Can I just observe that, if he’s worked at Area 51, he would have had a high security clearance, and is sworn to secrecy about what goes on there. It may well be a research facility, but, is a too secret one, if it is one.
Oh, of course.
I’m sure they have no aliens, though, lol.
But I WOULD love to see their research. You know it’s just gotta be cool beyond belief.
The government has officially admitted to the existence of Area 51. I have a relative who has worked there and told me that he can at least admit that it is there. He cannot, however, discuss what goes on there.
HE did not reveal anything the government has not already acknowledged to this day. The government has officially acknowledged the existence of THE Area 51. However, there could be other facilities with such areas named after numbers such as area 21. And by such this former military member could have stated correctly that he indeed worked at an area 51 but not the same Area 51 which was implied by the question. Thus the former military member could have been speaking factually correct about the place he worked and not being 100 percent truthful exactly where it was he worked. For example lets say you ask if I worked at McDonalds. I say yes. If I do not give an exact location am I stating an untruth? No just because you asked if I worked at McDonalds and did not specify the location, my answer was truthful as to the context of the question. With these higher ups its all about the semantics of the question as to the answer given in response. The guy never gave the location but said it was only a normal R&D facility and that he had worked at a place called Area 51. Because the questioner insinuated the location and the response never included the location, the resultant insinuation was to be of the same location. Truthful in nature but untruthful as well provided the person being asked the question knew what the questioner was insinuating.