The Truth about Corey Goode

[Bayareamom]

..."There is nothing serious in this endeavour of theirs and it belittles the lives of those who have actual experience in these kind of things. People like myself and others want the damned truth to come out. Not some fantasy story some guy makes up which is exactly what he has done. Certainly not fame or my name on a damned mug!..."

YES. Thank you for stating this so succinctly.

[Bill Ryan]

This is interesting to read, a blog page by someone who heard about the story indirectly.

• http://yuuut.com/corey-goode-space-program

Of interest may be first comment from a woman ('Tara'), who knew him long ago.

I knew ‘Corey’ in his younger, school years. He was a guy with a low self esteem, yet somewhat a narcissist who believed everyone around him would be regretful for not accepting him into their circles, when he became famous and powerful as an adult. He really should seek help and see a psychologist.

[DbDraad]

What an interesting thread. Sam Hunter, I sense you have some even more interesting things to share, but are wisely holding back in public. Keep safe all.

[Malgorzata]

I wonder why no one is approaching Corey´s WIFE for more information? She surely would shed some light on all this too. How long do they know each other? Where and how did they meet? What was he like before? What does SHE think of his story? What about his parents and family? I would love to have access to these people.

[onawah]

I didn't get into Corey's info when he was here on Avalon, or afterwards, for that matter.
It didn't resonate with me, and didn't ring as truth, for the most part, so I just avoided it all.
But there was one thread on Avalon about Native American lore or something Native American (can't remember now), where I intersected with him briefly, and the feeling I got about him was that he was deeply wounded, especially in his male pride, because of the terrible injustices that the N.A.s have suffered, and I sensed he has had more than one important life as a N.A., and that has made him a vulnerable target to those in the cabal, etc. who would use him for their own agenda.

[Nasu]

Posted by Malgorzata (here)
I wonder why no one is approaching Corey´s WIFE for more information? She surely would shed some light on all this too. How long do they know each other? Where and how did they meet? What was he like before? What does SHE think of his story? What about his parents and family? I would love to have access to these people.

Saw this on the comments section to that article Bill just posted and thought of you. Who knows if it's true or not... N
...........................................................................
Tara September 2, 2015 at 11:14 PM

I knew ‘Corey’ in his younger. school years. Hew was a guy with a low self esteem, yet somewhat a narcissist who believed everyone around him would be regretful for not accepting him into their circles, when he became famous and powerful as an adult. He really should seek help and see a psychologist.
...........................................................................

[Chester]

Posted by Malgorzata (here)
I wonder why no one is approaching Corey´s WIFE for more information? She surely would shed some light on all this too. How long do they know each other? Where and how did they meet? What was he like before? What does SHE think of his story? What about his parents and family? I would love to have access to these people.

Well, I engaged with her over on TOT. Within a two or so day stretch, I exchanged posts with her where it appears my responses led her to leaving that forum. I had a tendency to be quite direct in those days... and I think she saw she was boxed in and so chose the easy way out. From the posts I read, Stacy appears to be a co-creator of the "story" and a staunch defender too. Keep in mind this was just about two years ago.

[Spellbound]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
The section from 0:50 to 2:45 was cut out of this short video, prior to the release of the much more sober published half hour interview. (I really am wondering who leaked it. ) *

As Ron James does his very irreverent impression of David Wilcock and Corey Goode planning what stories to invent for Gaia TV, Richard Dolan is really laughing... and then (wisely!) declines to comment.

If this makes you laugh too, it might be smart to download this — assuming that Ron James has not approved this, and therefore it might disappear.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=MW1TMV-7EtU

* Edit, Monday 8 May: it appears (I've been told) that no-one actually 'leaked' it... it was accidentally included in the original release of the interview, then quickly taken down, re-edited and re-uploaded. But, not before at least one viewer had downloaded the original.

LMAO.....that's awesome!! Haha, I'm still laughing.

Dave - Toronto

[Ewan]

I'm really slow sometimes... but it just occurred to me earlier that this all transpired directly from Senior Seeker's crusade, I wonder if the same thought has crossed her mind yet.

There might be a valuable lesson there somewhere.

[Bayareamom]

I think this may be the relevant thread to post this - apologies if not. I just ran across this website yesterday and after reading through some of it, thought enough of this man's critical analysis on the whole Corey Goode/Tompkins issue, to share it.

http://sitsshow.blogspot.com/2016/11...-Tompkins.html

SNIP:

Crediblity

..."Credibility is a term referring to a person's likelihood of speaking the truth, based on various indirect sources of appraisal. For example, if a whistleblower comes forward who claims to have worked for a secret government project and offers a document that substantiates their testimony, this person would have more credibility than one who does not have such evidence.

Corey Goode has no such documentation, whereas William Tompkins does, and thus from a credibility standpoint, Tompkins is said to be more credible than Goode—using the strictest definition of the word. But with respect to the general usage of the term credibility—a reference to if someone can be trusted to tell the truth—there is no appreciable difference between Goode and Tompkins. This sense of credibility is an indirect, hazy, and nebulous way of assessing veracity—how true something is. In other words, credibility is like wondering around in the dark, whereas an assessment of objective evidence specifically addressing claims is like a spotlight cast into that same darkness. The quality of discernment gained by analsys of direct evidence is far superior to a credibility measure alone..."

AND

..."But the truth is not democratic, it simply is. It doesn't matter how many people believe something, it doesn't change the truth in the slightest. Only coherence with truth determines veracity, which requires objective means of assessment.

Similarly, if researchers only use corroboration and credibility as a means of vetting whistleblowers, and do not keep an open mind and assess claims objectively, they will dismiss genuine testimony as false. In doing so, researchers might paint anything genuine whistleblowers have brought forward with a brush of falseness, preventing them from gaining access to the greater truth.

Quite possibly Dr. Greer has made the error of what can be called corrobration bias, and thus the data that Goode, Tompkins, and others provide is assumed to be false because it doesn't fit the established narrative.

Conclusions about Goode and Tompkins

With respect to Dr. Greer's assertion that Tompkins and Goode are not telling the truth, it is possible (based on the EM mind-control data) that they could be victims of electromagnetic mind control, or they could be outright fraudsters. Yet there is just as much indirect evidence available to say they are genuine. But more to the point, there is no evidence to definitively suggest their testimony is false. Goode admits he has had EM mind-control technology used on him but that does not unequivocally support the claim that his testimony is fabricated. Especially since, like Dr. Greer, he claims to be able to know the difference between scripted and real experiences.

Given that Dr. Greer has no personal accounts to offer, other than a lucid dream that even he implies might be fabricated, Goode and Tompkins' claims—insofar as being first hand accounts—are superior to Dr. Greer's claims, as Dr. Greer is only an analyst in this respect..."

I don't know who this person is (other than his name), but I really like this website.

[sunwings]

Corey´s latest adventure is a comic of his life story. It is summarised as:

Comic Disclosure is a unique line of graphic novel media accurately depicting and disseminating the testimony of modern era super heroes, aka whistleblowers. AKA Corey the Avian

Details can be found here on this new website with pretty graphics!



https://www.comicdisclosure.com/

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Bayareamom (here)
I don't know who this person is (other than his name), but I really like this website.

The site is very much pro-Corey, and has showcased his material from the very beginning.

Posted by Bayareamom (here)
"Corey Goode has no such documentation, whereas William Tompkins does, and thus from a credibility standpoint, Tompkins is said to be more credible than Goode—using the strictest definition of the word."

Yes, I'd fully agree with that.

Posted by Bayareamom (here)
"This sense of credibility is an indirect, hazy, and nebulous way of assessing veracity—how true something is. In other words, credibility is like wondering around in the dark, whereas an assessment of objective evidence specifically addressing claims is like a spotlight cast into that same darkness. The quality of discernment gained by analsys of direct evidence is far superior to a credibility measure alone..."

Nonsense. That merely shows up extremely woolly thinking. It's absolutely possible to grade and compare different degrees of credibility.

The entire thing is a broad spectrum, from 100% certain or highly probably true at one end, to impossible and 100% unreliable at the other.

[Mike]

Posted by Bayareamom (here)
I think this may be the relevant thread to post this - apologies if not. I just ran across this website yesterday and after reading through some of it, thought enough of this man's critical analysis on the whole Corey Goode/Tompkins issue, to share it.

http://sitsshow.blogspot.com/2016/11...-Tompkins.html

SNIP:

Crediblity

..."Credibility is a term referring to a person's likelihood of speaking the truth, based on various indirect sources of appraisal. For example, if a whistleblower comes forward who claims to have worked for a secret government project and offers a document that substantiates their testimony, this person would have more credibility than one who does not have such evidence.

Corey Goode has no such documentation, whereas William Tompkins does, and thus from a credibility standpoint, Tompkins is said to be more credible than Goode—using the strictest definition of the word. But with respect to the general usage of the term credibility—a reference to if someone can be trusted to tell the truth—there is no appreciable difference between Goode and Tompkins. This sense of credibility is an indirect, hazy, and nebulous way of assessing veracity—how true something is. In other words, credibility is like wondering around in the dark, whereas an assessment of objective evidence specifically addressing claims is like a spotlight cast into that same darkness. The quality of discernment gained by analsys of direct evidence is far superior to a credibility measure alone..."

AND

..."But the truth is not democratic, it simply is. It doesn't matter how many people believe something, it doesn't change the truth in the slightest. Only coherence with truth determines veracity, which requires objective means of assessment.

Similarly, if researchers only use corroboration and credibility as a means of vetting whistleblowers, and do not keep an open mind and assess claims objectively, they will dismiss genuine testimony as false. In doing so, researchers might paint anything genuine whistleblowers have brought forward with a brush of falseness, preventing them from gaining access to the greater truth.

Quite possibly Dr. Greer has made the error of what can be called corrobration bias, and thus the data that Goode, Tompkins, and others provide is assumed to be false because it doesn't fit the established narrative.

Conclusions about Goode and Tompkins

With respect to Dr. Greer's assertion that Tompkins and Goode are not telling the truth, it is possible (based on the EM mind-control data) that they could be victims of electromagnetic mind control, or they could be outright fraudsters. Yet there is just as much indirect evidence available to say they are genuine. But more to the point, there is no evidence to definitively suggest their testimony is false. Goode admits he has had EM mind-control technology used on him but that does not unequivocally support the claim that his testimony is fabricated. Especially since, like Dr. Greer, he claims to be able to know the difference between scripted and real experiences.

Given that Dr. Greer has no personal accounts to offer, other than a lucid dream that even he implies might be fabricated, Goode and Tompkins' claims—insofar as being first hand accounts—are superior to Dr. Greer's claims, as Dr. Greer is only an analyst in this respect..."

I don't know who this person is (other than his name), but I really like this website.

This article makes no sense at all. Contradictions abound. Sophistry and doubletalk.

I mean this when I say that I don't think the author knows what he believes. Its gobbeldygook.

I could pick it apart sentence by sentence. Using his own words, the article is "indirect, hazy, and nebulous"

[Bayareamom]

Well, you and I will have to agree to disagree. I have never heard of the individual who writes this blog before today (or actually late yesterday). I stayed open minded when I read what he has to say. It resonates w/me completely. Having said that, I am not saying I agree w/every thing he states, but generally speaking what he has to say, makes a lot of sense.

Did you read the entirety of that above article? Did you also read his critique of Bill's interview w/the Dark Journalist? I think he's done a very credible job. He did not demean Bill's interview, nor fully support Goode. I feel he handled the information he presented w/a brevity I don't often see in this genre.

But again, just my own .02.

[Bayareamom]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
"...The entire thing is a broad spectrum, from 100% certain or highly probably true at one end, to impossible and 100% unreliable at the other."

First, make certain, please Bill, that others on this forum realize that quote was not from me, but from the linked website. I know absolutely very little about this man's blog, therefore have no idea (nor really care) that he's been generally supportive of Goode's testimony. This man is certainly free to decide for himself as to whether he believes Corey's testimony. I tried reading thru his website w/an open mind, and although I don't necessarily agree with every little thing he's stated, generally speaking, I do understand where he's coming from.

While I respect most of your hard work, Bill (and Kerry's as well), I do have a few criticisms. If anyone on this forum would take the time to review Corey's response to Bill's interview w/the Dark Journalist (I have), I do agree w/a few points made by both Goode and Deschamps (hope I spelled that correctly). Corey posted a link to a blog about outsourcing within the IT field. This was written in, I believe, 2003. So well before Corey came out w/his story? Corey wrote a comment underneath that article. It does beggar the question as to why Corey would write that comment under that particular article if he wasn't working in the field.

Two, this claim that there is some sort of video which purports to show that Goode and his wife were colluding in some sort of scam re Wilcock. Where's the video? Corey has asked that this video be proffered, but thus far, it has not. If I were in some sort of legal position within which to ask for proof of evidence, that evidence would most assuredly have to be proffered during testimony if deemed truly valuable/evidentiary.

Also, to simply state that someone has witnessed a whistle-blower's credentials privately, but that I should (or anyone else should) accept this as proof w/o having seen it for myself (as in some sort of screenshot so I can view it myself), is not yet again, proven to be evidence which can therefore be accepted as valid.

Also, and because of my own involvement w/this genre on a very private level, I do know for a fact that there are many of us who have had these black ops experiences who have never, and will never, go public with them, for a variety of reasons. Safety being priority number one, not only for ourselves, but for our loved ones and others of whom are also involved. So please don't presume, Bill, that simply because you've spoken to numerous individuals on this topic, does not make you or anyone else, more knowledgeable in some way, than perhaps those of us who are involved first hand, but because of various factors are not free to speak out.

This is a very, very complicated topic, but one that I would hope researchers treat with the utmost respect and integrity as they can. Too often, and on more occasions than I would have hoped, I see bias heap itself into a report on this subject. It's HARD to keep one's bias from entering the scope and breadth of this material. It's been hard for ME to accept what has happened to me as well.

Ironically, the entirety of my own experiences has been learning how to use the skill and art of discernment, and I do mean under some extremely difficult and trying circumstances; almost to the point I have been taken well beyond my ability and coping mechanism at times. It's been HARD.

So - on that note, I am thrilled to see that the issue with discernment and integrity has now become a major focus for this movement.

It 's been sorely needed.

[Bayareamom]

http://sitsshow.blogspot.com/2017/05...bill-ryan.html

SNIP: (I wholeheartedly support the below comments):

..."At this point, no definitive judgement or discernment can take place; the only thing that can be done is to speculate on what might have happened based on the evidence one does have. What tends to happen in this situation is people unconsciously assume that lack a of evidence is evidence of something else—this is a logical fallacy. Claims require evidence. When there is no evidence, a credibility assessment can give us a guess, but that's all it is.

Assessing credibility allows us to gauge how likely people are to be telling the truth based on how truthful they have been in the past. And contrary to popular belief, while credibility can be a useful guide it still doesn't mean they can be believed without question. Credible people may say things that are not true. People lacking in credibility may say things that are true..."

AND

.."I reached out to Bill Ryan and asked if he would like to respond, with the goal of settling the controversy so we can get back to fixing the planet. He has yet to reply, but should he, I will produce an update..."

I hope Bill responds to this gentleman. Deschamps has proffered some very interesting perspectives on this issue. I think he's been thoughtful in his critique, for both sides.

[Bayareamom]

Regarding credible people: I have learned via my own personal experience, that people lacking in true integrity may indeed state things at times, which are true. On the other hand, normally credible people may state things which are not true, for a number of reasons (as in perhaps having a certain belief system when it's not been realized this belief system is false). Hope this makes sense.

Given all that I have been going through and all that I now understand is why I find Deschamps' material so refreshing.

[Nasu]

Posted by sunwings (here)
Corey´s latest adventure is a comic of his life story. It is summarised as:

Comic Disclosure is a unique line of graphic novel media accurately depicting and disseminating the testimony of modern era super heroes, aka whistleblowers. AKA Corey the Avian

Details can be found here on this new website with pretty graphics!



https://www.comicdisclosure.com/

Ha ha. Lol. Thanks for posting a link to that page. What a funny joke. Such hilarious pictures. Him in handcuffs, meeting aliens, visiting inner earth hangouts, cone-heads, Nelson Mandela, you know the usual stuff... How absurdly silly. Can you imagine a similar so called historical graphics page for Assange or Snowdon??? I think not. The court has seen enough, it rests it's case...

I think just refer anyone to that page from now on when they mention his name and say no more. By his own hand, or that of his graphic designer, he has shot himself squarely in the face....x.... N

ps. Not sure which is funnier, the juxtaposition of all those misty eyed images of Corey's gentle and angelically innocent face or the high functioning aliens choosing him to represent the many diverse tribes of Earth, given his extensive world experience. lol

[Mike]

Posted by Bayareamom (here)
Well, you and I will have to agree to disagree. I have never heard of the individual who writes this blog before today (or actually late yesterday). I stayed open minded when I read what he has to say. It resonates w/me completely. Having said that, I am not saying I agree w/every thing he states, but generally speaking what he has to say, makes a lot of sense.

Did you read the entirety of that above article? Did you also read his critique of Bill's interview w/the Dark Journalist? I think he's done a very credible job. He did not demean Bill's interview, nor fully support Goode. I feel he handled the information he presented w/a brevity I don't often see in this genre.

But again, just my own .02.

i like to write as simply as possible. i like things succinct and to the point. clear. easily understandable. and i prefer to read things that fit this criteria too. i found myself getting dizzy reading that article. i had to read certain sentences and passages 2 or 3 times. they just didnt make any sense.

even his definition of 'credibility' is little excessively worded. i'm not sure where he got it. when i typed 'credibility' into the google searchbox, the first thing i got back was this: "the quality of being trusted and believed in". i like that. short and to the point. no fat on that at all. easily understandable.

he begins his article by agreeing that someone like Tompkins - who is someone with verifiable documentation - is more credible than someone like corey goode - who is someone who has no documentation. but then in the very next sentence writes that there is no difference between the 2. huh? specifically, he said there is no 'appreciable' difference (appreciable: large or important enough to be noticed)

imagine going to a job interview with an impressive resume. imagine you are competing against someone who has *no* resume, *no* verifiable sources. *no* documentation. imagine that the other person gets the job. and imagine approaching the boss to ask why, only to be told that "there is no appreciable difference between the two of you". makes zero sense, right?

there is nothing "indirect, hazy, or nebulous" about documentation. its about as direct and clear as you can get.

his analogy that begins "credibility is like walking around in the dark" etc, makes not the slightest bit of sense. he seems to think 'credibility' and 'assessment of objective evidence' are somehow mutually exclusive. i mean, wouldnt verified documentation qualify as 'objective evidence'?

i dunno, its just sloppy writing to me. it doesnt mean anything.

no, the "truth is not democratic". i agree. but what does that have to do with anything???

in the next paragraph he writes "similarly, if researchers only use corroboration and credibility as a means of vetting whistleblowers, and do not keep an open mind and assess claims objectively, they will dismiss genuine testimony as false." HUH??? really, whats more objective than corroboration and credibility??? and if you take corroboration and credibility out of the equation, WHATS LEFT??? nothing "objective", i can assure you of that. after that you simply have your intuition, which i think we'd all agree is definitively *subjective*.

i could go on and on...
=====================================

no, i didnt read the critique of the interview, but i will take a look..just out of curiosity.

also, i do appreciate you posting the article. its interesting to see what others in the alt community are saying. i do respect you and your opinion. this is no knock on you. i just cant find any real value in the article.

[Sierra]

Posted by bayareamom
Two, this claim that there is some sort of video which purports to show that Goode and his wife were colluding in some sort of scam re Wilcock. Where's the video? Corey has asked that this video be proffered, but thus far, it has not. If I were in some sort of legal position within which to ask for proof of evidence, that evidence would most assuredly have to be proffered during testimony if deemed truly valuable/evidentiary.

No, there was no video. It was a scuttlebutt from someone who said they saw (via a three letter agency's tools that can listen, and see what is going on in a room via a personal computer) the conversation but it was not recorded or if there was a recording, it did not see the light of day. Just one anecdote among many that does not offer "proof" but slots into a narrative to build a picture.

After all, if the potentially existing video *was* released, all hell would break loose, at proof positive the spooks spy on us at home.

I think it's more a case of "Oh, what a tangled web we weave...when first we practice to deceive."
- Walter Scott

Corey refuses both a polygraph, and regression. No "proof" there either.

There were many discrepancies before Corey contracted with Gaiam TV to sail off into fantasyland, and sell key chains, hats, and mugs for fun and profit.

But in my personal opinion, the worst action on the part of Corey was to say he is "counseling" thirty or so milabs. Without cleaning himself up first. I don't see how ANYONE can simultaneously counsel 30 people, write comic books, attend meetings in outer space, the Antarctica, sit for photoshopped portraits, and do interviews with David Wilcock on Gaiam TV. Just does not compute.