Body Language Expert Does Steven Greer, Corey Goode

[A Voice from the Mountains]

I've been following the body language expert doing analyses on the "Bombard's Body Language" channel on YouTube for several days now, and she's just put out a video analyzing the body language of none other that Steven Greer and Corey Goode in relation to the info they peddle.


14R9QB7cJ1M


She also does a NASA Q&A panel in the beginning.

Her conclusions:

- For the NASA panel, they exhibited "guarded" body language about the idea of a brown dwarf, but showed no signs of stress about any imminent threat, ie Planet X. So they literally knew of nothing to worry about.
- For Greer, she says he tries to make himself appear bigger and more important than he actually is, basically exhibiting narcissistic behavior. He has collected a lot of public information and then constructed additional stories around it. Her conclusion is to assume that he is just "telling you a story."
- For Corey Goode, she concludes that he seems to truly believe what he's saying based on his body language, but that this doesn't necessarily mean what he says is true. So he could be a MILAB or he could just be coo-coo for Coco Puffs. I know from personal experience that Goode is not above lying so I wonder if he's not been coached in some way considering the "career" he has chosen for himself.

So check out the video and see how she points all of this out. :)

[Sunny-side-up]

can hardly wait to watch this vid, tomorrows

[bettye198]

I happen to come from a study of body language and intuitive takes on personality that seem to be innate. My career threw me into that need. I found this video inadequate and poorly presented. While I agree that Greer can be full of himself as a prominent speaker in front of large groups, that is an obvious. Most bigger than life speakers have that going for them. Every motivational leader has that. As far as Corey, and I have watched at least a dozen of his video's, he remains guarded and staid. His eye contact is good, he is not reactive in a strong way, but he remains very even, an effect of his MILAB upbringing and what he went through on a scale we could not imagine.

If this woman wanted to create a hypothesis on whether either of these men lied or were deceiving the public, that would take a whole lot of study, not just this presentation. There would need to be factchecks involved. Upfront intuitive look in their eyes.

When we speak to others we have all kinds of days that color our behavior/posture. Are we tense because we are in pain? Are we having a low biorhythm day? Too much coffee or not enough? Honestly, body language has to take in so much. When I studied graphology and used it for potential employees, I got a better sense of what was going on.

[WhiteLove]

Hmm... I have never believed what Corey says (but on a human level feel compassion for him and what he does), I have and still believe Greer tells the truth but might sometimes be a bit protective about what he says for the sake of the sources. I find Greer might at times also impress a bit too much with stuff coming from a source other than himself, but I think that is due to a combination of passion and the feeling that he needs to have all the answers in his position or just to be clear that he owns this topic as a result of what he knows and what his responsibility is, maybe boosted a bit by pressure he might feel, a little ego and some self protection/defense. I find one should not let that distract too much, Greer knows an awful lot, is authentic and does important work, because he truly wants free energy, ET contact etc. and wants good to our civilization, it's his passion and he does it his way. Love them both as fellow truth seekers...

I was not so impressed by the person that did the body language reading...

[Flash]

Bombard's analysis is very good for the Nasa women, but misses on lots of points with Greer, namely the micro gestures of the mouth which shows retentions of information, looking down to its left which means going within his feeling and or body, remembering something, keeping his left hand behind his back which could be a way to control his autonomous nervous system tics (playing continuously with his collar) or it could be keeping information hidden too, etc etc. She misses fundamental clues in my opinion. While playing with his ear, he is saying - calling Mr - which to me means it is true, he got this call and is remembering what he heard showing it by touching his ear. The shiftiness afterwards would be related to what he heard that has caused the death of those people, making him quite uneasy - but understandably in this case here. Who want to hear thing that people get killed for? She also missed the sign Greer shows when he said he was adviser to George W. Bush (this is an half truth half lie). In my opinion, Greer is a mix of truth and withheld truths sometimes half truths or half lies.

Bombards is fine in the large views and global understanding, but misses much too much for me to give her full credential. Also, Greer hides a lot and does not say everything he knows, but I see that in different places than Bombard does, with more acuity, I think.

For Cory Goody, she is entirely right when she says he is together all along except for the food taste, where he lies. He may not have dared telling them that vegetarianism stink and is real bland. Those are little lies we all do once in a while to save the day. lolll. She is also right about Corey accessing memory (visual and kinesthetic) while talking of Dracos etc however she misses on the throat rash (twice) right after which is an unease, in communication or about what he says, but I would not know what exactly he is uneasy about - as an interviewer, i would had dug into it though. Corey is very guarded in his body movement, we have to look at the micro movements to understand and the camera work is much too bad for this.

¤=[Post Update]=¤


I happen to come from a study of body language and intuitive takes on personality that seem to be innate. My career threw me into that need. I found this video inadequate and poorly presented. While I agree that Greer can be full of himself as a prominent speaker in front of large groups, that is an obvious. Most bigger than life speakers have that going for them. Every motivational leader has that. As far as Corey, and I have watched at least a dozen of his video's, he remains guarded and staid. His eye contact is good, he is not reactive in a strong way, but he remains very even, an effect of his MILAB upbringing and what he went through on a scale we could not imagine.

If this woman wanted to create a hypothesis on whether either of these men lied or were deceiving the public, that would take a whole lot of study, not just this presentation. There would need to be factchecks involved. Upfront intuitive look in their eyes.

When we speak to others we have all kinds of days that color our behavior/posture. Are we tense because we are in pain? Are we having a low biorhythm day? Too much coffee or not enough? Honestly, body language has to take in so much. When I studied graphology and used it for potential employees, I got a better sense of what was going on.

Couldn't agree more.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

[FONT="Comic Sans MS"][FONT="Comic Sans MS"][SIZE="3"][COLOR="blue"]I happen to come from a study of body language and intuitive takes on personality that seem to be innate.

I read all sorts of environmental/contextual information into what I'm looking at too, and use it on a daily basis for analyzing what I am seeing either online or in real life. For me it comes from a mix of intuition, taking psychology classes, reading books on the psychology of body language and mind-opening experiences with altered states of consciousness. I don't usually think it's necessary to go into the life experiences that have colored the way I have come to filter the world but I guess for some people it's useful for providing context into where certain ideas are coming from. For example, my personal impression is that your use of big, bold blue letters screams "my words are special, pay attention." Maybe it's neither here nor there but I find it interesting that Corey Goode actually did something similar by using bold purple letters in all of his posts here. I mean no offense with that, and of course it's not like there are rules against that or anything, but not everyone chooses to do that and I find it an obvious thing to take note of. I think about lots of little things like that.

I was personally inclined to believe that Corey is 100% knowingly lying about all of his experiences, but after this video I'm slightly more inclined to believe that (a) he's a pathological liar who actually believes his own lies, (b) he has some other psychological condition, such as paranoid schizophrenia, or (c) he may actually be a MILAB victim, with the accompanying psychological distress that that would bring.

The woman who does these analyses has pointed out a lot of little habits that some people have and explained them in a way that makes intuitive sense to me, that I never thought of on my own. I mean that when she explains certain body language movements, I can imagine myself making those same movements and feel the energy of them, and feel intuitively that they do in fact conform with the kind of thinking that she is suggesting is taking place. So I'm learning a lot from her through thinking about body movements in a way that I never explored before.

This kind of study seems to involve a familiarly with a large repertoire of different kinds of body movements, and I guess what I'm saying is that I previously didn't realize how large of a variety there can actually be when you start really paying minute attention. Flash has been paying attention too it seems.


If this woman wanted to create a hypothesis on whether either of these men lied or were deceiving the public, that would take a whole lot of study, not just this presentation. There would need to be factchecks involved. Upfront intuitive look in their eyes.

Any kind of real intelligence work will take in information from a multitude of independent sources, not just a single analysis and not just analyses on a single subject. Lots of people have dug around on Corey Goode already and I won't rehash the information here, but the guy definitely exhibits manipulative behavior and toyed with more than a few prominent members of this forum and others. He was actively stirring up drama behind the scenes and I still believe he was fully intent on doing that.

Simon Parkes has been discredited here too as of late but from what I understand, Corey was even exacerbating that situation by floating unsubstantiated rumors about him and intentionally taking those rumors to a certain other volatile individual in order to create drama. There are lots of chat logs and those sorts of things out there (not like those can't also be manipulated, but I've seen them from people I trust). So these are important to take into considering too, independently of body language reads and intuition.

Long story short, the only way this video changed my opinion is that now I'm more likely to believe Corey isn't just a liar but he may also be a bit mental on top of that, whatever the cause of that might be (military abuse or natural causes).

[TargeT]

Body language interp. is interesting... but still colored by the biases of the conscious mind.

I prefer to go with instinct, it's made my life awesome so far.

My gut instinct is they are both mostly full of BS...

I'll continue going with that ;)

[Noelle]

I agree with TargeT. I would not like to have my credibility judged to any degree by my body language -- whether it be live or via video or by a stranger or someone who I know. Even the most prolific speakers and entertainers get nervous, fatigued, etc. I had to speak many times during my graduate program. I was never operating normally, in the biological sense, before, during and immediately after the presentations.

[AutumnW]

Greer and body language.LOL! What about the slow body language of steroid use that turned a nice looking man into a close approximation of a lowland gorilla with a teensy little head??

I recently saw the movie, 'Siriis,' and I found it kind of interesting, weird. What stood out to me as incredibly fake though, involving body language/behavior was the scene where someone mentioned Greer's former helper, who died of breast cancer, more than ten years ago.

Now, most people, several years after the fact, might tear up...a little. Greer went into full histrionics when her name came up, walked away from the camera, head hung low, wiping away tears and had to have someone comfort him. Huh? That's not how people behave and surely to God, if it WAS sincere he would have had it edited out.

Greer is a five star, pants on fire liar. He must have permanent burn scars from his chronic lying.

[shaberon]

Personal reaction to Mr. Greer's motions and words, I saw one of his first interviews about twenty years ago, and about ten minutes into it, I hung up, permanently.

[Flash]

There is quite lot of science based studies about non verbal language and gesture\movements significance. Most from Berkeley in the anglo world, and some from Philippe Turchet in the French world (Turchet does empirical studies only, while scientists at Berkeley scan the brain and look at which part lit up whenever a movement or micro movement is made, correlating those movements to specific parts of the brain involved in different kinds of emotions). It is quite precise and has definitely not been studied by Bombard, her analysis being very basic.





Body language interp. is interesting... but still colored by the biases of the conscious mind.

I prefer to go with instinct, it's made my life awesome so far.

My gut instinct is they are both mostly full of BS...

I'll continue going with that ;)

[Daozen]

Very few honest people in UFOlogy in my view. Lots of plants and governrnent agents.

The main aims of this operation:

- Setting up dragnets and honeypots for potential genuine contactees. Throwing out chicken-feed information that will attract them, and then tracking them.
- Focusing people on a 'disclosure' that will proabably never come.
- Searching and tagging potential social disruptors.
- Leading people round in circles.
- Spreading two extreme lies: 1) That the aliens will land and save us sometime "soon", or the opposite lie, 2) that there will huge disasters in the next few months. This knocks readers off balance.
- Cultivating a feeling of helplessness i.e. "Aliens need to land and save us". boutreality pointed that out.
- Focusing our attention up, up, up, and getting us to ignore the mystery under our feet.
- Making a shift in global government from West to East look like a white-hat coup d'etat.
- Discrediting the UFOlogy field by putting out false, laughable info.
- Keeping people in short term panic/hope/panic/hope/panic/hope/panic/hope/panic/hope, distracting them from their long term life mission.
- Focusing on fluffy New Age philosophy instead of practical action.

In short, turning warriors into beggars.

Is the US space command real, if ISS interior and lunar landing footage shows evidence of being doctored?

[sunwings]

At the end of the video she gives her conclusions

1. Steven Greer is just telling stories unless he can show documented evidence.
2. Corey Goode is pulling memories and even visual memories.

This would indicate we should not tarnish both with the same brush!

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

I'd like to see Peter Hyatt - an expert in the highly fascinating process of 'statement analysis' - look at both Greer and Goode (Wilcock too).

Slightly off topic - but for those who don't know him, he has provided some amazing insight into the Madeleine McCann case, and from the multiple statements of her parents Jerry and Kate McCann concludes beyond any shadow of a doubt (as far as his science is concerned), that they are A) lying over the alleged abduction of Maddie, and B) that she died on that very night in Portugal, and they were responsible for her death and are covering it up.

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?94724-Madeleine-McCann-Richard-Hall-update

[Bill Ryan]

Very few honest people in UFOlogy in my view. Lots of plants and government agents.



Yes. And among those who are honest and well-intentioned, many are poor or flawed researchers, or are way to eager to believe and re-tell impossible stories.

I was asked by a friend a couple of days ago which researchers or authors I'd recommend to an intelligent and curious person who knew almost nothing about the subject. Good question. My list was quite short:


Richard Dolan, of course. Trained as an academic historian, and exemplary in everything he writes, says and does.



Linda Howe, seasoned, smart, sane and professional, and who has been in the field forever, is close in quality.



Timothy Good is another. He wrote one of the UFO researchers' 'Bibles', Above Top Secret (https://www.amazon.com/Above-Top-Secret-Worldwide-U-F/dp/0688092020), in 1988, which is as valid and valuable now as it was then.



George Knapp is always fact-oriented, solid and grounded, a professional journalist and TV presenter himself.



Jim Marrs, too: everything he does is impeccably researched. He wrote the excellent Alien Agenda (http://amazon.com/Alien-Agenda-Investigating-Extraterrestrial-Presence/dp/0060955368).



Colin Wilson wrote Alien Dawn (http://amazon.com/Alien-Dawn-Investigation-Contact-Experience/dp/0880642599) ... significant because Wilson was an occult researcher and knew little about UFOs, but felt he should really take a look and write something. (And it was a good book, too, as Wilson was himself a beginner in the field.) If my memory serves me right, he read (or, probably skimmed through the indexes of!) 2,000 other books to prepare himself to write his own. That's real scholarship, and that's a dying skill.

[TargeT]

2. Corey Goode is pulling memories and even visual memories.

This would indicate we should not tarnish both with the same brush!

Goode has a history on this forum (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?83133-The-Corey-Goode-affair-various-updates-from-David-Wilcock), he tarnished himself.


If she thinks he's at all credible, then I doubt the effectiveness of her body-language reading.

[WhiteLove]

Very few honest people in UFOlogy in my view. Lots of plants and government agents.



Yes. And among those who are honest and well-intentioned, many are poor or flawed researchers, or are way to eager to believe and re-tell impossible stories.

I was asked by a friend a couple of days ago which researchers or authors I'd recommend to an intelligent and curious person who knew almost nothing about the subject. Good question. My list was quite short:


Richard Dolan, of course. Trained as an academic historian, and exemplary in everything he writes, says and does.



Linda Howe, seasoned, smart, sane and professional, and who has been in the field forever, is close in quality.



Timothy Good is another. He wrote one of the UFO researchers' 'Bibles', Above Top Secret (https://www.amazon.com/Above-Top-Secret-Worldwide-U-F/dp/0688092020), in 1988, which is as valid and valuable now as it was then.



George Knapp is always fact-oriented, solid and grounded, a professional journalist and TV presenter himself.



Jim Marrs, too: everything he does is impeccably researched. He wrote the excellent Alien Agenda (http://amazon.com/Alien-Agenda-Investigating-Extraterrestrial-Presence/dp/0060955368).



Colin Wilson wrote Alien Dawn (http://amazon.com/Alien-Dawn-Investigation-Contact-Experience/dp/0880642599) ... significant because Wilson was an occult researcher and knew little about UFOs, but felt he should really take a look and write something. (And it was a good book, too, as Wilson was himself a beginner in the field.) If my memory serves me right, he read (or, probably skimmed through the indexes of!) 2,000 other books to prepare himself to write his own. That's real scholarship, and that's a dying skill.


I tend to agree, but there are a few authors I don't know as much as you do Bill, but I tend to agree about those too since this view is coming from you. Where we disagree a little is I think about Greer, you might have some inside perspective that I lack.

I rank Timothy Good as the top researcher on the list although it is a difficult ranking to do. I have always found Timothy to have very high integrity and he has appeared to be almost a perfectionist about the data he has. Timothy also has that little extra info and I think that is because of contacts, passion, being close to the real field etc. But both Timothy and Richard I find are limited in the sense that they have to rely on second hand stories, quite little really sensitive data/experiences they have had first hand access to it appears. But I know that Timothy even met someone he was convinced was an ET, so he must have a pretty expanded perspective. Richard is just like Timothy a great forwarder of information, with extremely little filtering in between. I find his main issue is simply lack of access to information, but although he speculates about various things he never makes any real conclusions, the conclusions he makes are pretty much totally rock solid all of them. He is also good at narrowing down the possibilities, so that you can read behind the lines.

I want to add at least three persons, one is Joseph P. Farrell (it appears he has read an enormous amount of books), who I find is incredibly sharp when it comes to geopolitics, he is also great at speculation, I find that those that have both of those qualities are great at getting much closer to the truth when information access is the issue. (he is a great hub of information too since people are sending him lots of very specific information) The second person that I want to add is Steven Greer, because his access to information is pretty unique and with his doctor background and deep insight about advanced topics, his incredible passion and a great dose of integrity and some ego too, I find few can match him all in all. The third person I want to mention is Stanton Friedman, with his background as a nuclear physicist, with his great skepticism and to my knowledge good precision too... Also Andrew Johnson...

[WhiteLove]

1. Steven Greer is just telling stories unless he can show documented evidence.


He has presented some really unique documents, that appear very authentic, I think Greer overall is not sloppy, the volume of information he has processed must be incredible, hence much of it is relaying of information too, but that is also true for most others... I think Greer is a true pioneer in his field. All of what he says is not true, but that's also the case with the other ones, the difference being mostly in how trustworthy they "appear" rather than are. Some of what they "know" is also to some extent stuff that is kind of difficult to "understand" from a human perspective with the limited amount of contextual bigger picture data they know/have access to. Their subjective characters/types are a bit different too (e.g., some open, some closed, some accepting, some not so accepting, some speculative, some not so speculative, some judgmental, some not so judgmental and so on), but we are all unique beings...

[AutumnW]

Greer is a very smart man and he would be the first to admit it. He probably has his whoppers filed under most incredible to least incredible with a dollar amount associated with all of them.

When he looks down, he is running different fables through his mental Rolodex of bull. The tough part is keeping all of the fables straight, while public speaking. It's particularly difficult as he has to make difficult snap decisions while listening to the 'ka-ka-ka-Ching!' of imaginary cash registers, at the same time.

Most people have no idea what this guy has gotten up to behind the scenes.

[bettye198]

I noticed many of the people on the list that Bill posted are those who have been around a really really long time. Perhaps we need some up to date researchers. We need to shift with the times. I do listen to some of those on the list and even they, have aligned with David Wilcock and Goode's info. I do believe we need to take a step back and take in a wider perspective of those who are NOW coming forth because of the shift in consciousness.

I recommend Laura Eisenhower who is the great granddaughter of the President, she is an eloquent speaker doing deep study with galactic history as well as being in the mix of what is coming forth.
I recommend listening to Captain Randy Cramer. There are plenty of videos on him who was engineered from the petrie dish up to be a super soldier which he has come away from after years on Mars. Strongly recommend Project Moonshadow especially Episode 4 if you want to see mind blowing up close pictures of Mars and what is really there. Oh, and check out Andrew Basiago and ask yourself if he is credible. His story is pretty unbelievable. Yet he talks like the lawyer that he is. I would like to hear from members what he says about time traveling with Obama ( Barry Sotoro) back when. My only theory there is that he could have been dealing with a clone.
Richard C. Hoagland, Dr. Paul LaVilette, Dr. John Brandenburg, Catherine Austin Fitts, Olav Phillips, Jay Dyer are also many others who have come forth.
Lastly, and I mean last comment about Corey Goode. I watched many of his Cosmic Disclosure videos with David Wilcock. I could not sense any hint of throwing us a bone but rather, his view which has turned remarkably by the influence of the Blue Avians, into a need to bring awareness of who we are as spiritual beings , need to meditate, need to be surrounded with the idea of serving others. His frame of mind I sense, has been greatly healed by his early trauma. I am not so sure he is deprogrammed from all the military ordinances but his heart was shown numerous times. We can only hope for that for those who have been dickered with.
I hope John Titor II who wrote the book recently would come forward like William Tompkins, Dr. Wood, Bob Dean.

[AutumnW]

Betty198,

Many of these people you mention are entertaining but shouldn't be taken seriously. If they can't construct a very strong circumstantial case, I dismiss them. They shouldn't have to provide ironclad scientific proof, but basic rules of journalism should apply -- like providing two sources to verify their claims.

[sunwings]

They shouldn't have to provide ironclad scientific proof, but basic rules of journalism should apply -- like providing two sources to verify their claims.

Well in the case of Corey Goode, there are two sources David wilcock confirmed Corey verified information which he had never released from other sources and now we have William Tompkins out there saying the Blue people exist and are helping humanity.

Now this leads us to a Merry go round whether we can trust William and David. On the other hand Corey with his experiences with Implanted memories and setting up a trolling department using sociopaths is never a rock solid cause to get behind and cheer-lead. But I for one am sitting on the fence and going to watch how this plays out over time!

[TargeT]

whether we can trust William and David.

Dunno about William, David's noise:reality ratio is so high it's not worth the attention IMO.

Willcock and Fullford are distractions. Not sure how they can be seen as anything but.

[AutumnW]

Sunwings,

Unless the sources are highly credible, beyond reproach and in a position to verify something they KNOW to be true, I don't care what their claims are, who they support. Running for mayor of Crazy town, doesn't qualify either. It's entertaining and there is a slim chance that some theorizing might have some basis in reality, but it would probably be accidental.

I don't believe every weird story I hear, not because it's weird but because I am very distrustful of people, of all media -- mainstream and alternative.

Not everybody who gains traction in fringe topics is a liar. Some are fantasy prone and some did have a few legitimately odd experiences. But once they start to leverage a career off of those experiences, their stories grow, become more elaborate and the conclusions they draw become more debatable. They have to come up with more material for the sake of their incomes too. So they start to make stuff up. Rather than this being a clear red flag, their followers seem to hang on for the ride.

[Bill Ryan]

But once they start to leverage a career off of those experiences, their stories grow, become more elaborate and the conclusions they draw become more debatable. They have to come up with more material for the sake of their incomes too. So they start to make stuff up. Rather than this being a clear red flag, their followers seem to hang on for the ride.

Way back in February 2006, 100 years ago :) , when I first spoke at a UFO conference, I was taken aside by a wise and kindly UFO veteran — whose name right now I cannot actually remember. He warned me about what he called UFO Disease.

I had no idea what he was referring to. He explained that it was endemic in the community, and that it described the phenomenon of someone who had had a genuine unique experience, and had gone public about it... and then, once in the limelight, and kind of addicted to all the attention, publicity and sometimes $$, sought to stay in the limelight by endlessly repeating and then embellishing the story, and often inventing new aspects to it. He was serious, and said it was a huge, known problem.

I listened very carefully — and later saw many, many, many examples of this. (I have to say, I do think we may possibly be seeing exactly this with William Tompkins now.)

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

I listened very carefully — and later saw many, many, many examples of this. (I have to say, I do think we may possibly be seeing exactly this with William Tompkins now.)

I filed Tompkins' story under 'interesting' - but with numerous problems. In my mental drawer he fits snugly alongside in fact many UFO luminaries, past and present, including Meier and Adamski, who I am convinced initially experienced something very real. Then went out of control. It's a theory that I first heard Tim Good put forward, and it was an 'ah-ha' moment for me. It was then, on looking back, I was finally able to understand a lot of the craziness of the contactee scene in the 50s and 60s. UFO Disease is a good phrase for it.

[Mike]

But once they start to leverage a career off of those experiences, their stories grow, become more elaborate and the conclusions they draw become more debatable. They have to come up with more material for the sake of their incomes too. So they start to make stuff up. Rather than this being a clear red flag, their followers seem to hang on for the ride.

Way back in February 2006, 100 years ago :) , when I first spoke at a UFO conference, I was taken aside by a wise and kindly UFO veteran — whose name right now I cannot actually remember. He warned me about what he called UFO Disease.

I had no idea what he was referring to. He explained that it was endemic in the community, and that it described the phenomenon of someone who had had a genuine unique experience, and had gone public about it... and then, once in the limelight, and kind of addicted to all the attention, publicity and sometimes $$, sought to stay in the limelight by endlessly repeating and then embellishing the story, and often inventing new aspects to it. He was serious, and said it was a huge, known problem.

I listened very carefully — and later saw many, many, many examples of this. (I have to say, I do think we may possibly be seeing exactly this with William Tompkins now.)


Oh yeah, absolutely this exists.

I think it exists in ordinary people telling what would be rather mundane stories too....like the husband coming home from work and slightly embellishing a story he tells his wife about something that happened that day on the job etc

Also, when something that unique has happened to an individual, and he or she is attempting to communuicate it to people that it hasnt happened to, exaggerations will occur in an attempt to bridge that gap. I see it all the time. And heres the thing: those doing the exaggerating *don't consider it lying or disingenuousness*. In fact, over time they may do it so naturally and casually that theyre only vaguely aware of it when it happens. Thus, the disease:)

I had a friend like that. He would retell a story I had told him(sometimes a story I told him that very day) to a group of people (usually to impress girls) , telling it in the first person while adding little twists here n there.....and never once look at me and wink or smile, or pull me aside and say "thanks for the story" or "thanks for letting me get away with that"...And even going so far as to claim it as his own when i'd call him out on it later! It was staggering! These types of liars (disinformers?) actually get sincerely offended when called out....and i'll bet Tompkins fits this bill too

[amor]

Dear Autumn: It is always nice to see you here on line. One interesting thing said by Dr. Greer is the story about spacecraft dealing in drugs. These craft have been flying very well since the 1940's and the Elite who control the military have access to them. They have traded in DOPE and the misery of others in order to increase their wealth and build underground bunkers, etc. I believe his story's are likely true. Men who try to build muscle are those who have insufficient confidence in themselves and those people can be as soft inside as they are tough looking on the outside. It might be doing them a disservice to view them as dishonest. Most of the time, we are trying to do the best for others as well as ourselves. Be kind to life. With love, Amor

[AutumnW]

Very few honest people in UFOlogy in my view. Lots of plants and governrnent agents.

The main aims of this operation:

- Setting up dragnets and honeypots for potential genuine contactees. Throwing out chicken-feed information that will attract them, and then tracking them.
- Focusing people on a 'disclosure' that will proabably never come.
- Searching and tagging potential social disruptors.
- Leading people round in circles.
- Spreading two extreme lies: 1) That the aliens will land and save us sometime "soon", or the opposite lie, 2) that there will huge disasters in the next few months. This knocks readers off balance.
- Cultivating a feeling of helplessness i.e. "Aliens need to land and save us". boutreality pointed that out.
- Focusing our attention up, up, up, and getting us to ignore the mystery under our feet.
- Making a shift in global government from West to East look like a white-hat coup d'etat.
- Discrediting the UFOlogy field by putting out false, laughable info.
- Keeping people in short term panic/hope/panic/hope/panic/hope/panic/hope/panic/hope, distracting them from their long term life mission.
- Focusing on fluffy New Age philosophy instead of practical action.

In short, turning warriors into beggars.

Is the US space command real, if ISS interior and lunar landing footage shows evidence of being doctored?

My personal favourites, "Aliens are eating people. I KNOW this, for sure!" Plus, the one you mention, "The space brothers will come down and save us...one day." Both are reworked religious archetypes and should be replaced with something where there is some solid proof.

David Paulides comes closest to describing something seemingly malevolent that might be the work of ET's but he stops short of that conjecture, which is wise. As far as humans being dessert after the fast food of 'loosh',or the main course is done and the screaming has stopped....boy, it would take a lot of hard proof, before I would buy into that belief.

Robert Monroe's idea of alien 'loosh' has served as an imaginative launch pad for many of the esoterically inclined. I love his books and I think that there is something to what he visioned, while astral travelling. But, I don't think Monroe saw ET's actually eating people, or torturing them to milk them of energy. That takes things to a whole different level -- and a really horrible one.

The profile of the typical ufologist is:

Eccentric
Cranky, irritable
Avoidant, introverted, or slightly autistic.
Highly principled and a bit fantasy prone

With this cluster of personality traits so concentrated in one area of study, there are bound to be problems with lack of cohesion, infighting, drama and people flying off in fits of pique at one another. There's probably a little human control behind the scenes but most of it is a self generated clusterf***.

There are slick liars out there too though and Greer is one of them. The odious chain smoking woman, currently residing in France, is another one. He's narcissistic. She is likely a borderline.

[AutumnW]

Dear Autumn: It is always nice to see you here on line. One interesting thing said by Dr. Greer is the story about spacecraft dealing in drugs. These craft have been flying very well since the 1940's and the Elite who control the military have access to them. They have traded in DOPE and the misery of others in order to increase their wealth and build underground bunkers, etc. I believe his story's are likely true. Men who try to build muscle are those who have insufficient confidence in themselves and those people can be as soft inside as they are tough looking on the outside. It might be doing them a disservice to view them as dishonest. Most of the time, we are trying to do the best for others as well as ourselves. Be kind to life. With love, Amor

"It might be doing them a disservice to view them as dishonest." -- Amor

Very true. It MIGHT be. You are here to defend him and that point of view. Steroid use is usually a function of ego. When the self requires a more dynamic projection into the social sphere, 'roids are the go-to drug. Insecurity and fear MIGHT be the underlying cause. Pure unfettered aggression, or, 'gotta have, wanna have, gimme some, go to Hell', can also be the underlying cause.

[AutumnW]

But once they start to leverage a career off of those experiences, their stories grow, become more elaborate and the conclusions they draw become more debatable. They have to come up with more material for the sake of their incomes too. So they start to make stuff up. Rather than this being a clear red flag, their followers seem to hang on for the ride.

Way back in February 2006, 100 years ago :) , when I first spoke at a UFO conference, I was taken aside by a wise and kindly UFO veteran — whose name right now I cannot actually remember. He warned me about what he called UFO Disease.

I had no idea what he was referring to. He explained that it was endemic in the community, and that it described the phenomenon of someone who had had a genuine unique experience, and had gone public about it... and then, once in the limelight, and kind of addicted to all the attention, publicity and sometimes $$, sought to stay in the limelight by endlessly repeating and then embellishing the story, and often inventing new aspects to it. He was serious, and said it was a huge, known problem.

I listened very carefully — and later saw many, many, many examples of this. (I have to say, I do think we may possibly be seeing exactly this with William Tompkins now.)

Though I enjoyed the book, "The Day After Roswell," and thought 99% rang pretty true, I think Philip Corso suffered from a bit of UFO disease, as well.

[ClandestineDisclosure]

But once they start to leverage a career off of those experiences, their stories grow, become more elaborate and the conclusions they draw become more debatable. They have to come up with more material for the sake of their incomes too. So they start to make stuff up. Rather than this being a clear red flag, their followers seem to hang on for the ride.

Way back in February 2006, 100 years ago :) , when I first spoke at a UFO conference, I was taken aside by a wise and kindly UFO veteran — whose name right now I cannot actually remember. He warned me about what he called UFO Disease.

I had no idea what he was referring to. He explained that it was endemic in the community, and that it described the phenomenon of someone who had had a genuine unique experience, and had gone public about it... and then, once in the limelight, and kind of addicted to all the attention, publicity and sometimes $$, sought to stay in the limelight by endlessly repeating and then embellishing the story, and often inventing new aspects to it. He was serious, and said it was a huge, known problem.

I listened very carefully — and later saw many, many, many examples of this. (I have to say, I do think we may possibly be seeing exactly this with William Tompkins now.)

Bill, for what it's worth, I'm aware of UFO Disease - it may be human nature, requiring diligence and intestinal fortitude to avoid its trap. Although I'd never heard that term, the definition offered here placed a finer and more specific point on embellishment. In our discernment of expereincers, abductees, etc. we know embellishment is possible. As you may be aware, embellishments are lies or the stretching of truth. Once uttered and recorded, they must be remembered. The truth is easier to remember. Discernment, for me, is in listening for inconsistencies in William's narratives, as he shares them with me over and over again. Yes, I do visit with Bill periodically; and, invariably, I'm hearing the same stories. While listening for inconsistencies isn't a foolproof method of discerning truth, it could serve as an indicator of off-the-cuff creativity, as I had seen repeatedly during my video recording of Billie Faye Woodard's story back in 2012.

I'm glad to see you use the word possibly. You wrote - "I have to say, I do think we may possibly be seeing exactly this with William Tompkins now.". It tells me you don't know and are open-minded. I am too. Still, neither one of us fell off the turnip truck yesterday. The question remains: How does one go about proving anyone's unusual experience? Unless we experienced it with them, providing third-party proof is difficult, if not impossible; after all, in William's case, how do we go about proving the existence of Nordic Extraterrestrials and Reptilians on the moon? As for the rest of his story, regarding his work history with NASA, Douglas Aircraft, the US NAVY, etc. we have proof in the form of many documents provided by Tompkins to Dr. Robert Wood, who also worked at, and ultimately retired from, Douglas Aircraft the same time Bill was there; and, Dr. Wood recognized those documents. He also recognized the names of people that William had worked with. Thanks to the FOIA requests submitted by Dr. Michael Salla, which proves aspects of William's work history with the US NAVY and Admiral Rico Botta. William's work narrative aligns with the documents produced by his FOIA requests.

So, what about the rest of it? What about all this ET stuff and the various conclusions he's drawn about the Nordic and Reptilian agendas? How did William come to know that information? Where did this information originate from? I've asked. When I did, he asked that I stop the recorder to answer those questions, stipulating that it's not for public consumption just now, due to his clearance. Would I be incorrect in assuming that you've been in similar situations - asked not to reveal data? That information belongs to William Tompkins. I honor our friendship; so, I won't be scooping his story. I hope, in due time, he'll share it with all of us.

I want to nip something in the bud; because, I can imagine the kinds of comments that may follow my making such statements about my conversations with William Tompkins. I have no interest in profiting from this information. All the work I've done has been sponsored by me. I have no hidden agenda. I'm no agent or handler or any of that woo-woo imagination conspiracy crap. My interest in William is rooted in friendship and my personal search for truth, which is inspired by my own contact experience with ET. People say they want to meet ET. I say, you have no idea what you're asking for. While an excellent eye-opening experience, it can be a lonely journey, even when the contact is welcome and benevolent. Anyhow, I have been freely sharing my journey of exploration on my YouTube channel in the form of video conversations with people I've befriended. Since 2010, I've been looking for someone who could understand and relate to contact; and, I'm still looking for others experiencers. William Tompkins is a friend; because, he's among the very few people I've ever met whose ET contact is similar to mine -- benevolent. As such, William and I are able to freely talk; and, for that, I'm grateful. On my YouTube channel, I urge all my viewers and subscribers to discern the truth on their own. Finally, you won't find me standing on a stage publicly sharing the details of my contact experiences for money. It's not worth the scrutiny and headaches.

In the meantime, I'll continue to capture and share as much information as I can - from William Tompkins and others. :-)