Wayshower
12-30-2009, 01:50 PM
Is it just me or is anyone else starting to get concerned about the way that Project Camelot is going?
I have tremendous respect for both Bill and Kerry from the articles and interviews that Camelot has produced over the years, I also appreciate that the quality and integrity of Camelot's output must depend upon careful screening and analysis to avoid being 'led up the garden path' of disinformation, so to speak. Credit due on occasion in the past when Camelot announced it no longer accepted the credibility of a certain 'witness'.
The interviews are also enriched by the style adopted - relaxed, encouraging, teasing out that little bit extra, occasionally controversial, even confontational in small measure where required. For me, Bill's approach always seems to accept the bigger picture and allow a more liberal expression of view, in contrast to Kerry's narrower, more focussed interview style.
I have felt that Camelot has tended over recent months to lurch towards the doom and gloom scenario a little too much for my personal taste/belief.
However, the spur for this post is the 30th December two highlight plug for Amitakh Stanford. Trusting Camelot, I hiked over to the links. To say I have rarely read such unadulterated drivel is not an understatement: surely such banal and fanciful fiction has no place alongside the other high quality, authentic, revealing reports which brings us to Camelot so regularly. How Kerry can recommend:"...it holds some interesting clues and insight into what's really going on, in my opinion" - gives me cause for concern of Camelot's future.
Although I am sure not intentional, the juxtaposition of such clap-trap to another eye-opening, well researched and authenticated report by David Willcock shows a complete lack of editorial judgement.
Come on Camelot, get back on track. You are a scarce resource and we would hate to see you descend into the trivial.
I have tremendous respect for both Bill and Kerry from the articles and interviews that Camelot has produced over the years, I also appreciate that the quality and integrity of Camelot's output must depend upon careful screening and analysis to avoid being 'led up the garden path' of disinformation, so to speak. Credit due on occasion in the past when Camelot announced it no longer accepted the credibility of a certain 'witness'.
The interviews are also enriched by the style adopted - relaxed, encouraging, teasing out that little bit extra, occasionally controversial, even confontational in small measure where required. For me, Bill's approach always seems to accept the bigger picture and allow a more liberal expression of view, in contrast to Kerry's narrower, more focussed interview style.
I have felt that Camelot has tended over recent months to lurch towards the doom and gloom scenario a little too much for my personal taste/belief.
However, the spur for this post is the 30th December two highlight plug for Amitakh Stanford. Trusting Camelot, I hiked over to the links. To say I have rarely read such unadulterated drivel is not an understatement: surely such banal and fanciful fiction has no place alongside the other high quality, authentic, revealing reports which brings us to Camelot so regularly. How Kerry can recommend:"...it holds some interesting clues and insight into what's really going on, in my opinion" - gives me cause for concern of Camelot's future.
Although I am sure not intentional, the juxtaposition of such clap-trap to another eye-opening, well researched and authenticated report by David Willcock shows a complete lack of editorial judgement.
Come on Camelot, get back on track. You are a scarce resource and we would hate to see you descend into the trivial.