The Truth about Corey Goode

the first two on the long list, namely Bradley and Manning, are definitely not living in the same kind of housing I am living in. Although Assange may generate revenues, Mannings definitely does not. I truly wonder what would be their advantages in life if they aren't true whistle blowers.

As for others, anything that makes more than 500,000$ a year (Alex Jones and many more) is definitely worth asking questions about (although they may still not be bought), as well as anyone that has been threatened and got really scare, David Wilcock being one of them. It had to give up either his life or his revenue - by stopping everything, or give in.

Goody is just someone who needed money and can be bought in my opinion (just an opinion amongst others) by about anyone.

If we have not been put in a situation to be bought or seen some around us, we cannot imagine how easy it is to buy someone. Easier yet to make them change their opinion so that they buy themselve up, without having to pay for them (these are the cabal's tricks). I have seen it again and again andddd again in the business world, government employees bought for crumbles of money, business employees preferring to shut up not to lose their job (therefore bought), funds embezzlements. etc.

I think I am getting too old and have seen too much. Yet, I have never seen except here, those in contact with real hidden and very important stuff. To be a real whistleblower, it takes balls of steel and it takes not taking one's life as important.

In my life, I have not seen many of these people, anywhere.

Quote:

---

Posted by TargeT

Quote:

---

Posted by Omnisense

Quote:

---

Posted by TargeT

Quote:

---

Posted by Omnisense

I can't name 3 fake whistleblowers.

---

I honestly can't think of more than 3 that I consider "fully honest and real".

but then, I'm a skeptical one...

---

There is a big difference between honest and in alignment to truth. There is a massive conspiracy of unwitting mind control assets. I think that is behind many of the incorrect 'whistleblowers'. I personally don't think the majority of 'whistleblowers' are intentionally lying. If you disagree that is fine.

---

For the majority, (Goode would be an exception) I do not think they are intentionally lying, not at all... I just do not have much faith in the "permanence" of perception... it (perception) is EXTREMELY malleable.

Quote:

---

Posted by Omnisense

And if you can't think of more than 3 real whistleblowers I'm not sure what kind of people you are researching. Have you heard of British Dr. Barrie Trower, Ex-CIA Dr. Robert Duncan, US Army Officer Julianne McKinney, Ex-FBI Sibel Edmonds, Ex-CIA Victor Marchetti, US Army Philip J. Corso, Ex-CIA Asset Udo Ulfkotte, Ex-NSA Karen Stewart, Ex-NSA William Binney, TI whistleblower Dr. John Hall, Fox News Whistleblowers Jane Akre & Steve Wilson (rBST). Any of those ring a bell? And if you are aware of who they are do you think they are all BSing?

---

I've only looked into Sibel from that list, and with 75% extremely valid and salient points.. I can't fault her info at all.. But I also don't see that as doing more than confirming common knowledge (ie, everything she's said isn't new, really..).

Which, ideologically, puts me in a funny place for a lot of reasons.

First, comparatively (and this minor, but I think semi important) observe the background of these "witnesses".

and by background I mean literally the video's they put out.

Does Mis Edmonds live anywhere near your socio-economic status?

How about the new golden boy, does Mr Steele live in a house like yours?

I can't ignore those data inputs, or the fact that they seem to give "too perfect" of answers to common problems, and easily obtain media coverage giving information that has been at least mostly, commonly known.

I have worked with military intelligence for almost 20 years now (still work in that field in some respect, just not as specialized as before) and I can tell you I have a lot of red flags here...

question everything, even whistleblowers .


wan't to know the wistleblowers I would have named??:
Mark Klein
Carmen M. SEGARRA
Thomas Drake

but they aren't sensational, nor covering topics you are suppose to pay attention to (my interpretation via media patterns).

Quote:

---

Posted by uzn

Speaking of Whistleblowers:
Doug the Painter Comes to Mind with his fantastic Whistleblower Hommage:

---

I have SERIOUS issues with the first two on that list purely based on logic and relevant personal experience.

---

Quote:

---

Posted by Flash

the first two on the long list, namely Bradley and Manning, are definitely not living in the same kind of housing I am living in. Although Assange may generate revenues, Mannings definitely does not. I truly wonder what would be their advantages in life if they aren't true whistle blowers.

---

I did not articulate my self well.

This should clarify very simply.

In the broadest sense, equate Manning with Lee Harvey Oswald.

Assange is an entirely different topic (though mostly focused on what actually "leaks", the amount of press coverage received and a few other things).

Thats the trouble with goode and a lot of others, it's difficult to tell who is genuine, the feed back loop is so well analyzed that a dedicated and motivated individual has all the tools needed to deceive.

I think we have seen the product of this in goode, his interviews now loosely fit the "formula" of an honest truthful testimony; but it feels polished and fake, it doesn't seem authentic (and that can be backed up by the contradictions that were noted on this forum and detailed earlier in this thread).

Quote:

---

Posted by Octavusprime

It should be noted that "Gaia" is all over facebook. It always comes up as a suggested page for me. Gaia.tv pushes alot of Wilcox and Corey. Random people I'm friends with on facebook "like" it. So it is being very well funded and pushed hard on social media.

---

This is very true, I see it every time I log into Facebook. Tell me, is Michael Tellinger a part of it? I've seen some of his stuff on there.

One thing that has been brought to my attention about the Skype chat with Corey, there is a little pencil symbol next to where he says, "I fully understand you are now on the pay roll... so am I... it is what it is."

http://projectavalon.net/Corey_Goode...screenshot.gif

I don't use Skype, but if you look up what the pencil symbol means, this comes up.

https://www.answers.com/Q/What_does_...ssage_on_skype
"It means that the Moderator of the chat has chosen to change the selected text. why this is a feature I'll never know."

Is this true? And if so, do we know who edited this comment? Who was the moderator of the chat? Was it Corey, or the unnamed other person? If it wasn't Corey, then this piece of evidence is worthless.

Quote:

---

Posted by Maunagarjana

One thing that has been brought to my attention about the Skype chat with Corey, there is a little pencil symbol next to where he says, "I fully understand you are now on the pay roll... so am I... it is what it is."

http://projectavalon.net/Corey_Goode...screenshot.gif

I don't use Skype, but if you look up what the pencil symbol means, this comes up.

https://www.answers.com/Q/What_does_...ssage_on_skype
"It means that the Moderator of the chat has chosen to change the selected text. why this is a feature I'll never know."

Is this true? And if so, do we know who edited this comment? Who was the moderator of the chat? Was it Corey, or the unnamed other person? If it wasn't Corey, then this piece of evidence is worthless.

---

You can edit your own Skype messages, likely he made a typo, but who knows? Shane Bales was the person he was chatting with, I saw that screen shot a bunch of times back in 2015.

Quote:

---

Posted by PurpleLama

You can edit your own Skype messages, likely he made a typo, but who knows? Shane Bales was the person he was chatting with, I saw that screen shot a bunch of times back in 2015.

---

Not good enough. It needs to be proven that Corey was the one who edited it. Especially if it was Shane who was involved, who is a person I strongly distrust.

Quote:

---

Posted by Maunagarjana

Quote:

---

Posted by PurpleLama

You can edit your own Skype messages, likely he made a typo, but who knows? Shane Bales was the person he was chatting with, I saw that screen shot a bunch of times back in 2015.

---

Not good enough. It needs to be proven that Corey was the one who edited it. Especially if it was Shane who was involved, who is a person I strongly distrust.

---

You can't edit someone else's Skype message.

Quote:

---

Posted by PurpleLama

Quote:

---

Posted by Maunagarjana

Quote:

---

Posted by PurpleLama

You can edit your own Skype messages, likely he made a typo, but who knows? Shane Bales was the person he was chatting with, I saw that screen shot a bunch of times back in 2015.

---

Not good enough. It needs to be proven that Corey was the one who edited it. Especially if it was Shane who was involved, who is a person I strongly distrust.

---

You can't edit someone else's Skype message.

---

Assuming that's true, how do we know the whole exchange wasn't fabricated using graphics software? Is just a screenshot, right?

Quote:

---

Posted by Maunagarjana

Quote:

---

Posted by PurpleLama

Quote:

---

Posted by Maunagarjana

Quote:

---

Posted by PurpleLama

You can edit your own Skype messages, likely he made a typo, but who knows? Shane Bales was the person he was chatting with, I saw that screen shot a bunch of times back in 2015.

---

Not good enough. It needs to be proven that Corey was the one who edited it. Especially if it was Shane who was involved, who is a person I strongly distrust.

---

You can't edit someone else's Skype message.

---

Assuming that's true, how do we know the whole exchange wasn't fabricated using graphics software? Is just a screenshot, right?

---

To help you evaluate this a little, Corey knows about the screenshot — of course. He's never once protested that it was faked. He's just remained quiet about it.

(And as he edited his own text post there, that means he was trying to get it right! That's the reason why people make edits to texts and posts.)

Also on this skype conversation posted from a screen shot on a phone...Corey himself has posted this conversation directly from his skype at another venue. I know and have the screen shots of his posting and argument with the other person of this conversation on my external hard drive. So he endorsed and promoted this conversation himself.


Look...I understand why Bill did not post the information I suggested earlier. But I will share one sentence this guy Cory used to manipulate his standing with Bill. At the time he was working to figure out a way to promote this whole thing going on at that time. At the time he needed Bill to promote him. He would do anything to get that promoting. He's been caught in many lies most of which have been regurgitated on this forum and others for a long time. So I don't feel the need to perseverate his actions which have led to this prolific lie he leads.

When I first met Cory it was a brief encounter. I had actually PM'd him on a subject I was posting on regarding a guy who claimed to be a soldier who spent time on Mars. I hadn't paid much attention to his whole story but one thing he said perked my ears. So I contacted Michael Salla and arranged to talk to the guy. Which I did. I was highly disappointed and furthermore was surprised at where this guy was going with the conversation which is neither here nor there. I had told Cory that I had contacted this guy and basically he was full of it and I told Cory as much. I also found it quite interesting that Michael Salla became one of his prime contacts besides David Wilcock. Michael Salla is easily contacted and receptive. Probably because he's always looking for a good story and became short on material at the time. In fact about six months ago Salla contacted me to see if I knew of Cory and wanted to talk to me. Salla must be running out of material again.

So next thing I see...Cory and this guy from Mars....they both want to counsel MILABS. Say what? I was quite taken back because what the hell qualifies either of them to do that? Answer: Not a damned thing! In fact given what I've seen Cory write, he has deep personal issues he needs to work out and has no business counselling anybody!

So in the interim...Cory contacts Bill and uses me as a trophy. A trophy as in someone else Bill can interview on said subjects of interest...

Using me as a trophy when he didn't even know me to put me up there as a person that would be willing to interview was to me (especially given my circumstance which Cory has no knowledge of) an outrageous attempt to gain favor. Overstepping as far as I'm concerned.

Here's the thing. I not only never wanted this I was told and shown that he was fabricating things about me. He said this and I use these quotation marks as what he exactly said about me:

"She was in a very thought out and secure group that was infiltrated by "Metamorphs" and they set off "Triggers" and caused infighting and destroyed the group".

WTF group might that be? WTF is he talking about? I have no idea...none of that was true. It's a complete fabrication... and here is Bill thinking I was ready to go public and spill my guts on this particular idea that Cory was fabricating. This quote has not one damned thing to do with me and is again an example of what lengths Cory will go to when he wants something. Because if it was true he had no business sharing anything of that nature....but hay....it didn't matter because it was again a DAMNED LIE.

End of story.

Quote:

---

Posted by Mike

Quote:

---

Posted by Ernie Nemeth

I too find Goode a dubious source, especially as a guest of Wilcock on Gaia TV. Wilcock has some incredible tidbits on the go right now about the structure of the cosmos that are intriguing if the corroborating evidence holds true...I suspect any who claim special status as a rule, or have been whisked away in blue orbs.

Gaia TV has a few good shows: Goerge Noory, Regina Meredith, Sean Stone, Linda Moulton Howe come to mind.

Corey is now off the list on the strength of this thread, though.

---

Interesting. I know next to nothing about Gaia, except that Corey and David are affiliated. I had no idea Linda Moulton Howe was as well. I was listening to her recent interview about Antarctica and the alleged structures and ruins under the ice and so on, and at one point she uses Corey's testimony to kind of strengthen her own take. It was clear by implication that she found it valid. ..Which is more than a little disturbing

---

Understand...

It is becoming clearer and clearer that there are folks who are vulnerable to displaying the excessive need for attention, who appear overly narcissistic and may also be experiencing megalomania (and thus manifesting its symptoms) whereby they become capable of "telling stories" (lies) which are fantastical, likely completely fabricated and/or if there be any real truth in the foundation of any of these stories, that truth alone would be considered simply unsurprising and inconsequential.

An example of the unsurprising and inconsequential is when an ex-military member becomes the next "insider." It is very possible that someone could have been in the military. We know of millions on Earth at this time who were once in the military. Yet perhaps some of these start to tell stories related to "secret ops," aliens, travel to other planets and worlds... and the fact is that there stories may be true, at least to themselves and perhaps actually true. But also, they could see "opportunity" to fulfill needs and act out behaviors that I described above.

Another example is "the therapist" who then becomes a specialist with regards to treating, say... abductees. Yet then later tells their own abduction stories.... which, could be their own honest truth... and could actually be true. But it could also be someone disciplined enough to feed "a lurking monster" like I described above.

How do we know? In speaking for myself, I had to experience much of this first hand to draw my own conclusions... conclusions which vary in each and every case. The point I am making here is that I believe it is ultimately each of us, ourselves, who must be responsible for what we conclude (and perhaps remain ever open minded pending new information), but then there's the rub. As social beings... where do we draw the line when it comes to looking out for the vulnerable? The answer to this is still a dilemma for me.

But also... what I have seen is a maturation process in the alternative community. Originally, we saw emergence of the ground breakers who rose up to gain attention.

Whether we consider a Billy Meier or a Whitley Strieber as examples... their stories were of the "loan wolf" variety.

With the advent of the internet and in time, ground breaking endeavors such as Project Camelot and Bases (as examples), many, many more "witnesses," "whistle blowers," etc. appeared.

And then what has emerged is what I call "the mutual verification club" where one source "verifies" another sources information where a natural alliance is formed between the two. What we also have seen is these alliances usually do not last. In fact, in 99% of the cases, one party usually ends up going publicly against the other party.

In addition... along the way, groups form and then groups blow up. Usually these groups form around one or more "budding stars" who demonstrate much the same symptoms and behaviors as I described in my opening paragraph and who may have watched and learned from their predecessors such that have refined their "shtick" and appear "new and different" enough to convince some of the vulnerable that they may actually be "a real deal." (I am speaking from experience as a vulnerable here).

I have studied books about cults, specifically in regards to the formation of cults and I have found a great many similarities in these "groups" that have sprung forth and classic "cults." Too many for comfort.

In many cases, these groups behave as cliques which often end up behaving like lynch mobs that conduct "trial by internet" against anyone who may "wake up" with regards "the star" of the cult... especially if that awakened one was close to the star - someone I have referred to as "a member of the inner circle."

All in all, most folks who head down this road where they get close to the "guru" or "star" or "tag team duo" (such as Corey and Wilcock) end up in one of three positions - 1.) a total believer, 2.) an awakened one who... if they are able to recover from the abuse they exposed themselves to (what else can it be called when these uprisings are pure shams) or 3.) a witting sellout that concludes they receive some sort of benefit in exchange for compromising their integrity which they somehow justify in providing continuous support and protection for the fraud.

I sadly conclude that the alternative community has descended to such a level where all that I described above dominates the scene as it is today. I wish this were not the case.

This is beautiful about the Hawaii doctor. Thank you for sharing.

Quote:

---

Posted by King Arthur

IMO, the reason the bad guys release these disinfo agents on us is to divert us away from doing what could scupper their plans. Goode and Wilcock are promoting the idea of the external savior and all we have to do is sit back and wait to be 'saved'.

So let's ask ourselves what should we be doing, that they don't want to do?

IMO we should each look within ourselves and work on cleaning out the crap we have accumulated and strive to be shining examples of Light. To change the world, we change ourselves. We need to heal ourselves, love ourselves and by extension, only then can we truly love others. And with love in our hearts, we unite with our fellow human beings and create the world we really want to live in. Think of the movie Avatar where the blue guys are in tune with others of their own species and their planet and all who live there.

Here's an example of what I mean:
http://zerolimits.info/

Quote:

---

Two years ago, I heard about a therapist in Hawaii who cured a complete ward of criminally insane patients--without ever seeing any of them. The psychologist would study an inmate's chart and then look within himself to see how he created that person's illness. As he improved himself, the patient improved.

His name is Dr. Ihaleakala Hew Len. ..... He explained that he worked at Hawaii State Hospital for four years. That ward where they kept the criminally insane was dangerous. Psychologists quit on a monthly basis. The staff called in sick a lot or simply quit. People would walk through that ward with their backs against the wall, afraid of being attacked by patients. It was not a pleasant place to live, work, or visit.

Dr. Len told me that he never saw patients. He agreed to have an office and to review their files. While he looked at those files, he would work on himself. As he worked on himself, patients began to heal.

"After a few months, patients that had to be shackled were being allowed to walk freely," he told me. "Others who had to be heavily medicated were getting off their medications. And those who had no chance of ever being released were being freed."

"Not only that," he went on, "but the staff began to enjoy coming to work. Absenteeism and turnover disappeared. We ended up with more staff than we needed because patients were being released, and all the staff was showing up to work. Today, that ward is closed."

"What were you doing within yourself that caused those people to change?"

"I was simply healing the part of me that created them," he said.

..... healing for him and in ho 'oponopono means loving yourself. If you want to improve your life, you have to heal your life. If you want to cure anyone--even a mentally ill criminal--you do it by healing you.

I asked Dr. Len how he went about healing himself. What was he doing, exactly, when he looked at those patients' files?

"I just kept saying, 'I'm sorry' and 'I love you' over and over again," he explained.

.... loving yourself is the greatest way to improve yourself, and as you improve yourself, your improve your world.

---

Let me refer you to that interview with the Dutch banker, Ronald Bernard, which is doing the rounds at the moment:
From 32 mins:

Quote:

---

I tell people about this old American general who puts an entire room of people in the dark. The general doesn't say a word and suddenly he flicks on a lighter, one little light and due to the prolonged darkness, you experience a manifestation of light from a single point and everyone can slightly see each other again. And then he says, "That is the power of our light."
Unite. Unite. Come together and this entire **** story ceases to exist. That's how fast it could happen

---

What the bad guys do NOT want is for us to improve ourselves, to love ourselves and our fellow humans, to unite as one. So do not place your focus on these dog and pony shows. Instead, do what you can to make this world a better place such as showing kindness to others etc and let your inner light blaze through. Make like a Christmas tree rather than a blue avian fan waiting for the next episode of the Goode/Wilcock soap opera.

Note to Bill: Apologies for being long winded. Please delete if you think this is going too far off topic. Thank you.

---

Whether anything Corey Goode says is true or not can be endlessly debated.
Concentrating on documentation and substantive proof of these topics
would be immensely more powerful than endless debate.

While it's good to call out people on their outright falsehoods and misrepresentations,
chasing them in a flurry of conjecture and speculation only lends them publicity --
and if they ARE false with nefarious motives, then publicity is the one thing they seek most,
either because it inflates their ego, their media presence, and their 15-minutes of fame importance
or because it benefits the weaponized disinformation agenda to marginalize our energies and our credibility
as a viable resource to bypass the engineered diversions on our way to the truth.

It's better to starve the fakes and feed the truth.
In time, all of the fakes fade as they show themselves for that they truly are
-- and eventually it does show.
"You will know them by their fruits."

In time, they all bear the fruit of their true intentions and the energy they put out.
Rather than giving Corey a higher platform by arguing throughout the alt-media all about him,
imagine what might be produced if that same energy went into networking our way
into valid document releases that expose the real scope of any secret space program.

We talk very intelligently about whether Corey Goode is a fake or not
but maybe we're missing the intelligent thing to do to advance what we say we're here for.

Amen, Brother boolacalaca.....thanks for saying that! :highfive:

Quote:

---

Posted by boolacalaca

We talk very intelligently about whether Corey Goode is a fake or not
but maybe we're missing the intelligent thing to do to advance what we say we're here for.

---

Quite so. :thumbsup:

But, I'd suggest, the Corey thing merely informs the much more important, wider issues, that I'd argue affect us all.

• What is research?
• What constitutes evidence?
• What constitutes valuable testimony?
• How does one evaluate and make inferences from data?
• What role does the social media have these days in muddying all those waters?
• Why does any of this matter?

Quote:

---

Posted by TargeT

I always remember this ironic gem from the goode....

good discernment lesson

---

Wow. Nice post, TargeT. I bailed from CG's threads when he attacked Bill. Reading this post you have linked to is fascinating (for as much of it as I could stomach - it seems like the full-blown, expolosive rantings of someone suffering from schizophrenia) and I immediately summed it up as being the epitomy of IRONY.

Thanks,
B.

A year ago I was questioning if CG was legit or not because I thought DW was a smart man and wanted the truth out there. But after some help from Bill Ryan with opening my eyes to fact that CG is spreading lies, I am now unwilling to listen to anything these 2 dorks have to say.

Thanks to all for your various comments here. It's actually all pretty tricky, and there are many aspects of this to consider and hold in one's thoughts. As a kind of exercise, I'm using this post — which may be a long one! — to offer a very broad overview of all the issues which I think are connected and may be at play.

Here are the various major factors, and after this summary I'll try to drill down into each of them.

The military/intel agencies are smart, capable, and (unlike the other way round!) can track and read and hear everything that the UFO/ ET/ SSP (Secret Space Program) research community is discussing.

We already know, with overwhelming evidence over a period of decades, that the agencies fully intend to guard their secrets, for all the reasons (from their point of view) that have been well documented and understood. As Richard Dolan often says (and this is my paraphrase):

"Okay, you're Harry Truman, in July 1947, and this shocking report (re the Roswell crash recovery) lands on your desk. What would you do — at that point of history?"

We also know that there's compelling evidence that there's a controlled drip-feed of information (and disinformation) which is strategically planned to gradually acclimatize the public to this uncomfortable, and maybe traumatic, "we're being visited" reality — over several generations. (This is working: every kid who watches movies knows that ETs are real, and to them this is now obvious. :) )

So, how do they manage this process? Be aware that the best minds that money can buy have been assigned to this problem. (And, very likely, the best technology, too.)

There's a multi-step program (probably), all planned out across a 60-70 year timeline.

• The disinformation (part truth, part fiction) keeps the research community confused, at war with itself (divide and conquer, as different researchers believe different things, different documents, or different people), and kind of spinning its wheels.

• At the same time, there's a gradual drip-feed of real hints (or even nuggets!) of information, sometimes (but not always) mixed in with the nonsense. This does have the intended effect of slowly injecting all this into the popular culture.

* This isn't the subject of this post, but you can kind of see it all converging. What towards? Well, either a planned/intended disclosure sometime in the next few years — or (more likely) this could be safety-net insurance against a forced disclosure of some kind when the agencies lose their control... maybe because of some event that happens somewhere in the world that is unforeseen and out of human or agency hands.

So... about how the perceptions of the research community are manipulated. Of course they will be doing that. :)

Here are the aspects of that program:

• The agencies will make false public statements. (Roswell debris = a weather balloon, etc.)
• Some real documents will be released.
• Some fake documents will be released. (And, the quality will be high and clever enough to fool many diligent investigators.)
• Apart from releasing genuine documents, they don't really have to release real stories: they know that others will always be striving to do that anyway — so they kind of allow that to happen, as long as nothing too extreme gets released: like too much, too fast. Members of the public speaking out, genuine whistleblowers like those championed in the May 2001 Disclosure Project press conference, solid and detailed research such as Len Stringfield's most excellent work on crashed UFO recoveries... etc.
• Fake stories will be released: and this is done through fake whistleblowers (of various kinds). We'll talk about that later. Not all fake whistleblowers are agents, plants, or knowingly lying. The most convincing witness is someone who totally believes what they are saying. (One such is Andy Basiago: he's the very nicest man, and is 100% sincere. But, importantly, that actually means nothing at all.)

A good analogy for all this is like the control rods on a nuclear reactor, which is a contained, slow, nuclear reaction. Like opening or closing the air-vent on a fireplace, adding or removing control rods keeps the reaction at a planned, 'safe', level.

Too much being released, and behind on the project plan? Take some control rods off. Getting too 'hot'? Add more control.

This post is really about the 'fake whistleblower' part of this whole landscape.

To drill down further, and expand on the above, there are several kinds of fake whistleblowers.

• Those who have an innocently incorrect story, but (opportunistically) are promoted and 'pushed'. Maybe by 'fake researchers'... and there may well be some of those, too. (The only one who's ever admitted to this, in my opinion a huge act of personal courage, was William (Bill) Moore, who at a MUFON conference in 1989 admitted on stage that he had agreed to be a disinformant.)
• Those who are lying and paid (or otherwise consciously compromised, such as through other rewards, or threats, blackmail, etc).
• Those who believe their own false stories — because (in crude terms) they've been 'messed with'.

Now, it's not the purpose of this post, either, to go into HOW the 'messing with' might work. But, for anyone who's interested, watch, listen to or read anything presented by Dr Robert Duncan. What can be done to people remotely to influence their thoughts, feelings, emotions, perceptions and even memories is almost literally terrifying. (Avalon member Omnisense has also posted much on this topic, as have many others.)

What I'd like to focus on now is when a 'fake whistleblower' might come under suspicion to be one. This breaks down into two parts:

• Look at the person.
• Look at the information.

Here are the questions to ask. It's like a kind of checklist. A very useful reference is this time-tested way that agencies evaluate information coming from an informant or a source.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intell...on_reliability

Here's the schema:

http://projectavalon.net/Source_reli...eliability.gif

If the agencies, who are smart and have a great deal of experience, use this format, maybe we should, too. :)

1) The person.

• Are they being 'rewarded' or 'punished' for speaking out?
• Do they have a history of telling the truth?
• Are there any reasons to doubt their integrity and honest intentions? (Do their actions match with their words?)
• Does their personal history check out? (Are they who they say they are?)

2) The information.

• Is their information self-consistent? (Do they ever change or embellish their testimony?)
• Does their information correlate with, or confirm, other information from independent sources?
• If their information doesn't correlate with other reports, is it credible (meaning reasonably feasible to open-minded and informed people), or does it seem to contradict what's generally known and understood, even by open-minded researchers?

I'd now like to talk about two whistleblowers whose stories and history I know quite well. They are very different personalities, and (I think) very different cases. But, I submit that they are both 'fake whistleblowers'. But how they got there might not be on the same path.

Andrew Basiago.

I was the first person to interview Andy Basiago about his story, in February 2007, in an unrecorded 4-hour phone call. He recounted, in great detail, the teleportation experiments he was part of when he was a child — an operation called Project Pegasus. He named names and locations. He was sane, grounded, articulate, detailed, consistent, and earnest. At that time he had no intention of going public, as he felt the potential damage to himself would be too great. I found myself believing his extraordinary story.

Then — I think maybe a year later, or soon after that — he started taking about his visits to Mars. His already extreme story fell of the edge of the cliff and became outlandish. He stated that Obama had been on Mars, too, and consistently talked about a 'jumproom' by which he got there.

But what Andy didn't appear to know was that the term 'jumproom' was entirely my own creation. That's not what it's actually called. The testimony of Camelot Witness 'Henry Deacon' (Arthur Neumann) — which he revealed after the publication of my important video conversation with David Wilcock called Jumproom to Mars — was that the wormhole/stargate device that's used is actually called 'The Corridor'. (For authentic, if halting, testimony on all this, do see this important video: http://avalonlibrary.net/Henry Deacon - 2013 Conference Presentation on Time Travel and Mars.mp4)

As I said above, Andy is the very nicest person, and utterly and sincerely believes his (now embellished and augmented) story. But it had changed after I initially talked with him in Feb 2007. He'd never 'been to Mars', then. That part of his testimony was only added later. Yet Andy's whole presentation is that it's like he always knew this.

His 'memory' has been overlaid with something that never occurred. And Andy has no clue that this is what's happened to him.

Why? Go figure. Probably (in my opinion)

1. To discredit his own true story about Project Pegasus and teleportation.
2. To discredit other whistleblowers (like Henry Deacon) who really HAD been to Mars.

Now, to Corey Goode.

As I spelled out in my post #1 of this thread, Corey fails many (if not all) of these tests. Let's look.

1) The person.

• Are they being 'rewarded' or 'punished' for speaking out?
  He's being rewarded. With status, prestige, and money. As many others have pointed out, would Ed Snowden get his own TV show on Gaia? How about the long list of others who have tried to tell their truths and have been severely punished, harassed, or killed, for their courage? Nothing here makes any sense — except that he's being allowed (or assisted) to promote 'helpful' false stories.

• Do they have a history of telling the truth?
  In Corey's case, there are known discrepancies (apart from those which are strongly suspected). Two are:
  1. Corey claimed he was an IT specialist. Real IT specialists — Ilie Pandia, one of the highly skilled Avalon forum administrators (supported by Paul Jackson, another) had the opportunity to be witness to Corey's IT skills at close hand, and flagged that there was something badly wrong with his claims. Corey is not skilled in IT at all.
  2. Corey has claimed on Gaia that prior to going public with his story, he was earning 'a 6 figure salary'. This is false. When he was interviewed by Christine Anderson in Sept-Oct 2014, at his Dallas home, Corey was unemployed, on disability, and on medication.
• Are there any reasons to doubt their integrity and honest intentions? (Do their actions match with their words?)
  Again as reported in my post #1 (with links on the public record, from his wife Stacy, former Avalon member SilverPhoenix), Corey by December 2014 had been sent a '70-page intel dossier' on myself, and another dossier on one other unnamed person. He was at that time holding this over me as a kind of threat, implying he might release it. He made several references to that in a now-taken-down blog, which very virulently (and very inaccurately) attacked the entirety of Project Avalon and also myself. His simultaneous statements elsewhere, espousing kindness, forgiveness and charity were most inconsistent with his behind-the-scenes behavior and actions. I'll say it straight, though this doesn't impact directly on the veracity of his stories — just the consistency of his presentation of himself: he is really not a very nice person.

• Does their personal history check out? (Are they who they say they are?)
  Yes, Corey seems to have a history that can be checked, though quite a bit remains clouded: he does have secure access, for instance, to the FBI database, something which he told me in person in Oct 2014, and I have this in writing. That, and his being sent a 70-page dossier on myself and another on another person, confirm that he is intel-connected. In the important screenshot, in which he stated he was 'on the payroll', he also made reference to 'a superior'. These pieces all suggest strongly that there are aspects to Corey's background that he has never revealed.
  
  http://projectavalon.net/Corey_Goode...screenshot.gif

2) The information.

• Is their information self-consistent? (Do they ever change or embellish their testimony?)
  Not consistent at all. Once he was contracted to Gaia TV, his story became enormously embellished, with a huge amount of additional claimed information that (like Andy Basiago's case above) was never once mentioned in his initial interview — the unedited raw audio of which was nervous, halting, hesitant, not very articulate, not very detailed, and not very confident.
  (Again, as per my post #1, I was told by someone who claimed to be intel-connected — and this of course cannot be verified — that a remotely-activated covert intel surveillance video existed, captured in Jan 2015, of Corey and Stacy planning in their home what invented stories they would present to David Wilcock.)

• Does their information correlate with, or confirm, other information from independent sources?
  No. In the entire library of UFO/ET contactee and abductee reports, not to mention those from other intel whistleblowers, claimed or real, no reference has even been made to beings presenting themselves as 'Blue Avians'. Logically, this is a vast flaw. It's like someone claiming that the Roswell aliens had 8 fingers on each hand. (Most say 4, and a few say 6. NONE have ever said 8. What this means, simply, is that a new Roswell witness claiming he'd categorically seen 8-fingered alien bodies, should indeed be substantially doubted.)

• If their information doesn't correlate with other reports, is it credible (meaning reasonably feasible to open-minded and informed people), or does it seem to contradict what's generally known and understood, even by open-minded researchers?
  There's more and more... too much to go into here. The claimed arrival in our solar system of '100 Jupiter- (or even Neptune!) -sized spheres' — which are invisible and undetectable — is logically meaningless. It's like my saying there's a green elephant in the room we're both talking in, sitting there in the corner, but it's invisible, and you can't see it or sense it, and you simply have to take my word for it. That's not testimony. That's an unsubstantiatable and unprovable claim.

As I mentioned, the detailed analysis and deconstruction of all Corey's claimed testimony (and Andy Basiago's, too — let alone that of a number of other fake whistleblowers who I've not even mentioned here) would take thousands of words.

The attempted purpose of this post is to put this saga into a wider, important context. It's about research, it's about truth, and it's about why this matters. It's also about how to think, and how to evaluate both sources and information. Even so, this is a bare introduction.

You see, contrary to what some have tried to claim, this is not personal. I don't go about attacking other people, and everyone who knows me personally knows that. But, as I said in my post #1:

I do stand for the truth, and that's very important to me — and it should be to you reading this, too.

:star:

Hi Bill, thanks for that.:thumbsup:

Couple questions:

1) what makes you so certain that Corey had access to the fbi database? What did you have in writing suggesting this? Who wrote it? What did it say?

2) are you certain Corey had this dossier on you? If so, why?


Im not attempting to challenge you here or anything...just curious. Thanks

Quote:

---

Posted by Bill Ryan

...and in the morning had no memory of what he’d done, though everything was there on his own computer and that of another person.

---

How is it known that "everything was there on his own computer..."?