It's a conspiracy theory so obviously evidence would be nigh impossible to present. Doesn't mean he or she is wrong though. Doesn't it seem somewhat realistic that some technological advances would be kept secret? There is shitloads of less valuable information that is kept secret (only to be discovered later) so it stands to reason that if an extremely valuable advancement was discovered then it might be concealed.
I don't know how a basic understanding of how military technology is developed fits into "conspiracy theory".
I'm not projecting that a sinister cabal of technologists are hiding some great truth, just that the department of defense and defense contractors are obviously developing this technology and that new military tech is usually highly classified. There's no great mystery there.
I'm not suggesting a sinister cabal, I'm suggesting there is a literal conspiracy, a group coordinating in secret. And that group is the government. And the secret would be that highly classified information. In my mind we are seeing things the same, but I can see how the words I put to it might give a different impression.
I really don't like the current "conspiracy theory" understanding in modern usage. It completely screws over the literal usage of those two words together.
If you wish to, please reread my comment without the common connotation of "conspiracy theory" and see if we then agree.
