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

[onawah]

Another great, and more recent interview with Harald here:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=qcWoFz3s3n0

( I love what he says about Jesus and similar souls...it would be great to have a transcript of this. Much quotable material.)


The thing that keeps coming up for me throughout this discussion is that, however sincere and well-meaning whistleblowers may be, we still have to take into account how each of us (especially whistleblowers) may have been programmed and are still being influenced, deceived, manipulated, etc. so that we may have a very hard time discerning what is true from what we have been persuaded is true.
And that is the case regardless of whether the info is first-hand, second hand or generally accepted as true and agreed on by more than one whistleblower.
It does seem like we are getting better at this process, but there also still seems to be big, gaping holes in the picture puzzle we are attempting to put together.
...And a tendency to try to take shortcuts around those gaps and just go on to the next topic, when perhaps what we should be doing more is focusing on those gaps and filling them in when they first become visible.
Otherwise, the whole edifice we are constructing can be in danger of crumbling to pieces, and the same questions keep on popping up, which keeps the groundwork in a rather shaky condition.
For example (and I don't mean to harp on this, but...) has anyone come to any kind of comparatively verifiable theory regarding the questions I've I brought up here regarding the Annunaki and the Draco?
:https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...=1#post1001825
...and any idea as to why it has been so difficult to get a definitive answer to these questions from any of the whistleblowers who have been giving us bits and pieces that don't always seem to match up?
It seems like the answers should be obvious, but somehow they still elude me, and a few other Avalonians as well, I think.

[Constance]

Posted by Delight (here)

Posted by breal (here)
From all the latest discussions going back and forth on this thread, I can now fully understand why we need a new universal language that supports us in developing the ability to investigate any topic and arrive at the truth.

Our ability to work together in the future and succeed in our intentions to be free sovereign beings all relies on how well we communicate.

We need a more conscious way of communicating that throws out all the confusion, semantics and conflict.

with love to you all

I know I am pre-occupied with the use of lying to take advantage of others. I guess it may be a personal trigger. I am not always telling the exact truth either. I can't say yet..."I am not coming to work today because I want to walk in the woods". This is just a small thing but it is the same on all levels IMO about the truth we know we are NOT saying.

I too want a world of full communication and I personally like words (hehe). Words can lie when on a page and even when a person says them.

When we are children and we sense what our parent is feeling and that parent denies we sensed the truth, (even punishing us) we start being bumfuzzled. We can't connect what we feel to what we are being told is real. That is my experience anyway. We can say words that becaome completely severed from the authentic. It calls itself "socialization".

I have often thought that we will have the clarity of "conscious way of communicating that throws out all the confusion, semantics and conflict" with a kind of telepathy. Telepathy might come to reading thoughts but reading the multidimensional state of being of another is the whole package. IMO, we'd each be needing our transparency to be OK.

Empathy is "feeling what others are feeling".
What the development of the reading of (energy?, coherence?) could bring is the sure knowing of trustworthy-ness.
IMO, we have to start with being willing to be open to others reading us. IMO that needs to have US holding impeccable sincerity.

I read somewhere that humans lie A LOT because it is expected to grease the wheels of communication.
When we get used to such incoherent signalling, we lose the ability to consciously appraise the coherent signal IMO.
SO, IMO, the best place to start is by saying what we mean and staying true to what we know.

Maybe we will have a globe full of empathic telepaths and no spoken language AFTER we develop the radical honesty which is unafraid of exposure.

Thanks for your thoughts Delight.

Maybe a globe full of empathic telepaths will emerge after we develop radical honesty...

And this is where we will need a new conscious language that defines with clarity, how exactly we express the values of radical honesty, or impeccable sincerity or trustworthiness or transparency in a way that it is accurately interpreted by all.

Even when we say what we mean and stay true to what we know, it can still be misconstrued/misunderstood/dismissed by someone else if they do not have the same intent behind the word.


Let's say for example. I say, "I love God."

If you are from India and you worship many gods, you may be thinking "Which God?"

If you are an atheist, you may not have a reference point at all for the word "God". You may be thinking "There's no God"

and, if you are religious, it will be the God of whatever religion you belong to.

Now if Bush says that he loves God, he may be thinking " hail Satan!"

So which God is it? Is it the God of Bush or the God of someone from India?

If we were to develop a new conscious universal language it may well involve telepathy but even so, it would need to be with the same basic building blocks used to develop the spoken and written language so that it is universally understood by all.

[turiya]

Posted by araucaria (here)

Posted by turiya (here)
Paul you are flat out wrong!
There was no criticism made.
Your are fantasizing, please get a grip.
Enough of this provocation.

Turiya, Paul is not alone in “fantasizing”. Because if it was not some form of criticism, what purpose did your insistent question serve?

Yes, I am aware that most of the general population fantasizes about what they see, feel & think. The boundary between what one truly 'knows' and that which one 'believes' is a blurred line, most certainly. It is a reason why I find it often amusing when people say that they have become 'awakened' or have 'woke up', its as if to have everyone else 'believe' that they have achieved a more 'awakened state', and have come out of their former 'sleep-state'.

And araucaria, you ask:

if it was not some form of criticism, what purpose did your insistent question serve?

I have previously sent a message to Bill, Paul Jackson, and the rest of the mods previously regarding another so-called "ex-Illuminati" member. This was to better point out this distinction between '1st-hand' (inner knowing) & '2nd-hand' worldly 'knowledge' that is acquired from outside sources (outside of one's own Self). This shows that if there is any criticism, which there wasn't, then it is leveled at the interviewer. Its not the interviewee that is tasked with making the clarification, but with the interviewer that falls short of pressing their guest that is answering questions to be more specific with the answer(s) that is provided.

Take for example the following excerpt from that interview that I sought approval from Bill Ryan before posting it. At the 2:30 minute mark:
[center]

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=lpd2xrtL6PM

Just a point of interest that caught my attention with that PA / Simon Parkes interview question regarding his reply about his soul being a mixture of three different races... he began to reply with "'They' made it very clear to me..." Right then, it seemed Simon paused ... Instead of providing an answer, as if it was his own 'knowing', it very much seemed he had suddenly realized that he spoke of "They" who provided him with that information (i.e. '2nd-hand knowledge acquired from elsewhere).

With the Jesus & Mary Magdalene question & answer, he had done the very same thing. He started by saying what he was 'told', then ended with that's all I 'know', as if this was coming from his own 'knowing'.

So, I think this example would make it quite clear as to why I made my inquiry the way I did. Now, if the interviewer were more astute, then I would not need to make such an inquiry. I think the general reader should have picked up on the 'tone' of what was asked to judge for themselves that there was no 'critical arrow' pointed directly at shane. I was just seeking clarity as to the source of that particular answer.

cheers

P.S. Sorry araucaria, but you have forced me to indirectly bring Chris Thomas to the table with this particular response to your comment.

[turiya]

The Art of Knowing

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=BG-P94UaN6s

Re: The Rishi-Scientists of Ancient India...

A lecture given in India to university students by Khurshed Batliwala regarding ancient history and how the rishis of that time came to seemingly a 'knowing' regarding some things that Western science didn't gain the 'knowledge' of until hundreds & thousands of years later.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Paul (here)
I too vouch for Shane.

One month later ... I no longer vouch for what Shane is saying.

[Alan]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by Paul (here)
I too vouch for Shane.

One month later ... I no longer vouch for what Shane is saying.

What did I miss? What changed? Would love to know why...

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Alan (here)
What did I miss? What changed? Would love to know why...

I'm just looking over the shoulder at some of the research work of my fellow moderators. Some things aren't adding up for them. It's not an area where I currently have the focus or expertise to say more. Perhaps my hint will get a few more minds working this. Perhaps others, or even myself, will have more to say, some day.

[awakeningmom]

Isn't Bill scheduled to interview Shane soon? Or has something gone awry?

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by awakeningmom (here)
Isn't Bill scheduled to interview Shane soon? Or has something gone awry?

I don't think Shane would any more consent to an interview (but, to be quite fair, I don't know this for sure).

Over the last week or so, there's been an extensive, detailed written dialog with Shane in which many questions were asked, and many answers were given.

The entire exchange was totally civilized, but was also focused on a number of specific unanswered questions that had not been asked by other interviewers. I wanted to do this in private, rather than 'ambush' Shane on audio (or maybe to be thought to be doing so).

It seemed only fair, because I was troubled: I have always liked him — he is an archetypal, super-nice person — but his story was problematic on several important counts. I urged Shane to be very straight about some things, where we had felt he had not been.

Shane responded in an exemplary way throughout, as one might expect, in terms of his consistent demeanor and courtesy. But reassurance was not forthcoming.

As a result of the answers given, we (the Avalon mods) are unanimous that we cannot any more support Shane's story. As Paul said above, there's more to say about all this (and of course, Shane is most welcome to say what he wishes, and we encourage that), but there's lots of detail involved, and it would take quite some time to lay out in the most understandable way.

Lest this be used by Corey Goode as ammunition to fire at Shane (which I fully expect, but don't actually want to happen), I want to state that it's my very strong opinion that Corey is a pathological liar (or, at best, has been grossly interfered with), and his story, too — a fair amount of which he got from Shane in the first place — is unreliable at best and sheer, deceitful fabrication or plagiarism at worst.

An overarching topic of concern here is that there's reason to believe that there may be a gross strategic manipulation taking place of the alternative community, maybe a previously experimental program now gone operational. Some of those involved, being used as assets, may not even know about it. I'd VERY much like to think that Shane was in the latter category. But there's something mighty strange going on here. If things don't 'feel right' — then this paragraph may supply clues.

I'd like to find ways of discussing this. All of this almost certainly needs its own thread, which of course simple to do if that's the best way to discuss all this.

[Sophocles]

Thank you for writing this post (#269), Bill!

I always find it hard not to take your words into great consideration.

[Alan]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
An overarching topic of concern here is that there's reason to believe that there may be a gross strategic manipulation taking place of the alternative community, maybe a previously experimental program now gone operational. Some of those involved, being used as assets, may not even know about it. I'd VERY much like to think that Shane was in the latter category. But there's something mighty strange going on here. If things don't 'feel right' — then this paragraph may supply clues.

Thanks for sharing this, Bill. I've suspected this as a POSSIBILITY all along, not necessarily likely, but possible. Look forward to hearing more on this.

[onawah]

Thanks to the Mod team for keeping their eyes wide open for us .
I would agree that it seems like something very orchestrated is going down behind the scenes, possibly inclusive of sabotaging the work of Harald Kautz-Vella as well, whose info up until recently, as far as I could tell, was very instructive in helping us to connect many dots.
But he then took what he himself calls a "u-turn" and seems to have committed himself to stop doing research, promising instead to start instructing us in how to follow what sounds to me like a very New Age kind of path, involving some beings he calls the Elderer, who he says are here to save us, since basically we haven't passed the test.
Very puzzling.
See my posts starting here, especially words in bold letters: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...=1#post1003827

He also says the Reptilians aren't real, that Jesus never incarnated in Israel or as a Jew, among other things, and though we can't say much for certain about either of those things, both assertions seem pretty far-fetched to me.

[RunningDeer]

Oh, man….seems my discernment skills need an overhaul. Words like naiveté and trust come up.

I pity the poor real experiencers that come forward.

Thanks for bringing it to light, Bill, Paul and Mods and in such a gracious manner.

Paula ♡

[Robin]

With all due respect, the conclusion of the moderators is not the almighty Word of Ultimate Truth. They have gathered information using logic and intuition, but not without personal biases. They are entitled to their opinions just like everybody else, and are just as enamored with subjectivity. Transparent lenses can often become opaque, though much isn't what it seems.

I would encourage everybody to form their own opinions through a balanced approach of discernment, instead of simply following the words of articulate people with greater influence in the community in a way the average human behaves towards the opinions spouted by government officials.

Your thoughts and emotions matter just as much as the people who see things from the inside, away from the eyes for all to see. Again, no disrespect here at all. I would just encourage everybody to trust their own judgment and sincerely ask themselves...

What does your heart tell you?

[awakeningmom]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by awakeningmom (here)
Isn't Bill scheduled to interview Shane soon? Or has something gone awry?

I don't think Shane would any more consent to an interview (but, to be quite fair, I don't know this for sure).

Over the last week or so, there's been an extensive, detailed written dialog with Shane in which many questions were asked, and many answers were given.

The entire exchange was totally civilized, but was also focused on a number of specific unanswered questions that had not been asked by other interviewers. I wanted to do this in private, rather than 'ambush' Shane on audio (or maybe to be thought to be doing so).

It seemed only fair, because I was troubled: I have always liked him — he is an archetypal, super-nice person — but his story was problematic on several important counts. I urged Shane to be very straight about some things, where we had felt he had not been.

Shane responded in an exemplary way throughout, as one might expect, in terms of his consistent demeanor and courtesy. But reassurance was not forthcoming.

As a result of the answers given, we (the Avalon mods) are unanimous that we cannot any more support Shane's story. As Paul said above, there's more to say about all this (and of course, Shane is most welcome to say what he wishes, and we encourage that), but there's lots of detail involved, and it would take quite some time to lay out in the most understandable way.

Lest this be used by Corey Goode as ammunition to fire at Shane (which I fully expect, but don't actually want to happen), I want to state that it's my very strong opinion that Corey is a pathological liar (or, at best, has been grossly interfered with), and his story, too — a fair amount of which he got from Shane in the first place — is unreliable at best and sheer, deceitful fabrication or plagiarism at worst.

An overarching topic of concern here is that there's reason to believe that there may be a gross strategic manipulation taking place of the alternative community, maybe a previously experimental program now gone operational. Some of those involved, being used as assets, may not even know about it. I'd VERY much like to think that Shane was in the latter category. But there's something mighty strange going on here. If things don't 'feel right' — then this paragraph may supply clues.

I'd like to find ways of discussing this. All of this almost certainly needs its own thread, which of course simple to do if that's the best way to discuss all this.

Yes, thank you, can we please start a thread on this ASAP? Many of us have now spent months reading Shane's work on this forum -- and there have been strong endorsements from the "top" here on PA -- even to the point of being very critical of those expressing doubts/reservations about Shane's legitimacy. A sudden withdrawal of support from the top deserves more discussion and explanation, particularly when this withdrawal of support comes from a private conversation whose contents would help the rest of us to process this sudden shift. Therefore, can we please know:

1. What questions/answers Shane provided that did not sit right with the Mod team/BR. Was it that he seemed not to really know details that he suggested he knew on his blog? Did his answers conflict with prior answers of his -- or answers from others who are considered more reliable?

2. What specifically led the Mod team to all believe that Shane was, inadvertently or not, part of some larger strategic manipulation? Did there seem to be mind control at work? Did his story start to sound a lot like Corey's?

3. Did the private conversation end badly, once the Mod Team's concerns or suspicions were raised....And were these suspicions/concerns actually disclosed to Shane himself during this conversation, so that he could have a fair chance to address them if possible?

I'm sure you can imagine how frustrating it is to have so many whistleblowers, contactees, special guests of PA, etc. be elevated and then removed from the PA pedestal time and again. I've been a member for less than a year, and I've already seen it happen in a big way twice -- and from what I've seen in older posts, I know this has happened a number of times before that. So, truly, it would be great if more information were forthcoming...pretty please .

[A Voice from the Mountains]

It's good that this has come about before Shane was puffed up to Corey Goode status with his own show on Gaiam. It's amazing how paralyzed the alternative community can become by a few people making up stories and sticking to it with a straight face. I really want to do my part to help the world move forward in a positive way, however I might be able to find to do that, and that's why I joined PA originally, but it's frustrating when the community is chasing its tail following a fraud. Shane's story reads like a video game novel and is not going to help anyone accomplish anything in the real world.

He said in one of his first videos that he witnessed blonde haired women being ritually tortured and murdered. Just stood around and watched it. And then no sooner than he says this, he chuckles and says he likes to joke about it. As nice as this guy puts on to everyone, that alone should raise a red flag. Because nice people do not joke about ritual torture and murder that they've witnessed. Nor would they describe it unemotionally as if it was what they had for breakfast. My guess is he started laughing because people were taking him seriously and then quickly made up and excuse for why he was laughing.

Anyway I was voicing my criticism earlier in the thread but also noticed the tone of the conversation towards one of protecting Shane and felt as though criticism was no longer welcome, so I stopped posting here. I know Shane is a member here and I mean no personal offense to him, or at least no more than would be inherent to the fact that I believe that he's misleading lots of people on the Internet and wasting their time. I would suggest to everyone here at PA that this is a prime example of why making critical views appear unwanted is unhealthy. Everything will come out in the wash and nobody needs another Corey Goode.


PS Bill I sent you a PM a few days ago in relation to all of this. I know you get lots of PMs and you probably haven't caught up with all of them recently but I just wanted to throw that out there.

[Shane]

Hi Avalon,

What's that phrase that gets used so much... Critical thinking.

I didn't post my blog here. Paul did.

I didn't defend myself from any accusations of being a fraud. Bill and others did.

The blog wasn't written for Avalon.

I didn't ask to be interviewed.

All of which does more to prove that what was just said about myself being a part of intentionally manipulating this community is false, than the speculation does about me


With that said.. It would be a stretch for anyone to believe me. I offer zero proof or evidence. None of the blog can be verified. I have always maintained this. My honesty is negated by a lack of evidence, which I accept.

Being perfectly reasonable I cannot blame for anyone thinking I am. -shrugs- So be it.

Again.. I didn't push anything on anyone. I didn't ask anyone to believe me. I didn't ask for any interviews. Friends will tell you I have considered calling myself a liar just to avoid the attention (I get plenty without "The Ruiner".)

So that part of the statement is neither true nor fair.

It is reasonable to believe I wrote Cassandra's letters. I did not but it's my word against what can be perceived as evidence and the evidence (albeit false in this case) SHOULD trump my claims.

It is reasonable to believe I couldn't have experienced what I claim. There is nothing to support this. That alone should trump my claims.

The blog is called fiction, "The Ruiner" is a character, and I implied it was all true. That should be enough for you to call me a liar, no?

That said.. I know I am not lying. So as I have said before, what Avalon (or anyone else) believes doesn't matter. My family and friends in my personal life know the truth (and have read the blog/ heard the interviews) I know the truth. (I posted every blog from my day jobs computer as well for the record)

What any forum believes they know, doesn't matter to me

If you feel I have wasted your time, I apologize.. But.. That is not fair because I did not ask you to read or listen. I did not spread myself across this forum or any other forum. Others did, I did not.

Ultimately I have nothing to apologize for as it is well within my rights as a human being to write a blog and say whatever I feel ok saying. If I had come on PA or any other forum saying "you all got to listen to me" then I would owe an apology.

As it stands I do not. Don't believe me. Call me a liar. I'll be over here, not bothered. As someone who already publicly admitted to lying before, you can't say I wouldn't be willing.



This actually came from myself telling Bill you deserve an interview with someone who is credible. Bill is correct in (now) saying I am not credible.

I'd assume people would do that type of checking before vouching for me and defending me and posting my blog on the forum, but... I guess that leaves a "why?" behind.

IF there is some agenda against you... Then I suppose the people who wanted Avalon to read my blog are to blame. Who was that? Somehow me politely asking you to trust yourself and think for yourself instead of reading my blog is manipulation? Hm.



Corey didn't steal any of my story, as I said, I never spoke to him about any of this. He had his own information to claim.

Bill you repeatedly told me I have a duty to tell the truth which I agree with. So please don't be surprised when I refuse to lie here.

If anyone thinks I'm going to risk anything in my life to provide "proof" or evidence to the public, or wait, an Internet forum.. Well I'm not THAT nice.

For the record: I have no issue with Bill, any mods or Avalon for this or anything that will proceed. I'll do an interview with someone who thinks I'm lying. Because I know I'm not and I have conviction.

I will withdrawal myself from your forum now. Take care of you all for us.

With love and respect,
Shane "The Ruiner"

Now C.W. Chanter has what he wanted. No worries though man, I have a good life I am plenty happy with. A good job, friends, family and everything else one should have close to them in life. This is just one less distraction from living that life.

[awakeningmom]

For the record, I don't feel like I wasted any of my time reading Shane's blog. I actually just finished reading the whole thing a couple days ago -- and I thoroughly enjoyed it, as well as all of the great posts and questions from those reading him. Of course, my life doesn't depend on its truth or falsity. I have never met any Parents, Coven members, Giants, Dracos or anything else ET, so whether it was an elaborate fairy tale or whether it is entirely true or whether it is something in between really doesn't change much for me day-to-day. And Shane's overall message was positive: Remember who you are and honor/cherish Mother Earth. Ok, I'm down with those two things.

However, I am still very interested in understanding how/why Paul, who, as Shane notes, originally posted the Ruiner's blog here for our enjoyment, has come to the decision that: "one month later, [he] no longer support[s] Shane." And why this sentiment is apparently shared by BR and his Mod team. We've been on this journey together for months now.

What happened in that discussion?

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by awakeningmom (here)
What happened in that discussion?

One minute after you posted this inquiry, Bill posted the start of a new thread, addressing just that question: Anomalies in The Ruiner's material

[onawah]

It would be great if we could avoid doing the blame game.
When it comes to whistleblowers who are very much under scrutiny from both sides, it certainly can't be an easy line to walk, and for investigative truth seekers, it's like searching for needles in haystacks.
We can only surmise, from what has been revealed over the years here on Avalon and elsewhere, that whistleblowers who want to live are only allowed to say so much, that they may be allowed to give us some truth but only so much, and only if they mix in some disinformation as well.
This is to appease the controllers sense of what is fair, apparently, and to keep us distracted and unsure.
If they can claim that they have given us hints as to what they are up to, they think that exonerates them from all their evil doings, apparently.
If Shane is truly a whistleblower, and not making his whole story up, then he may have to play by their rules if he wants to give anyone any valid information at all.
So it's not logical to take it personally or call him a liar under those circumstances if his assertions are found wanting, and he may have been given misinformation by the controllers and told it was truth, in any case.
Likewise, I think it would make sense for Shane to also not take it personally if his information comes under scrutiny here and is judged to fail the test of being 100% correct.
As to how he ended up coming to Avalon, that could have been orchestrated too, possibly without his knowledge.

Good points are being made from both sides.
What I wonder is if his role might have been, as designed by the controllers, to demonstrate to the world and to other survivors of their system, just how "just" and "fair" they can be, by letting Shane be a whistleblower with some time in the limelight and yet still be at ease and assured of being allowed to have a "good life", when obviously many other whistleblowers have lost their lives for telling too much.
And if his story is true about what he had to endure growing up, then he is still going to have a lot more healing to do than most of us, and deserves our compassion, however twisted it may have made him, if that is the case, and I can't imagine how it would not be, if what he described is real, torture and all.
The truth is a double edged sword, wherever you are standing.