imagine a mafia informant
who submitted all his testimony to the mafia in advanced, and only
"Revealed" what they, the mafia, approved... would you consider them
a real "Informer?"

Would seem to me that this "Informer" was actually PROTECTING the
mafia, not exposing it.

> What's there to "research", when no evidence is ever provided?

There are claims that are testable and hence can be treated
seriously... sometimes.

Most things that lend themselves to testing are far too narrow,
too specific to completely "Prove" or "Rule Out" anything.

Like I pointed out:  IF we take the ancient aliens narrative
seriously AND we take the UFO crash folklore seriously as well,
THEN we can test ancient artifacts -- archaeological finds,
museum & private collections -- looking for anomalous materials
of a type consistent with a hyper advanced (even by our present
standards) interstellar craft.

Okay so if we don't find any then they can claim we just haven't
gotten to the alien materials yet, and we need to keep looking.

OR, they can say that the UFO crash mythology is all false but
the UFOs are real, so not finding their materials doesn't
falsify aliens.

OR, Aliens and crashed UFOs are real but they only started
arriving in modern times.

It's in the same position as SETI:  We can "Prove" or at least
"Support" the ancient aliens/UFO crashes stuff with a find,
but we can't disprove them by searching and NOT finding anything.




-- 
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5