Shane/The Ruiner's interview with Kerry Cassidy, 8 Sept 2015

[Shane]

There is this funny misconception that the info I share comes from the Illuminati.

The "intended audience" of the blog is the illuminati. Which means I am talking to the Illuminati members, not to the public.

Which indicates that what I am saying isn't what the illuminati believe, or what they educate members on. What I believe is not what they believe and what I have experienced goes beyond what they had shown me.

Which invalidates a lot of the comments I receive.

The reason I'm not running around countering all these things is (I watched five to ten minutes of that mans video and could correct his assumptions several times in that short period) 1) I'd prefer people make their own choices and so, I do not take exception to their choices even when they are negative towards or "against" myself. 2) It a luxury of being honest and having conviction which allows me to not be concerned with what others think about what I have said.

When I read something I believe to be a distraction or false or fabricated.. I ignore it and devote my energy in all ways to something else.

I hope others can learn to do the same.

When it comes to the Draco/ Annunaki story, I have discussed this with these races, and several others, directly so you will have to forgive me if what Sitchin or Chris Thomas says doesn't really take top priority for myself.

With love and respect,

[turiya]

Thank you for coming forth with that bit of information of where you get the notion of what part of our human history that these dracos - reptilians have played a part in. The Zecharia Sitchin information has not played in any part of you Illuminati education / training / programming. I got it!

So this 13,000 year-old & 26,000 year-old history information comes directly out of the mouths / minds of these ET Draco / Reptilian / Lizard characters & you just plainly "believe" them in whatever they tell you. Entities that have been the scourge of humanity, stepping across the bounds of the basic fundamental laws of this 'free will' Universe, lying, manipulating, cheating, kidnapping, raping individuals all along the way - in other words, everything they tell you about what part they've played in the history of humanity - and you just totally accept whatever it is that they tell you as the absolute truth.

Well Shane, this goes above & beyond going through any sort of MK-ultra, mind-control programming - if that were they case, then there would be some sensitivity, compassion for what that experience would entail. But what you are now saying, is it is plainly & simply being absolutely naive & gullible in believing whatever it is that they come forth & have said to you as being the truth. And you simply take in what they say as being true without ever questioning it. This in itself I find very troublesome.

Would this be what you are saying?

Again, I thank you, Shane, for coming forth with how you received this particular information about our past history.

Posted by Shane (here)
There is this funny misconception that the info I share comes from the Illuminati.

The "intended audience" of the blog is the illuminati. Which means I am talking to the Illuminati members, not to the public.

Which indicates that what I am saying isn't what the illuminati believe, or what they educate members on. What I believe is not what they believe and what I have experienced goes beyond what they had shown me.

Which invalidates a lot of the comments I receive.

The reason I'm not running around countering all these things is (I watched five to ten minutes of that mans video and could correct his assumptions several times in that short period) 1) I'd prefer people make their own choices and so, I do not take exception to their choices even when they are negative towards or "against" myself. 2) It a luxury of being honest and having conviction which allows me to not be concerned with what others think about what I have said.

When I read something I believe to be a distraction or false or fabricated.. I ignore it and devote my energy in all ways to something else.

I hope others can learn to do the same.

When it comes to the Draco/ Annunaki story, I have discussed this with these races, and several others, directly so you will have to forgive me if what Sitchin or Chris Thomas says doesn't really take top priority for myself.

With love and respect,

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Karpos (here)
Video of guy who took 13 pages or notes on Kerry's Interview with Shane, and has a long critical analysis of Shane's story. I'm listening now. So far he's doing a sound job of being objective and using critical thinking skills. A bit of a review of Shane's story according to the Interview posted in the OP.

WARNING: the guy uses some foul language. F words and such.

Thought some of you would want to check it out.

I (as Shane did) watched a small portion of it — and didn't see any objectivity or critical thinking skills at all.

He said he was "trained" in these kinds of analysis... I saw no evidence of that whatsoever. Another internet character, really not very qualified to comment, seizing his 15 mins of fame. There are way too many of those these days.

[Shane]

Hi turiya,

This is what I said:

When it comes to the Draco/ Annunaki story, I have discussed this with these races, and several others, directly

It comes from several sources. The authors you have mentioned are also considered as part of the whole.

With love and respect,

[turiya]

Posted by Shane (here)
Hi turiya,

This is what I said:

When it comes to the Draco/ Annunaki story, I have discussed this with these races, and several others, directly

It comes from several sources. The authors you have mentioned are also considered as part of the whole.

With love and respect,

So then, you would concur this as being second-had information that you have taken to be the truth, along with the Anu, Enki & Dracos having provided the genetic seeds of the human race information (i.e. being the creator-gods of humanity)? You repeated this information as if it was your very own knowledge & not something that you "believed" to be true, without clarifying that it was indeed a bit of "borrowed information" that you derived from other outside sources) - Anyways, this is how it came off, particularly within the Thomas Williams interview - as being your very own knowledge.

Again, thank you so much for providing answers to my inquiry.

Be well.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by turiya (here)

So then, you would concur this as being second-hand information

This question I pose here is not intended to be defensive, or aggressive.

But it's interesting, and philosophical (or possibly even metaphysical). It may also be important.

And that is... what is first-hand information?

In other words, how do we know what we feel we know?

[araucaria]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by turiya (here)

So then, you would concur this as being second-hand information

This question I pose here is not intended to be defensive, or aggressive.

But it's interesting, and philosophical (or possibly even metaphysical). It may also be important.

And that is... what is first-hand information?

In other words, how do we know what we feel we know?

An interesting question. Secondhand information comes to us through our ears (oral testimony) and eyes (something we read) and is filtered by our brain and gut, whereas firsthand info comes via direct experience… through our eyes and ears as filtered by our brain and gut.

If we take Shane’s explanation of triangulating several sources, then it might seem that secondhand information is more reliable than firsthand, unless you are triangulating your own data from multiple direct sources. But do we all do that all the time?

[onawah]

Here is what Shane posted on his blog on the subject of the name "Annunaki" (just for the record, and to save time):

Sunday, July 12, 2015
Annunaki
The most confused name this writer knows.

As it has been presented to the public, this word simply means alien or extra terrestrial.

Others believe that the Draco are in fact this race.

With a slight variant on the name, the Annunaki, a race that created one of many versions of humanity, does indeed exist. Their story is much older than the most recent interpretations suggest. The most recent is a case of impersonation, by the Draco.

Many elements of this translation are correct and many are incorrect, but the source material itself is a Draco creation.

The word meaning "alien" has caused several races to address themselves as Annunaki when interacting with humans, confusing the name. A true race, with a very similar name, is being used as a model by the Draco.

The true Annunaki race lives on Nibiru. The Draco do not. These Annunaki once created a human species utilizing an older hominid from earth, the Draco manipulated an already existing human species.

Many have received contact with races who call themselves Annunaki and are then forced into arguments with people who know these translations as being a Draconian creation. This is unnecessary. The truth is in the middle.

This is a race of humanoids who look like us in a larger size. They are benevolent but apathetic or self-centered and they check in on this planet often despite having no authority beyond that gifted to them by the Draco. (This is changing of course)

They will have dealings with us again, as the transition sparks a brand new cycle.

Their true name is connected to the planet they come from and is not entirely dissimilar to the impersonated name which has become known also as alien.

Names, names, names..

Annunaki is not their name truly, and other races besides them have called themselves this. The Draco used both their name - with a slight twist - and their image. One of many clever little mind ****s.


The Draco have also completely erased the presence of some very close friends of the Annunaki. Many older versions of humans also associate with them often.


Apathetic? They are not cruel, very kind, but they do not meddle. They leave others to their own business, these days.

They do seem to contact those of you who have had close encounters with the Draco, which shows a slight bit of willingness to push back and assist. Yet they also have made some terrible, although honest mistakes when interfering with other races, and therefor they take a slightly stand-off approach to most other planets.


~We often find acceptance of the names that our enemies give to us in this physical reality. Funny that.~

Nannun- Anu - Iunaki.. Annunaki.

From:http://theruiner777.blogspot.com/2015/07/annunaki.html

[turiya]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by turiya (here)

So then, you would concur this as being second-hand information

This question I pose here is not intended to be defensive, or aggressive.

But it's interesting, and philosophical (or possibly even metaphysical). It may also be important.

And that is... what is first-hand information?

In other words, how do we know what we feel we know?

Second-hand knowledge is that which is acquired from sources outside oneself: newspapers, magazines, books and other printed material. From television & radio programs, from lectures, discourses, movies, social networks / forums from other individuals that pass information on to another, to others, either in written form or by verbal communications. It is that which is normally acquired externally and assembled within one's own intellect, into one's own bio-computer, it forms the basis of the ego.

I would also include second-hand information which is acquired from entities that channel information to an individual(s) through various methods, Automatic Writing would be one example. Hence, why I call it "borrowed knowledge" it is borrowed from others. Repeating what you've read or heard from someone else, is repeating that which is borrowed from another outside source.

First-hand knowledge is acquired through the process of ones own 'knowing', gnosis, that which arises from one's own Intuitive sense, meditation, revelation, vision. Information that is formed from within.

From a very young age, the knowledge implanted by the society, by a school system, found from television - with enough repetition, one comes to "believe" that this outside information - concepts, ideas, notions, intellectual understanding, etc., is one's very own. One grows up constantly bombarded by external knowledge, one comes to "believe" that this is one's very own knowledge. One will become identified with that 'outside knowledge'. One will misunderstand who he / she really is.

Truly Knowing oneself is to drop all that knowledge that one has acquired from outside of oneself, dropping all the knowledge that one has accumulated within their intellect. This is what meditation is all about - becoming clean of outside influences, notions & knowledge. Becoming an empty space within, and one prepares himself for 'knowing', having an experiential experience of 'knowing'.

Best regards

________________LATE ADD________________

P.S. The point of asking Shane in the way I did was to find out whether he acquired the information he put forth in that Thomas Williams interview (13,000 years-old & 26,000 years-old history, Anu, Enki, etc.) was to see if he acquired this information from second-hand sources, or if he got this from a first-hand intuitive experience. He expressed it as if it was his first-hand experience. But alas, he admitted that it came to him from second-hand sources.

[onawah]

Following are some relevant (? though not really sure what's relevant anymore) comments the Ruiner made to questions and comments from the blog readers (not all the questions are copied here, as the answers make them obvious), re the same subject, " Annunaki":

AnonymousJuly 13, 2015 at 6:27 AM
Thanks again Ruiner.

If I understand it right, Draco is responsible from the situation we're in now (of course there's huge cooperation of humanity as being ignorant and asleep) and although Annunaki designed us in the first place, they are reluctant to interfere in our drama.

Draco is also responsible from roots of organised religion & new age movement to my knowledge. But here don't we see the naive & easy-confiding natüre of human beings? We are ready to beLIEve anything we've been told. And that never got our noses out of s*it it seems.

I wonder if it would change in short notice?

The RuinerJuly 13, 2015 at 1:13 PM
They designed an earlier version of human. Not our current version. Although some of their creation does exist within us.

Draco are responsible for the rest, yes.

AnonymousJuly 14, 2015 at 2:49 PM
I'm surprised no one has asked yet about confirmation of Nibiru. Is the Nibiru they call home (the "real" Annunaki) in our solar system, on a long elliptical orbit around our sun?

Reply


The RuinerJuly 14, 2015 at 2:57 PM
Yes.

With respect,

The RuinerJuly 15, 2015 at 7:14 PM
The Archon are not dependent on the Draco. They were here before them, and will be here after them.

The only Quarantine the Draco have enforced is related to the one Son who will remain behind. Those who follow him have remained, but no other reinforcements are allowed to arrive and assist him.

With respect,

He (Enlil) is in a physical body, with a name. No fixed address, though.

With respect,

AnonymousJuly 19, 2015 at 5:34 PM
My questions are regarding your post re the Annunaki When you speak of “translations”, are you referring to books such as Z. Sitchin wrote? If so, are you saying that it was never the Annunaki but the Dracos who were the overlords of Sumer and the various other colonies that Sitchin said were created by the Annunaki, who mined gold in Africa, left when Nibiru was near at the time of the Flood, but later returned, etc etc.? If so, why would the Dracos do that? Are they any accurate histories of those times available?

Which race were you referring to as being apathetic on your first use of that word—the Annunaki? Are you saying that Anu, Enki and Enlil are not Annunaki, but Draco? Do the Draco, when they are "impersonating" the Annunaki, shapeshift to make themselves look more humanoid? Why would they do that?

Will the Annunaki be truthful in their dealings with humankind when they return, and let us know who they really are and why they are here?

You wrote: "Apathetic? They are not cruel, very kind, but they do not meddle. They leave others to their own business, these days." Are you referring to the Annunaki here? You used the word apathetic twice, but this second time it seems you are saying whoever it is you are referring to are NOT apathetic, whereas before you said they are. Are you contradicting yourself?

Are the Annunaki's visits to us determined to any extent by the location of Nibiru in relation to Earth? When will Nibiru be in closest proximity to us next, and will that affect Earth in any physical way, such as cataclysms, etc.? Has that actually happened before? Can the Annunaki control the planets' path?

Confused is right!
Thanks in advance for clearing this confusion up, if you will.

Reply

The RuinerJuly 19, 2015 at 5:44 PM
Almost all of these questions are answered within the blog. The rest this writer does not have answer for.

With respect,

AnonymousJuly 20, 2015 at 12:26 AM
Almost? Would you consider answering the ones that aren't answered yet? Thank you.

AnonymousAugust 5, 2015 at 10:18 AM
I have a question for Simon Parkes which I hope to pose for him in the chatroom during his next show with Jay Pee on Sept 6th, on WolfSpiritRadio. The question pertains also to information from the Ruiner, so I'm posting it here as well. Here it is:
"What does Simon think about the information from the Blog of the Ruiner; specifically, that which says that it was the Draco who have actually done to Earth throughout our known history most of what has been attributed to the Annunaki in Zecharia Sitchin's books?
The Ruiner says that the Draco (and he numbers Anu, Enki and Enlil as Draconians, being the same father and son team we have come to think of as being Annunaki) have falsified our history to make it look like the Annunaki were the prime culprits; that the Annunaki have been involved in Earth affairs and made "mistakes" but that they are generally a kind race.
He says they will be returning here when Nibiru approaches again, and that Nibiru was never the cause of cataclysms on Earth
( that that was a cover story for a Draconian war, to shift the blame from the Dracos to the Annunaki).
But of course, we have also been told by many sources that the Annunaki are wolves in sheeps' clothing and plan to return as "friends" or "god" again, though most likely they haven't changed, and that we should beware of them. So now there is a double bind of questions/doubts.
Does Simon agree or disagree with the Ruiner's info and why?
When Simon was active on Project Avalon, I could never make out what he meant as to which group, the Annunaki or the Draco, were responsible for what.
He said the Dracos are very Reptilian appearing (he drew a picture of a Draco, which looks a lot like Godzilla), while he says the Annunaki are Reptilian, but more humanoid than the Dracos. (Presumably like the "winged god" figures we see depicted in Sumerian art, which could pass for human.)
But he called his "Dad" (who he described as being a Draco) Anu, which is, from most accounts, the name of the Annunaki king, the father of Enki and Enlil.

I'm sure I am not the only one who finds this confusing!!

I am asking Simon to please clarify and if he disagrees with The Ruiner's info, to please explain where and how their information differs and why he thinks there is this confusion/disagreement on such very basic information, as to who the Dracos are, who the Annunaki are, whether Anu, Enki and Enlil are Draconians or Annunaki, and which group is responsible for what."
If the Ruiner would care to share his thoughts on this as well, I would be most grateful. Thank you.

Reply
Replies

The RuinerAugust 5, 2015 at 1:00 PM
One side you have the Draco version of events, the other you have an overview of all sides. Makes sense there will be differences.

With respect,

AnonymousAugust 5, 2015 at 7:00 PM
Thank you. I have a few more questions along the same lines, if you would be so kind...You stated earlier in the blog (in March) that the Avians assisted the Annunaki by distributing language and religion to different parts of the world. “In plain speak, they distributed the disinformation that would become the control system we know today. They attached themselves to the "god" RA and told humans they were the messenger of RA. They were doing this as part of an order made by the Annunaki. The Avians assisted the Annunaki by distributing language and religion to different parts of the world.”
In your later entries, you stated that the Annunaki are relatively benign (though apathetic) and took little part in this kind of (basically Draconian) activity, though they made “mistakes”; that it was actually the Draco who generally perpetrated these kinds of actions, masquerading as the Annunaki. Why did the Annunaki participate in that particular deception/control game--was it for their own benefit? Was the “messenger of Ra” deception one of the Annunaki's "mistakes" that later caused them to involve themselves less in the affairs of other races? Did the Draco have a part in that deception as well? Who was Ra? What is the relationship between the Annunaki and Draco like now? Thank you again.

Reply
Replies

The RuinerAugust 5, 2015 at 7:03 PM
This blog you are commenting on clarifies that the Annunaki mentioned earlier are in fact the Draco. Knowing this clarification would come later, the original writing used Annunaki as the name.

With respect,


Reply

AnonymousAugust 29, 2015 at 1:48 AM
I don't get it.... so you are saying that Draco called themselves Annunaki, impersonating that name, but they actually happened to have a king named Anu???

Were sons Enki and Enlil from Nibirian Annunaki or Draco Annunaki?

" Their true name is connected to the planet they come from and is not entirely dissimilar to the impersonated name which has become known also as alien."

If they are from Nibiru, that doesn't sound very connected to word Annunaki. What is the name connection here?

Reply
Replies

The RuinerAugust 29, 2015 at 10:37 AM
Yes that is what I said. The name of the true Annunaki is not Annunaki, but rather another name, which is connected to their planet.

Those brothers are the sons of the Draco king.

With respect,

( This discussion just seems to go around and around in circles, which makes me wonder if it is all just designed to be a distraction, rather than to clear up the confusion.
Shane says the Draco have at times impersonated the Annunaki.
But if the Dracos actually look like the Reptilians that some have described, and the drawing Simon P. made as a child

...and the Annunaki look something like this:

... it seems like it would be very difficult for the Draco to "impersonate" the Annunaki. More like they might be using the Annunaki for their own agenda, and the latter must have been and be aware of that, if they are at all intelligent, which they no doubt are...

[onawah]

I recommend this very thoughtful post from Limor: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...=1#post1001806
...to also be read and considered within the context of this thread.

[Shane]

Posted by turiya (here)

Posted by Shane (here)
Hi turiya,

This is what I said:

When it comes to the Draco/ Annunaki story, I have discussed this with these races, and several others, directly

It comes from several sources. The authors you have mentioned are also considered as part of the whole.

With love and respect,

So then, you would concur this as being second-had information that you have taken to be the truth, along with the Anu, Enki & Dracos having provided the genetic seeds of the human race information (i.e. being the creator-gods of humanity)? You repeated this information as if it was your very own knowledge & not something that you "believed" to be true, without clarifying that it was indeed a bit of "borrowed information" that you derived from other outside sources) - Anyways, this is how it came off, particularly within the Thomas Williams interview - as being your very own knowledge.

Again, thank you so much for providing answers to my inquiry.

Be well.

Noted and understood.

Everything that I hear (second hand) is weighed against what I can remember (first hand) and the result is what I have written.

With love and respect,

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by turiya (here)
So then, you would concur this as being second-had information that you have taken to be the truth ...

Most of what we know that is important is second hand, especially about matters larger than us. For unless we have been blessed (?) with the gifts of living for eons and traveling at will about the cosmos, we could not have been when it happened, where it happened, for much of what might matter to us that it happened.

That you repeatedly level this complaint of second-had information (bold and underling yours) as an accusation is however giving me first hand (if anything I read across the Internet can be so labeled) intuitions that your motives, in the moments you posted that, might have been more to cast shadows on another being than to join in searching for truths with that other. These, of course, might not be disjoint motives, for if one has concluded that the other being is leading us more away from truths than toward them, then one might determine to cast shadows on the other, the better to clear our common path toward truths. I have done just that myself, many times in the past.

Have you so concluded and determined, with regards to what Shane is allowing us to observe of his recent writings?

[Hervé]

Posted by turiya (here)
[...]

________________LATE ADD________________

P.S. [...]
... But alas, he admitted that it came to him from second-hand sources.

? ? ?

This is what I said:

When it comes to the Draco/ Annunaki story, I have discussed this with these races, and several others, directly

Everything that I hear (second hand) is weighed against what I can remember (first hand) and the result is what I have written.

Very unfair and untrue addition/edition, IMO.

[turiya]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by turiya (here)
So then, you would concur this as being second-had information that you have taken to be the truth ...

Most of what we know that is important is second hand, especially about matters larger than us. For unless we have been blessed (?) with the gifts of living for eons and traveling at will about the cosmos, we could not have been when it happened, where it happened, for much of what might matter to us that it happened.

That you repeatedly level this complaint of second-had information (bold and underling yours) as an accusation is however giving me first hand (if anything I read across the Internet can be so labeled) intuitions that your motives, in the moments you posted that, might have been more to cast shadows on another being than to join in searching for truths with that other. These, of course, might not be disjoint motives, for if one has concluded that the other being is leading us more away from truths than toward them, then one might determine to cast shadows on the other, the better to clear our common path toward truths. I have done just that myself, many times in the past.

Have you so concluded and determined, with regards to what Shane is allowing us to observe of his recent writings?

On the contrary, Paul, most of what we DON’T know is found from second-hand sources. This is why someone would be in search of such second-hand knowledge. From there it becomes an "intellectual knowing". Because if we truly ‘know’ something, then there is no need to go in search of it. If it is not found from direct experience, then one finds it indirectly from second-hand source.

For example, “beliefs” come from second-hand sources. Beliefs are derived from second-hand sources. A ‘belief’ in God is adopted because of the lack of having the direct experience of God, in the lack of ‘knowing’ God. “Beliefs” are a substitute for “knowing” God and/or whatever. The belief that humanity is the creation of an alien / ET race of gods is such a belief. It is based on information derived from a source that is second-hand, borrowed, written by someone else, found in books, etc. Your second statement is the impetus as to why I made my inquiry with Shane.

For what he said during the Thomas Williams interview regarding the 13,000 year-old history & 26,000 year-old history regarding Anu / Enki etc, without clarifying the source from where he gets this information from, it is left to the listener to take what he says as his first-hand information. He is saying something that he ‘knows’ – that he was there at the time to ‘know’ this for a fact. Or perhaps, is reflecting on a past-life memory of it. And to leave his statements as such, most listeners would accept it being truth, that it is the truth about our human history. If he would have been made clear that it is NOT true first-hand information but a borrowed knowledge of which many have formed a belief of – not everyone has, but many have. All Shane had to say to clarify was this, “From what I’ve heard…”, then the clarity of what he follows with is established. Granted, most would not be specific as such.

I have my own reason for asking for clarity. It has nothing to do with, as you put it, a complaint. This is your misinterpretation of what was said. Saying that I have “repeatedly leveled a complaint” is simply not true. It is your embellishment of what is actually stated. How do you see it as a complaint? Please don’t go over the deep-end and make up what is not there. The underlining of “second-hand information” is simply to make the distinction to Shane, as he obviously appears to be not be aware of the distinction & mixing these two types of knowledge together as being one & the same – borrowed information from others, and one’s own knowledge that arises from within oneself, intuitively. They are distinctly two different kinds of knowledge.

The rest of what you have stated is totally unclear as to what you are alluding to. It seems you have unknowingly twisted what I’ve said into something that you have interpreted on your own. BTW, this is typically an example of one of the problems that comes with reading, imbibing, listening to second-hand information. It is often misinterpreted / re-interpreted by those that are on the receiving end of reading, or of the listening to something said, written, orated by another – in this case by the reader.

Best regards

[turiya]

Posted by Hervé (here)

Posted by turiya (here)
[...]

________________LATE ADD________________

P.S. [...]
... But alas, he admitted that it came to him from second-hand sources.

? ? ?

This is what I said:

When it comes to the Draco/ Annunaki story, I have discussed this with these races, and several others, directly

Everything that I hear (second hand) is weighed against what I can remember (first hand) and the result is what I have written.

Very unfair and untrue addition/edition, IMO.

I think that Shane has explained himself well enough to what I have commented on.
Your opinion is duly noted. And doesn't need any comment on my part.

Peace out!

[araucaria]

The trouble with your distinction between first- and secondhand information, turiya, is that it merely emphasizes how your own contributions are mostly of the second type, such as whenever you bring Chris Thomas to the table, which you tend to do a great deal. Even if you and Thomas were the same person, it would still be “Thomas” filtered through the mouthpiece “turiya”. On the other hand, since you are probably not, then we will only start getting the distinctive “turiya” contribution when you start talking from a perspective that is precisely not Chris Thomas’s.

I fear you are taking Shane to task for something that you are doing yourself. The alternative I was suggesting is the only way I can find to get anything out of your posts, which also means I have to find value in Shane’s as well. It is to drop this distinction altogether, which is ultimately based on a separation between self and others that is outmoded when one is thinking in terms of building a greater collective self. Apart from a tiny individual spark, the smaller self is entirely built up of secondhand input anyway, not just the negative but the positive as well. All we are as individuals is transceivers passing on slightly – and interestingly – distorted versions of the same info. It is all umpteenth-hand info – which is part of, if not the whole problem – and the idea of claiming anything remotely approaching originality is highly presumptuous, savior-syndrome ego talk.

[Becky]

Posted by onawah (here)
Following are some relevant (? not even sure what's relevant anymore) comments the Ruiner made to questions and comments from the blog readers (not all the questions are copied here, as the answers make them obvious), re the same subject, " Annunaki":

AnonymousJuly 13, 2015 at 6:27 AM
Thanks again Ruiner.

If I understand it right, Draco is responsible from the situation we're in now (of course there's huge cooperation of humanity as being ignorant and asleep) and although Annunaki designed us in the first place, they are reluctant to interfere in our drama.

Draco is also responsible from roots of organised religion & new age movement to my knowledge. But here don't we see the naive & easy-confiding natüre of human beings? We are ready to beLIEve anything we've been told. And that never got our noses out of s*it it seems.

I wonder if it would change in short notice?

The RuinerJuly 13, 2015 at 1:13 PM
They designed an earlier version of human. Not our current version. Although some of their creation does exist within us.

Draco are responsible for the rest, yes.

AnonymousJuly 14, 2015 at 2:49 PM
I'm surprised no one has asked yet about confirmation of Nibiru. Is the Nibiru they call home (the "real" Annunaki) in our solar system, on a long elliptical orbit around our sun?

Reply


The RuinerJuly 14, 2015 at 2:57 PM
Yes.

With respect,

The RuinerJuly 15, 2015 at 7:14 PM
The Archon are not dependent on the Draco. They were here before them, and will be here after them.

The only Quarantine the Draco have enforced is related to the one Son who will remain behind. Those who follow him have remained, but no other reinforcements are allowed to arrive and assist him.

With respect,

He (Enlil) is in a physical body, with a name. No fixed address, though.

With respect,

AnonymousJuly 19, 2015 at 5:34 PM
My questions are regarding your post re the Annunaki When you speak of “translations”, are you referring to books such as Z. Sitchin wrote? If so, are you saying that it was never the Annunaki but the Dracos who were the overlords of Sumer and the various other colonies that Sitchin said were created by the Annunaki, who mined gold in Africa, left when Nibiru was near at the time of the Flood, but later returned, etc etc.? If so, why would the Dracos do that? Are they any accurate histories of those times available?

Which race were you referring to as being apathetic on your first use of that word—the Annunaki? Are you saying that Anu, Enki and Enlil are not Annunaki, but Draco? Do the Draco, when they are "impersonating" the Annunaki, shapeshift to make themselves look more humanoid? Why would they do that?

Will the Annunaki be truthful in their dealings with humankind when they return, and let us know who they really are and why they are here?

You wrote: "Apathetic? They are not cruel, very kind, but they do not meddle. They leave others to their own business, these days." Are you referring to the Annunaki here? You used the word apathetic twice, but this second time it seems you are saying whoever it is you are referring to are NOT apathetic, whereas before you said they are. Are you contradicting yourself?

Are the Annunaki's visits to us determined to any extent by the location of Nibiru in relation to Earth? When will Nibiru be in closest proximity to us next, and will that affect Earth in any physical way, such as cataclysms, etc.? Has that actually happened before? Can the Annunaki control the planets' path?

Confused is right!
Thanks in advance for clearing this confusion up, if you will.

Reply

The RuinerJuly 19, 2015 at 5:44 PM
Almost all of these questions are answered within the blog. The rest this writer does not have answer for.

With respect,

AnonymousJuly 20, 2015 at 12:26 AM
Almost? Would you consider answering the ones that aren't answered yet? Thank you.

AnonymousAugust 5, 2015 at 10:18 AM
I have a question for Simon Parkes which I hope to pose for him in the chatroom during his next show with Jay Pee on Sept 6th, on WolfSpiritRadio. The question pertains also to information from the Ruiner, so I'm posting it here as well. Here it is:
"What does Simon think about the information from the Blog of the Ruiner; specifically, that which says that it was the Draco who have actually done to Earth throughout our known history most of what has been attributed to the Annunaki in Zecharia Sitchin's books?
The Ruiner says that the Draco (and he numbers Anu, Enki and Enlil as Draconians, being the same father and son team we have come to think of as being Annunaki) have falsified our history to make it look like the Annunaki were the prime culprits; that the Annunaki have been involved in Earth affairs and made "mistakes" but that they are generally a kind race.
He says they will be returning here when Nibiru approaches again, and that Nibiru was never the cause of cataclysms on Earth
( that that was a cover story for a Draconian war, to shift the blame from the Dracos to the Annunaki).
But of course, we have also been told by many sources that the Annunaki are wolves in sheeps' clothing and plan to return as "friends" or "god" again, though most likely they haven't changed, and that we should beware of them. So now there is a double bind of questions/doubts.
Does Simon agree or disagree with the Ruiner's info and why?
When Simon was active on Project Avalon, I could never make out what he meant as to which group, the Annunaki or the Draco, were responsible for what.
He said the Dracos are very Reptilian appearing (he drew a picture of a Draco, which looks a lot like Godzilla), while he says the Annunaki are Reptilian, but more humanoid than the Dracos. (Presumably like the "winged god" figures we see depicted in Sumerian art, which could pass for human.)
But he called his "Dad" (who he described as being a Draco) Anu, which is, from most accounts, the name of the Annunaki king, the father of Enki and Enlil.

I'm sure I am not the only one who finds this confusing!!

I am asking Simon to please clarify and if he disagrees with The Ruiner's info, to please explain where and how their information differs and why he thinks there is this confusion/disagreement on such very basic information, as to who the Dracos are, who the Annunaki are, whether Anu, Enki and Enlil are Draconians or Annunaki, and which group is responsible for what."
If the Ruiner would care to share his thoughts on this as well, I would be most grateful. Thank you.

Reply
Replies

The RuinerAugust 5, 2015 at 1:00 PM
One side you have the Draco version of events, the other you have an overview of all sides. Makes sense there will be differences.

With respect,

AnonymousAugust 5, 2015 at 7:00 PM
Thank you. I have a few more questions along the same lines, if you would be so kind...You stated earlier in the blog (in March) that the Avians assisted the Annunaki by distributing language and religion to different parts of the world. “In plain speak, they distributed the disinformation that would become the control system we know today. They attached themselves to the "god" RA and told humans they were the messenger of RA. They were doing this as part of an order made by the Annunaki. The Avians assisted the Annunaki by distributing language and religion to different parts of the world.”
In your later entries, you stated that the Annunaki are relatively benign (though apathetic) and took little part in this kind of (basically Draconian) activity, though they made “mistakes”; that it was actually the Draco who generally perpetrated these kinds of actions, masquerading as the Annunaki. Why did the Annunaki participate in that particular deception/control game--was it for their own benefit? Was the “messenger of Ra” deception one of the Annunaki's "mistakes" that later caused them to involve themselves less in the affairs of other races? Did the Draco have a part in that deception as well? Who was Ra? What is the relationship between the Annunaki and Draco like now? Thank you again.

Reply
Replies

The RuinerAugust 5, 2015 at 7:03 PM
This blog you are commenting on clarifies that the Annunaki mentioned earlier are in fact the Draco. Knowing this clarification would come later, the original writing used Annunaki as the name.

With respect,


Reply

AnonymousAugust 29, 2015 at 1:48 AM
I don't get it.... so you are saying that Draco called themselves Annunaki, impersonating that name, but they actually happened to have a king named Anu???

Were sons Enki and Enlil from Nibirian Annunaki or Draco Annunaki?

" Their true name is connected to the planet they come from and is not entirely dissimilar to the impersonated name which has become known also as alien."

If they are from Nibiru, that doesn't sound very connected to word Annunaki. What is the name connection here?

Reply
Replies

The RuinerAugust 29, 2015 at 10:37 AM
Yes that is what I said. The name of the true Annunaki is not Annunaki, but rather another name, which is connected to their planet.

Those brothers are the sons of the Draco king.

With respect,

( This discussion just seems to go around and around in circles, which makes me wonder if it is all just designed to be a distraction, rather than to clear up the confusion.
Shane says the Draco have at times impersonated the Annunaki.
But if the Dracos actually look like the Reptilians that some have described, and the drawing Simon P. made as a child

...and the Annunaki look something like this:

... it seems like it would be very difficult for the Draco to "impersonate" the Annunaki. More like they would be using the Annunaki for their own agenda, and the latter must have been and be aware of that, if they are at all intelligent.

Wes Penre says that the Annunaki - or in his description, the Sirian overlords who have the stocky humanoid figures with curly beards even though they are 1/2 reptilian and 1/2 wolfine (if i understood correctly!)... well they can shapeshift into anything they like, and apparently they did like to shapeshift into the typical Draco reptilian shape. This made it all very confusing.

[Becky]

What confuses me is that Wes describes Anu and being the humanoid stocky Sirian overlord with the curly beard...and Simon Parkes and others describe Anu as being white skinned, red eyed Royal Draco reptilian. Seing as Anu appears to be such a key figure in the manipulation of Human history, it would be good to understand who or what he really was/is.


Maybe he's just a nasty 4th Dimensional character who can change his shape and lives for 100's of 1000's of years, as do his sons Enki and Enlil. Though again, according to Wes Penre, Enlil is Anu's biological son and Enki, the master geneticist and manipulator is actually Anu's step son from his arranged marriage to the Queen of Orion (another reptilian type but supposedly more connected to the Creator and divine feminine, though she too sound very controlling and cruel).

This is why these 2 brothers, or step brothers, have such a love/hate relationship. Both of them are reptilian in nature, though not Draco, although they too can shapeshift and chose the Draco image. So it's no wonder we are confused!! They are all doing what they can to manipulate and control and confuse us human beings and use planet Earth for their own means.

[KiwiElf]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by turiya (here)

So then, you would concur this as being second-hand information

This question I pose here is not intended to be defensive, or aggressive.

But it's interesting, and philosophical (or possibly even metaphysical). It may also be important.

And that is... what is first-hand information?

In other words, how do we know what we feel we know?

Which comes down to,... what do we base our "knowledge", beliefs and opinions on, exactly? As I "believe" some would possibly agree, there is no "right" or "wrong" answer to this; perhaps it's largely an individual's subjective reality/perspective, based on what they have so far learned (and in many cases, difficult, if not impossible to "prove").