Anomalies in The Ruiner's material

[Constance]

Posted by Rachel (here)

Posted by breal (here)
I really miss Rachels (our moderators) signature where she says "You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger darling" I really do.

Me too actually, so I put it back in.

Yay!

[Innocent Warrior]

Posted by bsbray (here)
This may or may not make peoples' lives easier around here: http://www.philocomp.net/humanities/signature.htm

It's stylometric analysis software. Meaning you load multiple texts in there from multiple known authors, and the the longer the text samples the more accurate the comparison will be.

After you've loaded the known authors, you load a text by an unknown author ("Cassandra") in this case and it will analyze the text based on word lengths, sentence lengths, etc. and show which author(s) the unknown text most closely matches.

There is more sophisticated software for Linux but it's not as user friendly.

Also I should point out that this stuff is not foolproof. It's possible to imitate someone else's posting style though, or to change one's own style intentionally. But if "Cassandra's letter" is a close match to the bulk of the text on Shane's blog then that is not something that is determined by who transcribed it. That is telling about the author himself/herself.

Have you given this version a trial? I need to split my mac and load Windows before I can try it and would like to know if it's worth the trouble. Or I can look for a mac version.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Posted by Zebra (here)
I am not surprised that we have this technology bsbray. It is a filter to run information through, which I think is handy, however does it capture and analyse through further filters of perceptions and readings from cultural, ideological, psychological contexts?

No, it does not. At least not this particular piece of software. The software for Linux is capable of loading custom parameters for analysis that are only limited by a programmer's imagination, but I'm not aware of what all exactly is available at the moment and that piece of software is not that user friendly.

However if you get a clean match using just the software I posted, it is something very difficult to argue with. You have statistical improbabilities that out of, say, 10 authors you might load data for, if "Cassandra's letter" most closely matches Shane's writing style by the parameters, you've got a 10% chance of that simply being coincidence. Load 20 known authors for reference and now you've got a 5% chance of randomly lining up with Shane's writing style. And I don't care how close of friends Shane claims to have been with this supposedly ancient vampire woman, even married couples don't merge writing styles.

As far as looking at more human aspects of the text, like, for example, the amount of dramatic sarcasm, it matches Shane's writing style on his blog totally. I used to read a lot of classics, which are of course fiction. Non-fiction is my favorite stuff to read, especially history, but I love a good piece of literature too. Characters in good fictional novels have tones, personalities, and they really seem to come to live. The stuff posted on Shane's blog is oozing with sarcasm, half-veiled references to mundane things in the alternative community (no doubt as an attempt at dramatic effect) and the power-play of ego you'd expect from a video game story line where the hero main character has to assert his will by blasting his way to victory. So is the letter of "Cassandra," all the "ha ha" stuff being a case in point. What kind of grown adult goes around telling people how wrong they have it and immaturely interjecting "ha ha"? Let alone some ancient vampire woman who has supposedly lived through many centuries.

Who is the person or people behind the research is fundamentally important to bring to the data as well, indeed to consider as data points in themselves.

The beauty of using a piece of computer software (ie stylometry analysis software) is that it doesn't care who you are or what people think of you. It has sets of data. It compares. It displays results. It is not foolproof but like I said before, if you hit a match, out of even just 10 authors, you have something to think long and hard about if you take Shane's work seriously.

[DNA]

Posted by ErtheVessel (here)
I'd like to add just a couple of points in the interest of discernment. I really don't know where I stand on Shane as I have not been following his blog that closely, so this is not an indictment on him, really, at all. Just some observations from life experience.

I have had the misfortune of dealing with a number of sociopaths in my life, mostly from several cults that I belonged to in years past. Yes, several - I am a slow learner and it took me a long time to find my way. But that is a story for another time.

My point is this: There are some things I gleaned about discernment in my adventures.

My first point is that people tell you who they are, always. If someone tells me, even jokingly, that he is out for my money, I must not pretend I did not hear this, no matter how nice he seems. Or, as in this case, if someone says to me that all he has just told me is fiction, I must not pretend I did not hear this - it is, in fact, probable that all he just told me is fiction.

The second point is that in order for any psyop to work, it must contain truth. All egregious lies are mostly truth, otherwise we would not be led astray.

The journey of fine tuning and enhancing one's discernment is incredibly important and powerful. I know from my own experience that to learn discernment in any given situation is to know one's own truth viscerally and absolutely.

Really nice post.
I have a friend who investigates parasitic entities and their attachments to humans.
He had said on numerous occasions that Vampires for the most part will tell you they are a Vampire, you just have to listen and not ignore the statement when they tell it.
Your post struck a chord with me and sang in vibrato with my friends statement here.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Posted by Rachel (here)
Have you given this version a trial? I need to split my mac and load Windows before I can try it and would like to know if it's worth the trouble. Or I can look for a mac version.

I don't know much about Macs but I'm playing with it a little on Linux. It comes with text from US founding fathers Jay, Madison, Hammad and Hamilton. I loaded about 6500 words of Shane's text from his blog into it and also the Cassandra letter and then compared everyone. Shane's text shows matches with the Cassandra letter already but this is hardly a fair comparison considering that the other 4 guys wrote over 200 years ago. So until I have a bunch of text from other contemporary sources to compare "Cassandra" against then all of that doesn't mean much.

I'm sure there are plenty of tech savvy people around here that can also play around with this software and see what they get.

[Cristi Copac]

i want to address an issue here. the one where ruiner and cassandra speak alike. well isn't it possible that the people in the know speak alike? people with the same education speak alike? he was 15 when he was introduced to cassandra in order to be her coven. i mean if you don't take into consideration this piece of info then your arguments are weaker. he might even have a romance with her. and usually the most powerful imposes himself on the weaker one. in the plot of a movie in order to be good i go along with the storyline and not my own.

and what movie the ruiner is proposing is a very good one . it explains the rest of the movies i've seen.

[Morbid]

i personally find his account of truth/fiction as genuine. im sure there are lots of beings above us who rightfully own a certain opinion.
i could only pick on the fact that Shane states that anu left the planet, Simon though claims that he is trapped on earth due to not enough large portals avaliable at the moment. to be honest, it doesnt matter who is right or wrong. its clear that their heart is in the right place.

[Robin]

Sigh...

The Philosopher
Heather Ober
*Based on Plato's Allegory of the Cave

Numb fists with bloody wrists
chained to crumbling walls.
Glazed eyes that never spy
a single truth or fault.
Dim light impairing sight
in spaces dark and shallow.
Stone walls where lies are scrawled
by murky phantom shadows.

One breaks free on frail knees
stiffened by disuse,
to leave behind the dumb and blind
who welcome this abuse.
He climbs in pain against the grain
toward a distant light.
With bloodied hands, he finally stands,
exhausting all his might.

Dazed at first, he's cursed by thirst
beneath the blazing sky.
The sun is bright and plunders sight
from eyes too dry to cry.
Lesions crust as eyes adjust
to find a foreign land
with greenest grass and sea like glass
caressing strips of sand.

He stands amazed before this maze
of truths he's never seen
and vows to save those in the cave
whose ignorance demeans.
When he returns, his words are spurned
by those chained to the wall.
They have no will to brave that hill
or risk the chance to fall.

He cannot go back to this show
of living shadowed lies.
Now that he knows the truth below,
he needs the open skies.
And so he climbs to search, to find
the knowledge that he craves.
No more a slave to the dark cave.
He's left that mindless grave.

[Johnny]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by Tangri (here)
I have a question to Paul.

What did pull you Ruinner's blog at first? What was the encouragement source for your first visit? (a friend's advice?)

(This is just for research purpose)

Reports came in to me from others on the moderators team of TheRuiner's new blog, early this year (2105), with enough interesting detail to get me looking more closely.

early this year (2105)

Where the heck are you Paul ??? he he !!

Johnny

[Ultima Thule]

This mod gig sure seems an extended period to Paul!


UT

[araucaria]

Textual analysis (post #1) is one way to go, for sure, but I would not expect to peel through that onion and find a kernel of truth after flaking off the constituent layers of what would have to be fiction to some degree. Another way is comparative analysis, an example of which is given below. It is in the nature of the exercise to appear to go way off-topic, but I assure you it does not.

Switching metaphors, we are putting together the pieces of a puzzle. Our notion of truth is not the outcome of completing the puzzle: it is the work surface on which we do it. It may be too cluttered, but maybe we are losing sight of this basic underlying reality precisely because of the number of pieces falling into place. Yet it is the solid furniture on which we can rest our elbows as we pore over the wafer-thin fiction we construct upon it. However, the problem is furthered complicated because this is not a new puzzle just out of the wrapper; it is from a very ancient box containing pieces from various different (already incomplete) puzzles that won’t go together however hard we try – like having a lot of blue sky and yet quite a few stormclouds as well. The perfection of completion is the one aspect of truth that disappears like the table top under the puzzle. If you want to get back to that perfection, you should really be putting the pieces back in the box. If you want to keep on playing, you need to stop getting frustrated at the limits placed on the game. There is a struggle to achieve a consensus over which puzzle picture we are constructing together. But whether blue-sky or stormclouds, it is nonetheless a wafer-thin fiction constructed upon the solid base of truth. What I mean by fiction here, then, is not total nonsense with no basis in reality. It is ideally thoroughly based in reality: its own reality as fiction. If we are to achieve consensus, it has to be coherent, self-consistent, which brings it into contact with truth, just as the right puzzle piece sits firmly on the table and the bad fit sticks up. So in a very real sense, the puzzle pieces are us individuals, rather than facts out there. In other words, if it is truth you’re after, you need to get on with your entourage.

As I write, I am listening on the radio to a discussion of the clash between two incompatible musical maestros, the romantic conductor Leonard Bernstein and the baroque pianist Glenn Gould, playing a Brahms concerto together, which was preceded by a remarkable, possibly unprecedented disclaimer from Bernstein. Listen to the first couple of minutes of this video:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=SvWPM783TOE

The actual performance was by no means a disaster, but proved something of a benchmark interpretation for future generations. The performance has survived, while the disclaimer now seems outdated and over the top. What these two men achieved together is something we are all doing together on an incomparably vaster scale. Such contrasts are like the potential difference that allows electric current to flow: the greater the potential difference, the more energy flows. We are in a period of extreme contrasts and high tension or energy flow. These are good times to be truly alive if you can take it, but so will be the placid contrasting continuation that is bound to follow, like a slow movement following a fast one.

With the above in mind, regarding Cassandra’s letter, I would just add the following to what has already been said.
If Shane is to be believed – which would be in character – as not being the author, then we are dealing with some form of pastiche. Pastiche is the opposite of plagiarism. Where plagiarism merely changes the author of the material for a basically nefarious purpose, altering (one aspect of) the form without changing the content, pastiche alters the content without changing the form. The purpose is less easy to ascertain. It may be that, as suggested earlier, Cassandra is speaking like Shane because he is who she learnt or practised her English with – just as if you learn English from a Chinese, you might have trouble with your ‘r’ sounds. That would be an innocent explanation. Alternatively it might be hostile: a deliberate attempt to incriminate Shane, which might be in character for Cassandra. Shane says it’s Cassandra, Avalon says it’s Shane: an interesting stand-off or stalemate (rather like the gun control debate in the US). Or again, it might very well be somewhere in between, in the order of a critique, a kind of love-hate affair or unrequited love. This is in line with the content of the second message, and with Shane’s indication that she is mocking him.

With pastiche, you have two layers of authorship where neither the aim nor the effect is necessarily deceitful; we are talking about plausibility. Let me illustrate this with an example. This is the announced long seemingly off-topic detour; please bear with me, as it comes back to the subject at hand in an unexpected way.

In Time Regained, the final volume of In Search of Lost Time,Marcel Proust has his narrator read a couple of pages purportedly from the Journal of the Goncourt brothers, as a budding author with no self-belief admiring the “Prestige of Literature”. Both authorships are given a degree of plausibility. Hence the writer mentions someone calling him M. de Goncourt, and the style and content is more like the Goncourts’ than Proust’s: in other words effective pastiche. On the other hand, Proust has replaced de Goncourt’s real-life high society people with the characters of his own novel, so he is not trying to deceive anyone with a forgery, still less pass off someone else’s work for his own. (http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0300691.txt search for “Goncourt”)

So what is going on here? He is establishing a critical distance between himself and his eminent fellow writers; only “he” is a dual entity: the author and his narrator. The narrator looks up to the Goncourts as getting a lot more interesting material out of the same people he himself finds uninspiring, and bemoans his lack of talent and continuing writer’s block. Proust himself, although not yet an established author, is saying something very different. He is saying, if this is the finest literature currently available, then if I can produce more of the same, I can probably do better as well; in other words, this is the superficial treatment of my own material that you would get from these guys; now dig down and work out what I am saying that is much deeper.

That deeper substance is the very notion of “Time Regained”, which is achieved at the end of the novel, when the narrator is about to start writing the book that the author has just completed. The reader’s process involves following the unification of these two entities separated only by time, the slow transformation of the experiencer (the narrator) into the researcher/reporter (the author). Notice how the former is a fictional version of the latter, the real-life figure you could meet and talk with. At this particularly crucial stage, you have the experiencer’s perspective on his reality about to change. He feels inferior upon observing a disconnect between the literary establishment figure’s mainstream version of reality, where nobility will express noble thoughts, and his own experience; for, as an outsider who has ingratiated himself with high society, he knows that a princess or a duke can talk nonsense, and also that a nobody can compose the sublimest music. Only when he finds the self-belief to find his own story superior to the mainstream version can he take the step of disclosure that turns him into a writer. What you have with this pastiche is his future self, the author of his own book, indulging in this inferior literary form that imitates a style, in order to show how a supposedly superior literary form misrepresents facts by glorifying an elite. Hence the stepping-stone between the two figures is a tiny deceit: the narrator, who in the fiction has to be taken in by the pastiche, actually is not taken in, but leaves us to work that one out for ourselves. This is how and when he steps into the real-life shoes of the author: in this real-life world, he knows it is pastiche, because… he wrote it himself. You then have the paradox whereby the step from fiction to “fact” involves a dose of fiction, “fact” being the next layer of fiction. Fact and fiction are inextricably intertwined, and it is all truth.

Hence, the deeper meaning of Proust versus de Goncourt is that What the Duchess Said is a not only a superficial view of reality, it is distorted as well. The deeper, truer, view would be “Who I am/was/am becoming, growing from a nobody with an experience that remains virtual until expressed into a somebody with a powerful voice transcending time”.

Which brings me back to Shane. Back when we only had TheRuiner, I posted this. Since then, we have witnessed a fictional narrator beginning to morph into a real author: Shane, whose unverifiable experiences are solidifying into a more or less internally consistent narrative. We can apply to Shane what we would like to be able to apply to ourselves: quoting from above, “The deeper, truer, view would be ‘Who I am/was/am becoming, growing from a nobody with an experience that remains virtual until expressed into a somebody with a powerful voice transcending time’”. That is the overall edifying lesson I take from this whole episode, whatever the Duchess said or did. I am not interested in what duchesses or King Anus or other self-important people have to say, whatever the timescale. They have been hogging the floor for far too long as it is: that in fact is the problem.

Now take the Cassandra letter: is it reverse pastiche (Cassandra writing like Shane), or self-pastiche (Shane writing as Cassandra writing like Shane)? The answer – not the unverifiable objective reality but the operative working hypothesis – would have to be: “Both, now deal with the paradox”. Simple, verifiable, univocal truth is in limited supply. Shane can be super-nice at all times, and still leave questions unanswered, indulge in a little fiction to move forward our big fiction. Where is the harm in that? St Theresa of Lisieux reports in her posthumous autobiography how she pretended to like another nun whom she disliked quite intensely. Is this saintliness, or perhaps simply an innocent everyday deceit that is actually just a nice person’s way of being nice by being nice in order to smooth over certain interpersonal difficulties for the greater good? Likewise, is Shane’s niceness nicely nice niceness (i.e. integrity) or is it just a wafer-thin veneer over something else? That is the only worthwhile question in my opinion. And I don't think picking holes in his story is the best way to find the answer.

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
It takes far more skill and wisdom to assemble a synthesis than to pick holes in someone else's honest hard work.

The ultimate message may be the corniest of all: “Just be nice; and if it doesn’t come naturally, just fake it until it does!” You can smile because you feel happy, but equally (the actor’s trick) you can smile until you feel happy.

[DePortugal]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by onawah (here)
Is there any chance we could get a similar summation of what the Mod team discovered about the accuracy/inaccuracy of Simon Parkes' information .............................

... In Simon's case, I'm not competent to do that, and I don't think the mods are... I'm just not familiar enough with what he's stated on record, and I don't think the others are.

Bill, thank you so much for being so sincere and a profound thinker and also for giving such a devastating blow on Ignorance.

[ulli]

Comedian Andy Kaufman keeps popping into my mind while reading these posts re. Shane and Cassandra, especially after reading araucaria's post.
The identification of a writer and the characters they write about is something worth looking into, as is the case with actors and the parts they play. If repeated often enough the original identity goes through a shift until it is difficult to recall who is who.
I once knew an actor who appeared in the original musical Hair, and during a particularly difficult rehearsal Rudolph Nureyev walked into the empty auditorium, and after confessing to him later that he couldn't do the part Nureyev said to him: "Then you must PRETEND!"

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by araucaria (here)
As I write, I am listening on the radio to a discussion of the clash between two incompatible musical maestros, the romantic conductor Leonard Bernstein and the baroque pianist Glenn Gould, playing a Brahms concerto together, which was preceded by a remarkable, possibly unprecedented disclaimer from Bernstein. Listen to the first couple of minutes of this video:

Wow. Here's that extract. Do listen... it's worth it. (4 mins, 2 Mb):

http://projectavalon.net/Leonard_Ber...s_Concerto.mp3

An example to us all of dignified magnanimity. Highly impressive, and to be remembered.

Posted by araucaria (here)
Textual analysis (post #1) is one way to go, for sure, but I would not expect to peel through that onion and find a kernel of truth after flaking off the constituent layers of what would have to be fiction to some degree.

Yes. Textual analysis is NOT the point here... it was merely the entry point for a bunch of questions. I was really sharing the mods' journey of investigation (and have yet to share a little more).

And, as per my post #63 here, which I think was maybe a very important one (and I've never seen anything like that posted in the alternative media) — this is NOT really about Shane, who is a most likable person who (as I've said over and again, and will keep doing so) has conducted himself impeccably.

THAT (in turn) is an entry point to look at a wider phenomenon. And I think we can maybe work together here to make that more visible (or, see if it's there at all).

It's like those children's pictures where you have to find and count the hidden bunnies in the woods. Once you know where they are, it becomes MUCH easier to see their shapes in the trees.

[awakeningmom]

I have to say I'm feeling very frustrated with this entire thread. It all began with a cryptic post by Paul indicating that he no longer supported Shane -- just a month after he had strongly vouched for him. We went from expecting BR to do an interview with Shane to fill in gaps left by prior interviews -- to BR explaining (sort of) why that would not likely happen, given this sudden change of support, and based on some detailed emails that went back and forth. An offer of proof was made to provide the rest of us with these details (i.e, the October 5 emails), but two days later, they have not been provided. Instead, this thread is up to 94 posts and is mainly just members either thanking the Mods for sussing something out based on something we have not yet been provided with -- or members reaffirming their original thoughts about Shane....

A theory was advanced that there might be a larger psy-op/manipulation of the alternative community going on, which leaves me wondering why we are not getting the October 5 detailed emails straight away. Without those, it is starting to feel like THIS is the manipulation. Division and disagreement and a slow trashing of someone once on a PA pedestal, based so far on a letter that was doubted from the start by many.

Sigh is right.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by awakeningmom (here)
leaves me wondering why we are not getting the October 5 detailed emails straight away.

My internet connection here has been blinking on and off all weekend like a bad light bulb. Hang on. I did say I was going to go slow (to give people time to read and think and reply), but not this slow!

[Bill Ryan]

.
5 October questions, and answers from Shane (verbatim, unedited). I sent them after Shane had written to me saying (paraphrase) that maybe I might not want to do an interview with him after all. I sent the written questions because I didn't want to 'ambush' him on audio (or to be felt maybe to be doing so), and wanted to give him time to think and reply with care. Shane, again to his credit, said that he did not consider it an 'ambush' at all.



~~~~~~~



1. I was looking through your PMs to me over the years, and I was reminded of this one, from 6 Sept 2013. I’m sure you remember it well. The title was ‘Sleeping’:

Hi Bill.. I hope this finds you doing well!

If you have time I was wondering if you could share something with me.

Recently I saw/found something that even I didn't believe existed.. and I have been reaching out to people I know who may have heard tell of such things.

So..

Have you ever come across information about "sleeping" beings from off planet still buried on planet? To give you an image; if you have seen the Alien prequel film "Prometheus" - they find one of the "engineers" asleep in a pod inside the base (ship) they discover.

Have you ever heard anyone talk about beings on our planet in such a state of hibernation?

Any insights you can share would be valuable to me.. If you have time and are willing of course.

As always, all my very best wishes to you Bill.

Shane

I would like to ask this, if I may. Exactly what was the experience you had? Please be specific... thanks. Was it real-world (like, if you’d had a camera with you, you could have recorded it) — or was it in some other state of reality, subjective reality, or remote perception?

Shane: looking at the blueprints for the building we both noticed a room marked that seemed rather large and we were curious as to what was inside. When we approached the room we found it sealed shut and it appeared to be shut this was for a long time.

It was intuitively that I picked up something important being hidden inside. I could feel the energy of something alive or at least formerly alive.

Having heard about sleeping beings and having been intrigued and curious to meet such a being I had asked some well connected friends about the location and received word that the site held a "sleeping giant".

Knowing it was (or may be) there I began to focus on trying to view it, and was able to.

I had mentioned this to you, or asked if you'd heard anything about it, hoping you may direct me to a researcher who has knowledge of these things. At the time it was my intention to tell said researcher about the location and see if they may take interest in investigating. Knowing I couldn't do this myself without receiving unwanted attention, I thought I may pass it off to someone else to try and look into.

As things go, often working out for the best, I never received any responses. So I had let it go. A few months later an old friend had told me what was going on. I felt it best to drop it at the time.

It is also important to note that at the time I sent that PM to you I was still being very careful regarding what I admitted involvement in.

=============

2. The two letters from Cassandra that you published. In what form did you first receive them? Did she write them to you by hand? Did she send them to you by e-mail, or in hard copy? Did you get them by some other means? I wonder if you could take a moment to clarify.

Shane: The letters from Cassandra were hand written and delivered directly to me. She and I have a relationship that has continued beyond my involvement with her and the structure.

I typed her words into a word document and then gave the first one back to her, as per her request, and delivered the second to a member of her group/coven.

This was all something she did at my request, and wasn't anything "official". Simply repaying a personal debt. (Quite simple: She "owed me one" so to speak and this is what I requested. Hoping anyone who chose to read it would understand from that what she was like. All personal desire here. )

=============

3. How much of the information you have presented in so much detail is from your own subjective past-life recall? If any of this is, when did this come to you (approximately what year), and have you ever been regressed?

Shane: The information in the blog is a compilation of things I've learned in this life. I left past life recall out of things for the intended audience.

Past life recall for me is different than most because I haven't been through the same type of incarnations as most other beings do. It's unbroken and although not perfect is just as accurate as any other memory. None required regression which is a process I have never been through. (Hypnotism doesn't seem to work on me at all, something I would be willing to be tested on)

With the blog writing it wasn't about my memory of things beyond the time I have spent in this body and more taken from questioning beings involved (various races), reading occult books and accounts not available in the public world. The main theme of impersonations is already known by many.

=============

4. Your meeting with Anu, and others, in the large meeting room. I presume from the way you described it (forgive me if I missed anything here), it may have held something like 50-60 people. Yet one might imagine that literally thousands of people might have been eligible to be present at such a significant event.

Can you help your audience understand how you came to be invited, given that you were regarded (again, if I understand things correctly) as a kind of renegade?

Shane: The meeting I spoke of was not as significant and many would assume. I'll attempt to explain.

The significance of the meeting was supposed to be the final talks about the pass over from Draco to the Parents. One of Anu's sons was meant to take over as the leader of the Parents and structure, which is what happened, but the reason for the meeting turned out to be Anu stripping his son of the support he was meant to receive. A much larger meeting was set to occur (and did/has) after this smaller meeting. This was meant to be more of a ceremony than a meeting to make decisions.

The group I have called "Elders" in my blog were invited and one of them invited me as his guest. (He and I are quite close.)

So the only reason I was there was due to personal connections I have developed with individuals present.

To the lower levels of the structure I am a "renegade" of sorts but the Parents, Elders and Draco do not view me as such. This is deeply personal and something I avoid giving detail on as it doesn't really matter, even if it deepens the story.

=============

5. Similar to my question #1 above about the PM you sent me on 6 Sept 2013 (‘Sleeping’): was this attendance with Anu a physical, real-world event, or was it in some other form? (In other words, to clarify my question, if you’d had a camera in your pocket, could you in theory have had photos to share if you’d been allowed to take any?)

Shane: The gathering described above was physical, real world, 3D. I had traveled by car with the Elder who invited me to a location and entered an underground establishment with him. No magic or astral projecting involved.

=============

6. To help your audience be more certain in their understanding of the provenance of your very important story: is there anything at all you can offer to show that you are from an Illuminati or bloodline family? Even one name from your family tree would be helpful.

Or even something like a photo of a plaque on the wall. Or even a photo of your own birth certificate, which would not implicate/involve anyone else in any way.

I’m sure all this is on the public record somewhere, but it’d be valuable to a lot of people if you could be helpful to those very much wanting to support you in your story. Maybe a few moments thought might help you to think of a neat way to square this important circle.

Shane: This is a slippery slope for me as it begins to involve several others besides myself. When I was 15 they did a sanitization of all public records to ensure I could never become a "whistleblower". I can give the family name through which I am connected (which is Russell) and perhaps someone savvy could find the records that my mothers, mother's (My grand mother) maiden name, is Russell. She had two male siblings who still carry that name as do some of their male children. Meaning some of my relatives do use that name.

My Grandfathers side wouldn't be traceable. The most famous relative would be Napoleon. This was connected to the Rothschild family.

These are good reasons NOT to consider myself as a credible whistleblower/insider.

I was adopted by a step father and took his name. The original name on my BC would be my biological fathers name, which is not a "Bloodline name".

There is nothing official to verify my story. Which is why I don't expect anyone to believe or accept it. If I could, I wouldn't be writing the way I have.

=============

7. When did you first start communications with Corey? How did that happen, and who initiated it? I’m presuming, for instance, that you shared your information about the Sleeping Giants with him. If that’s what happened, when did you do that, and what did you tell him? (If that was in writing or text form, can you share/copy what you told him?)

Shane: I believe it was just after his first interview with Christine that I contacted Corey. I had read a post where he mentioned "The Black Sun Order" which caught my attention because most people call it "The Order of The Black Sun". The order of the words Corey had placed them in was the correct order. Others had as well so this was not unique to him. I have messaged others for the same reason.

We exchanged a few PMs but not a lot until the issue regarding the second interview was discussed which was an audio issue I had offered to try and help recover.

There was mention of the sleeping Giants in some of our communication. He seemed to have some knowledge and I had offered him more. This was the reason, or topic, that he had asked me to speak with David for.

I never spoke to Corey via voice at all. Most of our conversations were "two guys shooting the breeze". I did tell DW about my experiences.

I don't keep Skype logs and I'm not sure what is still in my logs to be recovered. What I told Corey was very limited and what I told DW was very detailed and I am aware that DW shared what I told him with Corey which is perfectly acceptable as he had my full permission to do so.

I believe it was October or November 2014 when our communication began.

At that time Corey sent me the videos that he has now made popular of what is claimed to be an "Annunaki in stasis". Which is clearly not what is claimed. That seemed to be the depth of his knowledge.

=============

8. The surveillance video that you said existed of Corey and Stacy. When was that dated? Can you request that a (maybe even redacted/edited) copy of that be sent securely to some reliable researcher, for instance Michael Salla (or even David Wilcock), if they sign an NDA that they will not release it publicly?

(Or even to myself? You do know, of course, that I would keep my word on any agreement made. And also of course, to violate an NDA of that nature would not be wise for anyone to try to do. If the video exists, or still exists, one would think that independent corroboration of that event would be most important.)

Shane: I don't mention the video in question publicly because all it could be is "he said- she said" drama. I do not have access to a copy and was only allowed to view it a handful of times. This would have been February or March 2015. It remains off the record because of the reason given above. Cannot be shown or verified and is simply here say if I state this publicly. I'm hoping this question can remain off the record for this reason. I truly have no interest in "discrediting" Corey. I tell people off the record but never extend that info to anyone unless it comes up.

=============

9. Christine wrote on her forum about your recent interview:

This intimate conversation comes from a friendship, a result of getting to know each other over the course of a year or more.

That surprised me a little, because prior to mid-December last year, Christine had never once mentioned your name. Did she make a slip in her post? (Easy for that to have happened, of course.) Can you clarify? I had been assuming that it was Corey who must have introduced you to her sometime after the New Year, but from what she wrote, it seems that I may have been wrong.

(The timeline, so to speak, of all these complex interactions is important to understand, as it’d be most valuable for a lot of people to know that a great deal of Corey’s information was plagiarized from yourself. But it would be very useful for many to have a more complete picture of exactly how and when all that happened.)

Shane: I don't recall the exact date Christine and I began talking but it was around the time she became no longer a moderator at Avalon. I reached out to her directly and Corey was not involved or a topic of my message to her. It was simply me hoping to establish a connection with her as a friend because I appreciated her words. It has been less than a year but close enough that I don't see any issue with her wording.

=============

10. Are you willing to release any more of your Skype conversations with Corey? Some have been leaked, as you know (ironically, some by Corey himself), but a more complete record of what transpired would be most helpful for others to understand.

Shane: I don't think I have all of our Skype text as I stated in an earlier question as well. There is no reason to release any of it. What Corey has repeated from info I had shared is second hand, as I never shared it with him I had shared it with DW. Most of which if not all of which was done in voice conversations I did not record. (Corey had claimed DW did and shared them with him in a post on TOT around April 2015)

Corey has edited the logs he released slightly to omit things he said but none of this really matters much. I have publicly admitted I played along with his story and lied to him and DW while playing along, and I have also apologized to them both privately and publicly.

What Corey released shows my lies to him and my playing along which is fine as I admit that so I have nothing to counter there.

The payroll topic is the only aspect that he twisted further and I have made the screen shots public to show he is being dishonest there.

=============

11. You told me by PM that Corey had contacted you round about the New Year to ask for background information on me. You sent him some items, some of which I presume you had received from others. Can you also send those to me? And also what he had originally asked you to supply? (It would seem very reasonable that you would. Copies of that correspondence, which concerns me personally, would be most helpful for me to see.)

Shane: I had told Corey about my reason for joining Avalon originally just as I have told you and Kerry. At the time I had told him that, when I joined, I had a dossier of information about you both. He assumed I still had it and asked me for it. I didn't have it and couldn't share it. That's all. Other than I saw him claiming he would be receiving said dossier despite my telling him I didn't have it to give. I will see if this is in the Skype logs but I am not sure if it is. My reason for telling you was to put your mind at ease knowing that Corey did not possess such a thing to hold against you.

=============

12. In connection with that, can you help me understand — and I do not mean this as an accusation, but it’s just an unanswered, reasonable question — why did you not tell me at that time of Corey’s request, that someone who had an evident intention to smear me was asking you for personal information that they could use? I do appreciate that you clarified to me later that that had happened, but that was several months after the event.

Shane: I didn't reach out to you when he asked because, well.. Corey was always freaking out about someone who didn't support him and I didn't take it very seriously until I saw that you were concerned he had something against you. I didn't want you to feel concerned. Prior to then I didn't know you had thought he did indeed have something against you. (I didn't read the full blog he wrote trying to bash PA) when I saw you mention it in a PA post I thought it best to try and ease your mind. I wasn't looking to get in the middle of all this. If I could do it all again the "Avians" question from the intended audience wildly have been answered on the blog. It never had anything to do with discrediting Corey or giving the public info about his nonsense. The intended audience knew what it was but was confused by some of the public chatter they had found (coming from Corey and DW) and asked for me to connect the dots between what they knew and what Corey was saying. I didn't name Corey or post it publicly on any forums that Corey or his followers would know about. Stupid of me to assume no one within the alternative community would find the blog, or that post.

===========================

[Kristin]

Personally I feel the overall lesson here is one about discernment. You can read, view, listen, and participate in anything you like in a free-will paradigm. It is when we give up the ability to think for ourselves that the water can become muddy very quickly. Some people will buy into a perception so strongly that they will even change their own personal story to fit into the parameters of another; as though their own personal subjective experiences were not truth enough. It's about standing on your own two feet.

Is Shane telling the truth? Well, let me turn that around, WHAT IS YOUR TRUTH? If you need someone to define that for you then it is no longer your truth rather a system of belief. This is fine and your choice, but remember a belief can be tangible in it's inception. It will change as new information comes in to change it, it can become movable like the tide depending upon where you have given your power away. You will have to move with it. If you do not you will be perceived (regardless of your intentions) as moving against it even if you are simply standing still.

A belief system can become so large that it becomes a cult/religion. Once it's acquired such a status, well watch how quickly the acolyte will slap you in the face if you start to think for yourself again. The moment you stop and perceive you draw attention to yourself. Standing alone and in your own truth is not easy in a crowd that is pumped up and moving, is it?

Listen and explore. OBSERVE. But there is no need to ever give away discernment. The ability to think for oneself is a gift that should not be shrugged or taken for granted. It takes practice and refines itself with use. Dust off your discernment, take it out of the trunk and try it on again. Discernment is self-empowering, it is reflective, it has the ability to change it's position and the ability to gain new insight. Discernment knows when the water feels too cold, when the emotions are too hot, it can tell you when to back off and when to ask what is necessary. Discernment is the backbone of social responsibility.

From the Heart,
Kristin

[Realeyes]

Let's light it up, let's light it up, until our hearts catch fire...

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=EpbjEttizy8

[Selene]

Posted by Kristin (here)
Personally I feel the overall lesson here is one about discernment. You can read, view, listen, and participate in anything you like in a free-will paradigm. It is when we give up the ability to think for ourselves that the water can become muddy very quickly. Some people will buy into a perception so strongly that they will even change their own personal story to fit into the parameters of another; as though their own personal subjective experiences were not truth enough. It's about standing on your own two feet.

Is Shane telling the truth? Well, let me turn that around, WHAT IS YOUR TRUTH? If you need someone to define that for you then it is no longer your truth rather a system of belief. This is fine and your choice, but remember a belief can be tangible in it's inception. It will change as new information comes in to change it, it can become movable like the tide depending upon where you have given your power away. You will have to move with it. If you do not you will be perceived (regardless of your intentions) as moving against it even if you are simply standing still.

A belief system can become so large that it becomes a cult/religion. Once it's acquired such a status, well watch how quickly the acolyte will slap you in the face if you start to think for yourself again. The moment you stop and perceive you draw attention to yourself. Standing alone and in your own truth is not easy in a crowd that is pumped up and moving, is it?

Listen and explore. OBSERVE. But there is no need to ever give away discernment. The ability to think for oneself is a gift that should not be shrugged or taken for granted. It takes practice and refines itself with use. Dust off your discernment, take it out of the trunk and try it on again. Discernment is self-empowering, it is reflective, it has the ability to change it's position and the ability to gain new insight. Discernment knows when the water feels too cold, when the emotions are too hot, it can tell you when to back off and when to ask what is necessary. Discernment is the backbone of social responsibility.

From the Heart,
Kristin

Beautifully said, Kristin, as always. Your words always contain so much insight and wisdom. We are lucky to have you as a Mod.



Selene