Hello, Everyone:
I intend to find time over the next few days, if I can, to catch up with the questions on my own thread. (There's been a huge amount going on behind the scenes which has been occupying Kerry and myself considerably). But I absolutely have to make a few comments here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chamber
I would like to point out that there is a huge difference between questioning the legitimacy of a whistleblower...and questioning the validity and accuracy of what they're claiming in the interview.
A lie that one believes to be true and volunteers the info...does not make one a liar.
Also...a threat, attack, surveillance etc does not automatically validate what they are claiming.
So do not confuse the critique of the information being presented as a critique of the individual presenting the information.
Personally, I think Kerry gets too involved with the information being presented and is somewhat emotionally attached to what is being said...both when it confirms her beliefs and when it conflicts with her beliefs. A good interviewer....someone allowing another to really present their own facts and opinions...asks questions from a non-dualistic perspective.
If I could make a single suggestion on any and all future interviews....it would be to ask the whistleblower this question...
Why should anyone watching believe what you are saying?
The answer to that...or more specifically the reaction to that question would speak volumes about the person being asked.
|
...is a highly intelligent contribution. By picking this out, I'm not in any way minimizing the value of any other comments... and there have been many good observations on this thread.
I wasn't in LA to assist Kerry with the interview, so I watched it with great interest as did everyone else here.
I first met Aaron at the Camelot Conference in LA last September. My immediate strong impression of him was that he was bright, energetic, honest, eager to help, and someone I could immediately trust to do anything we asked.
He helped us out in a million ways behind the scenes without ever attracting attention to himself or seeking credit. He was 100% reliable, was always on the spot to assist when something needed to be done, and he impressed me a great deal. I'd have him in my team.
He had some major memory gaps, and it was immediately clear that something had happened to him and that he had been involved in some unusual program. He was trying hard to put the pieces together. He was puzzled and concerned about his own life and, like Duncan O'Finioan, was driven and determined to get to the bottom of it all.
Given what he believes is true about himself (and it all might very well be), he has real courage in coming forward so openly under his own name. Do recognize that. He's a little nervous, but - think about it - you can't be brave without also being frightened.
I've seen some sketches and photos he's produced (not shown on the video) and they're pretty thought-provoking. Having said that, a lot of what he stated in the interview was his best speculation, and he was absolutely doing what he could to state what he knew or thought he knew.
The provenance of information is critically important. What's first-hand? What's second-hand? What's casual military gossip? What's been seen on the internet? What comes from flashbacks or dreams? What's channeled? What's embellished? What's imagined?
These are questions that are at the heart of everything we all care about here - and the answers are not always obvious, even when talking directly and at length with a witness. As time goes on, these questions have become more and more important to me.
And to add a caveat here, anyone who's seen the excellent Jason Bourne trilogy can believe that flashbacks and dreams of events do NOT mean that they are unreal. They just point to directions to dig further in the physical, waking world.
There's definitely something going on in and around Yemen, but we don't yet know what it is. We need to keep watching. It might "just" be a political scenario, and I will need some convincing that this is anything to do with a Stargate or synthetic beings.
The Gulf of Aden Stargate story has been around for a while and has got itself all mixed up with NESARA and the Galactic Federation of Light, which is a huge red flag for me.
Stargates are certainly real (as synthetic humans probably are), but they are pretty small - jumproom size, so to speak. The
claimed satellite photo of the "Gulf of Aden Stargate" just shows a
dust storm... the swirl effect is 200-300 miles across and is certainly no "Stargate".
The amount of energy needed to hold open that kind of breach of spacetime would be enough to consume the planet, and would not be stable. Stargates would not be visible from orbit without very specialized equipment, like the kind of super-sophisticated technology (see
our interview with Wade Frazier) that detects over-unity devices when they power up and "become visible" - wherever they may be.
I have a problem with people relying rather too faithfully on internet "research", and all in all YouTube is probably more helpful to the disinformationists than it is to the truth-seekers. Finding out what's REALLY going on is REALLY hard.
I can go on and on about this, as it's frustrating (to say the least). At Camelot we've always tried to follow our instincts and cross-check where we can, sharing our journey on camera with our audience. It's a journey of exploration and discovery for us just as much as it is for our visitors. We're trying to assemble a mosaic that's incredibly complex.
And one problem is that some witnesses are messed with (memory loss, medical problems, emotional issues, or leaned on and find themselves obliged to maintain split loyalties) - and I do not mean this unkindly.
The vast majority of them are quite wonderful and well-meaning people. But not all of their information can be relied upon automatically. We
know this. If anyone still thinks we're deliberately peddling disinformation, they're either not very bright or are not very good students of human nature.
A proportion of the information we relay is bound to be incorrect or conjectural. It's inevitable. Really, we're just indicating directions and locations where others can look: and this is where Aaron did himself great credit, by urging viewers to check out for themselves everything he was talking about.
Like many of us, he doesn't know exactly what's going on - but he's hungry to find out, and I wish we had more in the world like him. He's determined, wants to know who he is and why he's here, refuses to accept the lies he's been told, and is astonishingly brave: I too am looking forward to the second interview, and hope that the fact that it's been stated so clearly by him that he will reveal more doesn't in some way stop that interview from happening.
My best wishes to all - Bill