Home > Mainstream Science Cult, Skepticemia, Skepticism, skeptics > ‘Government Really Not Good at Keeping Secrets’ and Other Logical Fallacies of Skeptics

‘Government Really Not Good at Keeping Secrets’ and Other Logical Fallacies of Skeptics

For the second time this week I’ve heard the logical fallacy that the (US) government has no secrets because it’s not good at keeping secrets. If that isn’t circular reasoning than what is? I just heard it repeated again on Coast to Coast AM by Ronald L. Mallett. The show edition is described by the Coast site as,

Time Travel
Date: 08-15-11
Host: George Noory
Guests: Ronald L. Mallett, Lauren Weinstein

Physics Professor Ronald Mallett will discuss his breakthrough research on time travel, as well as share an update on the latest in theoretical physics.

Ronald was responding to a caller who asked if the government was hiding a secret program on time travel. Ronald then immediately contradicted himself by saying, “Whatever the human mind can think of, it can and will achieve.” In other words: “IF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT CONCEIVES OF A WAY TO KEEP SECRETS THEN IT WILL SUCCESSFULLY DO SO.” So, once again, a non-Christian, a Mainstreamer Cultist severely contradicts himself in a breath without even realizing it, and if he did realize it, he should have corrected himself, but failed and allowed others to be deceived. Some might ask, “What does that matter?” It matters because it helps people to be gullible and naive that they can believe whatever the government says, which is utter nonsense. The statement that the government is bad at keeping secrets is also nonsensical in that it contradicts itself, because it’s implying to opposite things: that the government can’t do anything in secret, and the opposite: when it does do something in secret it’s exposed right away. That is what people mean but are vague. Vague as in, how long can’t the government keep a secret? Ronald made it clear, “really bad” at it, so, not long. But what is the evidence that the government can’t do so? That’s also a logical fallacy because it’s the same as saying, “I know that the government can’t keep a secret for long because because it can only do so for a short time because it’s bad at keeping secrets” but saying so without evidence. Ronald is claiming he knows all the secrets and therefore knows all the secret departments of the military, all military secrets, that none have been kept for long, like a year? (vague), everything said in secret by every individual apart of the government, including the FBI, CIA and NSA, and that even when they classify something as above top secret and make UFOs more secret than the atomic bomb (which the military stated it did do), that he would know soon. So then, China and every other country with spies in America must know all the secrets of our government, because it has none, or accidentally reveals it soon after. So can Ronald tell us what the secret craft are that the military has? Can he tell us what happened at Area 51 for the past 40 years? Can he tell us what crashed at Roswell?: Which story out of three conflicting ones that the military gave is correct? What are the names of the many Area 51 workers that are flown and bussed in to Area 51? What are the launch codes for all the nuclear missiles of the USA and what are the names of the ones who possess the launch keys? Ronald’s claim is also logically fallacious and arrogant in another way: he’s negating that any non-government person, no citizen, can find out about the secrets, and only the government and military would in their incompetence or by accident, or that some spy would reveal it (but not a citizen who is spying on behalf of some government like China). In other words: us stupid citizens are stupid, only government and the military is smart and wise, just not smart and wise enough to keep secrets from us… uh wait, but us stupid citizens can’t find out about their secrets because we’re stupid… and there is yet another contradiction from the Royal Mainstream Scientist Ronald Mallett, wannabe time traveler, who’s motivation for going back in time, according to his self-proclaimed Skeptic self, to see his dad again. Can anyone say “shallow”? How much more needs to be pointed out about the Mainstream cult to show that they are very bad at logic in general, and that also effects their effectiveness in scientific research, and therefore can’t be trusted with their fundamental(ist) claims: There was a Big Bang billions of years ago, we evolved from some simple creatures that were created by lightning hitting chemicals (able to reproduce and think and sense what was around them), and that after billions of years, turned into (super complex and much more intelligent animals and super intelligent) humans, with many characteristics (that can’t be reasonably explained without resorting to God as having designed us), and that aliens can’t get here, because… well one guest evolutionist this or last year, on Coast to Coast AM said because it would be too coincidental. And it would be too coincidental that they showed up during this time of our evolution. But why? If there are trillions of planets with possible life and some aliens evolved to become intelligent much sooner then us, then why wouldn’t there be any chance of “just another planet out of trillions” being visited by some alien out of those trillions? Mainstream scientists truly are confused and forgetful of what they study, ever learning and never able to reach the truth. I think that if they would stop obsessing on money and selfish and shallow desires they wouldn’t be so “scatter-brained” and forgetful.

I’ve also been noticing, that recently (others would probably say often) Noory has been asking really stupid questions. During the show he asked Mallet if the time travel he was working on would be MENTAL or physical. What the Hell kind of question is that? George was asking “is your time travel device going to be metaphysical and use spiritual time travel”, because the mind is a spiritual thing, it’s not material. That’s a fact by the way, you materialists, because awareness for example, which you must have a mind for, is not a physical thing, just as actions and information are not physical things. But Ronald Mallett obviously was not talking about a spiritual device or one that manipulated the mind. I wonder if George prepares questions long before the show starts. It doesn’t seem he does, otherwise his questions wouldn’t be so dumb. But, at least God lets me use them to teach profound, deep and useful things.

There was also something else that Ronald implied which is typical of how Mainstreamers, and which shows how their morality leads to things like the 500+ million people killed by atheists (not all atheists obviously): when he said that humans can achieve anything they can think of, he was answering the same caller I mentioned earlier who brought up a stupid example for his question, which was that Suparman’s dad said that going back in time was forbidden and so asked Ronald if God ever forbade it (how about read the Bible and study religion idiot, and ask a religious person and not a materialist Mainstreamer?). Ronald, besides saying humans could do whatever they wanted to, said that if we weren’t meant to do something, then God wouldn’t allow it. That answer implies that if child molestation happens and anything that is obviously evil, it’s good or permitted by God, because we were able to do it. That besides being evil reasoning, is also a logical fallacy: if you aren’t doing something then it can be said you aren’t meant to do anything that you aren’t doing. So then it’s also contradictory. And Ronald was implying that to know if something is permitted by God, you should do it, and he surely meant that, because he also said in his answer, and I’m paraphrasing this part till I can listen again to what he said, that it was wrong to not learn and progress.

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. – Romans 8:28

About these ads
Categories: Mainstream Science Cult, Skepticemia, Skepticism, skeptics Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 54 other followers

%d bloggers like this: