Why do so many people still fall for the "whistleblower/insider" hustle?

[Bluegreen]

Well, it's all relative, isn't it?

We are concerned, and rightly so, that the "news" we are getting from these so-called whistleblowers is "BS" and/or "lies". Okay, fair enough, let's look at the "news" as reported on the MSN.com homepage right now, today.

I'm counting 22 stories about Halloween, not too surprising considering that today is October 31, after all. Quoting verbatim, these include:
Best Celeb Halloween Costumes
Best Celeb Halloween Makeup
Here's Where You'd Survive A Zombie Apocalypse In Every State
Taylor Swift Is Dressed As A Teletubby In Hilarious Halloween Costume
Best Dog Costumes Ever
Best Halloween Pet Costumes
And in case we skip over those "news" items, we also have:
Adorable Pets In Incredible Halloween Costumes

Speaking of "adorable" pets, we have:
Skydiving Cats Cause Uproar
Skateboarding Dog Dies
Mission Accomplished! Hugging Dogs Adopted Together
7 Quirky Cat Behaviors And What They Mean
13 Adorable Kittens

15 stories about sports, including:
College Football's 25 Highest Paid Coaches

And I'm counting 26 stories about celebrities making "news", including:
Leonardo Dicaprio's Twin
Rosie O'Donnell Fires Back At Chelsea On Twitter
Oprah On 'Secret Son'
Ellen Goes Kardashian (I don't even know what that means)
And the latest drivel out of illuminati whore Jimmy Fallon's mouth

All of this information is absolutely imperative to each and every one of us as we struggle to survive in our day to day lives.

On this very website I have read a story about how over a hundred years ago Nikola Tesla designed, built, and drove a non-polluting electric car with a top speed of 95 mph from New York to Buffalo, a story I am inclined to believe. Also available is a story about a non-polluting external combustion engine that was designed, built, and driven in California in the early 70's, as reported by Wade Frazier, a story I am also inclined to believe. So, let's get down to some real "BS":

Automobiles

As reported today on the MSN.com homepage:
Is Tesla Doomed?
The Hottest New Cars Coming In 2016
Advanced Safety Features And What They Do
The Wild And Wacky At Tokyo Motor Show
The Coolest Trucks Of All Time
1969 Daytona Charger Proves Everything Is Restorable
Ultra-rare Cobra Jet Ranchero
Restomod 1967 Chevrolet Corvette

And tomorrow will just be more of the same thing. You may have a different opinion, but I'm calling all of the above as "lies" and/or "BS".

The only thing I really "believe" is #1) military documentation and #2) government documentation, and even that is stuff I don't actually "know", it is just stuff I read. I have been grateful to PA for the opportunity to examine the information offered by these so-called whistleblowers (Shane, Corey, even going back to Charles and others) as I would suggest they are presenting a more accurate picture of life on Earth at the present time than we are getting from the mainstream media.

Thank you all for sharing; a most interesting discussion.

[seah]

I try to keep in mind that some of these whistle blowers have had false memories implanted, real memory wiped, and other forms of mind tampering.

Some of the outlandish assertions they claim, they could very well believe, to the point that a lie detector would not catch it. It doesn't matter how good your discernment skills are, you just can't catch them in the lie. The knowing, on the part of the listener, has to come from an instinctual response, for me, this seems to happen after I've set with the material for a few days, for the most part.

Personally, I have found reality to be full of the bizarre.

It could be that if you are a person who doesn't trust your own feelings, who believes only in the concrete, your feelings aren't going to communicate much to you. Unfortunately, this type of person is at an incredible disadvantage in the world we live in, because what we many times see with our own eyes, is a lie.

[ErtheVessel]

An element I see in the issue of discernment is the question of authority. In our western culture we are taught from a very young age to listen to outside authority, to parrot back outside authority in order to do well in school, and then to obey outside authority in the workplace, etc. And what about authors of books, experts on health, the information-packed internet? Even a commercial for shampoo can be experienced as an outside authority. This kind of very low-grade but sinister brainwashing is so pervasive as to be nearly invisible.

And then there is our own inner authority. I really can't say that I recall any kind of instruction about listening to the complexity and subtlety of my own inner authority while I was growing up. It is something that is rarely even talked about to a child, and also very rarely modeled. Learning to respect one's own inner authority can be very hit or miss even when you begin to want to listen. Inner authority and discernment are learned at different rates by different people and some people seem to be ahead of the game from the very beginning. Others like myself have to reinvent the wheel and the going is quite slow.

But it seems to me that the tendency to fall for the hustle is something purposefully and deeply engineered into our culture and those of us who are learning to disobey the outer-authority mandate and painstakingly develop our own inner authority and discernment are trailblazing for others who cannot yet do that. Discernment is not a cookie-cutter lesson. It is profoundly individual and is earned by hard work and often much pain. I see it as an act of defiance to learn to claim my own inner authority and discernment.

[Delight]

Posted by awakeningmom (here)
it's helpful to understand how you personally reconcile or explain issues like the above "wild personal claims" while still supporting the claimer.

I liked this post because it laid out the issue of compartmentalizing information. There are always difficulties when people present with claims that are outrageous. IMO calling oneself special and a savior is pretty common.

There are some people in the line I am interested in following of ancient prehistory. One is Ior Bock. Many doubted he could possibly be the last "Aser", a descendant of the North Pole's original civilization and one who knew the Sa Ga from the beginning of all PiPol. he WAs a great storyteller. He was a very controversial figure. His personal behavior was eccentric in the extreme. He was nearly murdered once but survived. He was finally murdered in 2010. The story is as wild as can be!!!

This is about the story
The Bock Sa Ga

The reason I bring him up is that when one listens to him talk about the Sa Ga, it has detail and also correlates with language and with evidence of a far North Civilization BEFORE Atlantis. He located the entrance to a an ancient hall of records and YES something where he indicated DOES exist but has not been accessed yet.

So the reason I am bringing the wild character IOR BOCK into the conversation is that when one can find corroborating evidence of a compelling nature, one is likely to accept the truth of a claim IF it suits us (hehe).

IMO we are seeking the truth but a question or hearing something that suits us will always have an inner corroborating concept we already know seems true to hang on.

This is my beef with the conspiritual community. An underlying ethos of belief about the parameter of truth that is constantly being reinforced. In this there is no difference with any "group" perception.

BUT IMO, if something is the truth, it "WILL OUT" (an expression that truth being truth it must finally in the end be seen.) This is what we can speed up by looking at our core beliefs and questioning them...

I think some of us get exhausted finally by all the dead ends.

[Sean]

Well, this has certainly turned into quite a discussion.

It needed to be discussed, and more discussion still, because we all really need to focus on developing our discernment, like many have said in this thread. At the same time, I agree that not every outrageous claim is false, and we can go to extremes the other way, and never believe anything.

In another thread on another site, I commented on a story about someone who was my cousin. He died in a very famous accident.This story posited that he was still alive, and I knew for a fact he wasn't, and said so. I posted under my real name. I was called an imposter, a paid shill, and so on, because people really wanted to believe this bogus story. So, I have a tiny taste of what its like to have an "inside scoop", come forward, only to be disbelieved. So it goes. Thats the internet.

I hope this discussion continues.

[greybeard]

Since joining the original PA there have been more than several who had suspect stories but were put on a pedestal.
Where are they now I wonder.
Most were charismatic, likeable and charming.
In a way the all brought something of interest.
Some caused friction to happen amongst the members --the strongly for and those against.
Eventually most, but not all, came to see that the story of that time just had too many flaws in it to to be true.
Its all a learning curve--in a way nothing is wasted.

Chris

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by awakeningmom (here)

it's helpful to understand how you personally reconcile or explain issues like the above "wild personal claims" while still supporting the claimer.

Thanks, but you're still getting that a little bit wrong... the use of words here. It's not about 'supporting the claimer'. That's way too general. It suggests a big misunderstanding here that you may have.

Take Andy Basiago, for instance. I've met him personally, and worked with him for a long day on a TV show, and also spoken with him at length on several occasions. He totally believes everything he's saying, and he's a super-nice person. If he came to my door and asked me for personal assistance on anything, I'd help him out in a heartbeat. I have nothing against the man.

It's [some of] his claims that don't stand up — about having been on Mars. I can dissect that in great detail if needed. And as some reading this will recall, I talked with him for four hours in February 2007, the first in the alternative community to do so, and he never mentioned Mars then. Not once. That all came later.

His claims about his childhood teleportation experiments, however, I've always found to be compelling and credible. The stories are consistent, they've always been there (they're not 'recovered memories', they're real ones), and Frank Jacob and Tonia Madenford in their new documentary Packing for Mars (out this month, I believe), astonishingly, seem to have found a witness to his experiences.

So, in summary, some of his claims I think are credible and compelling, and others are not. The latter I strongly suspect are implanted overlays to discredit (a) his real memories of a real project, and (b) killing two birds with one stone, to discredit anyone else out there who may be talking about Mars authentically, because he makes it all sound ridiculous.

To analyze all this, I suggest you really have to stand in the shoes of an authority who wants certain stories discredited. (This viewpoint may not come naturally! But it's a useful 'thought experiment'.) Then, look to see what that authority would do. This is one of the thinking aids that may be very useful to deploy here.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by greybeard (here)
Eventually most, but not all, came to see that the story of that time just had too many flaws in it to to be true.
Its all a learning curve--in a way nothing is wasted.

Yes.

One does not go to the gym to build strength, and then complain when the coach doesn't hold the weights above one's head in the correct position, saving you the lifting effort.

To build strength, of whatever sort, one requires the back and forth interaction with resistant forces, building up to more challenging endeavors.

Not all the Kings horses and all the Kings men can make your little finger one ounce stronger. Only you can do that.

[ThePythonicCow]

Continuing my gym analogy, one does however appreciate spotters who can grab the weight if you lose control, to help you avoid hurting yourself.

In a gym, a personalized choice of weight to lift, and the awareness of your personal limits by the spotters, is routine and appreciated.

In a forum, we tend to get a "one size fits all" choice of what weight to lift next, with the challenges of the day being present to all participants. We're also limited in how much personal "spotting" we can do, though we do what we can there.

So greater responsibility is left with each forum member, to guide their own training path.

[Silo]

I found myself revisiting some more Melville (I know, groan from some of you...he is a wordy cuss )

His last novel "The Confidence Man" explores the nature and simultaneous need for trust/mistrust.

"I am one who thinks well of man. I love man. I have confidence in man. But what was told me not a half-hour since?
I was told that I would find it written — 'Believe not his many words — an enemy speaketh sweetly with his lips' — and also I was told that I would find a good deal more to the same effect, and all in this book. I could not think it; and, coming here to look for myself, what do I read? Not only just what was quoted, but also, as was engaged, more to the same purpose, such as this: 'With much communication he will tempt thee; he will smile upon thee, and speak thee fair, and say What wantest thou? If thou be for his profit he will use thee; he will make thee bear, and will not be sorry for it. Observe and take good heed. When thou hearest these things, awake in thy sleep."

Here is some analysis "Prose and Cons: On Melville's 'The Confidence Man'

Telling someone “Trust me” is usually a dead giveaway that they should do exactly the opposite. A trustworthy person doesn’t need to insist on it. Professions of the need for trust are a pretty good sign that someone is trying to sell you something.

. . .there’s no better time to pick a man’'s pocket than while he’s stargazing.

Happy Sunday all!

[Selene]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
It's some of his [Andy Basiago's] claims that don't stand up — about having been on Mars. I can dissect that in great detail if needed. And as some reading this will recall, I talked with him for four hours in February 2007, the first in the alternative community to do so, and he never mentioned Mars then. Not once. That all came later.

You seem to be basing your opinion that Andy Basiago had never been to Mars solely on the fact that in a single four-hour conversation with you he never mentioned Mars. And to date, you’ve put forward no other evidence for your [presumably] authoritative opinion.

That reminds me a bit of the old British jest: “You must take a few moments sometime and tell me all you know…”

The mere fact that in a single conversation with a researcher one might not feel comfortable disclosing everything at once should not surprise anyone. And, being an interview, the scope of the conversation may well have been directed by the researcher’s questions and interests, no?

Question to Bill: Did you ever ask Andy directly in that conversation about Mars? Did you ask specifically if he had any knowledge of Mars bases or travel there?

My husband has been a mainstream journalist with world-famous publications for 45 years and in that time has done thousands of interviews. What he gets out of each depends very much on what areas he seeks to explore. Even if he were to say: ‘Tell me all you know about…’ the subsequent conversation would still go down a path of some sort because he would ask follow-up questions related to the interviewee’s previous comments. It could never be considered encyclopedic of a topic, only a window into it.

Posted by Bill Ryan
His claims about his childhood teleportation experiments, however, I've always found to be compelling and credible. The stories are consistent, they've always been there (they're not 'recovered memories', they're real ones), and Frank Jacob and Tonia Madenford in their new documentary Packing for Mars (out this month, I believe), astonishingly, seem to have found a witness to his experiences.

And not to press the point (okay, I will ) but if another respected researcher has found a witness to Basiago’s claims, that – in my view – should weigh more heavily in terms of Basiago’s veracity than a “he never told me that…” disclaimer.

I’d give Basiago another look, myself.

Cheers,

Selene

[awakeningmom]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by awakeningmom (here)

it's helpful to understand how you personally reconcile or explain issues like the above "wild personal claims" while still supporting the claimer.

Thanks, but you're still getting that a little bit wrong... the use of words here. It's not about 'supporting the claimer'. That's way too general. It suggests a big misunderstanding here that you may have.

Take Andy Basiago, for instance. I've met him personally, and worked with him for a long day on a TV show, and also spoken with him at length on several occasions. He totally believes everything he's saying, and he's a super-nice person. If he came to my door and asked me for personal assistance on anything, I'd help him out in a heartbeat. I have nothing against the man.

It's [some of] his claims that don't stand up — about having been on Mars. I can dissect that in great detail if needed. And as some reading this will recall, I talked with him for four hours in February 2007, the first in the alternative community to do so, and he never mentioned Mars then. Not once. That all came later.

His claims about his childhood teleportation experiments, however, I've always found to be compelling and credible. The stories are consistent, they've always been there (they're not 'recovered memories', they're real ones), and Frank Jacob and Tonia Madenford in their new documentary Packing for Mars (out this month, I believe), astonishingly, seem to have found a witness to his experiences.

So, in summary, some of his claims I think are credible and compelling, and others are not. The latter I strongly suspect are implanted overlays to discredit (a) his real memories of a real project, and (b) killing two birds with one stone, to discredit anyone else out there who may be talking about Mars authentically, because he makes it all sound ridiculous.

To analyze all this, I suggest you really have to stand in the shoes of an authority who wants certain stories discredited. (This viewpoint may not come naturally! But it's a useful 'thought experiment'.) Then, look to see what that authority would do. This is one of the thinking aids that may be very useful to deploy here.

Thanks, yes, I think I must be misunderstanding something big here. Or we are just writing at cross-purposes.

My interest here (as suggested by my earlier questions) is primarily about Bill Deagle -- not Bassiago. I see why you reject some claims of Bassiago's as incredible (or inconsistent/not consistent with earlier discussions you had with him, and thus suspect) while finding other claims more credible (based on the fact that these stories emerged from the start of your discussions with him, and, I assume, triangulation of those claims with other sources).

What I don't understand, however, is how one compartmentalizes the "wild personal claims" of Deagle, so that other claims he makes are still determined to be credible. Actually, it's not that I don't understand how it could happen: I can see how one might decide that the other claims that person makes are fairly credible because they can be triangulated with other information from other sources -- and that the wild personal claims are just some unbalanced quirk of personality -- i.e., a need to feel unique/special/more important than others, etc -- and thus discarded or deemed inconsequential to the overall wealth of information presented. I am just personally wondering if that's how YOU deal with situations where a person (i.e., insider/whistleblower) makes some claims that seem very plausible but then makes other claims about themselves that seem to be fabrications or delusions.

I think you are saying that you just don't throw the baby out with the bathwater (at least with Deagle) - that you take what you like and leave the rest, as long as some claims are deemed credible. But then that brings me around to the problem of separating the real deal whistleblowers/insiders from the con artists or the true whistleblowers who are nevertheless corrupted by mind-control or implanted overlays. At what point does the "story [or the person] have too many flaws in it to be true"? Or, when do you start suspecting mind-control or implanted overlays to explain weird tales emerging from someone who, on other topics, might make a lot of sense?

Since everyone seems to have a different litmus test or a different number of acceptable flaws per whistleblower/insider, it's no wonder that, as the OP queries, so many people still fall for the whistleblower/insider hustle.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Selene (here)

authoritative

Your word, not mine!

But I presume you're appreciative that I shared my experience (part of which was by definition unique). What's your personal experience of Andy Basiago? Please do share that, too.

I can critique everything he's ever said or written about Mars. If you'd like me to do that (might take some time, but I certainly can) — that'd need a standalone thread, I think.

Posted by Selene (here)
Question to Bill: Did you ever ask Andy directly in that conversation about Mars? Did you ask specifically if he had any knowledge of Mars bases or travel there?

Not in that initial four hour conversation, no. There was no reason to. (I've never asked you if you've been to Mars, either!)

Later, when filming our TV show pilot in 2010, I certainly did. I reported about that here.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?85903-Anomalies-in-The-Ruiner-s-material&p=1009083&viewfull=1#post100908

That was my own personal off-camera conversation with him, but his on-camera statement, with Kerry and myself asking him questions, is here: (Andy's segment starts at 24:27)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=slQD0rUqbGo

[Chester]

Posted by Silo (here)
Bill asks the question "how does one discern"?

I would take it a step further and ask "what is discernment"?

I'm a big fan of asking your heart, your inner-self, whatever you conceive of your spirit or your soul is this true?

Heart or Gut? It seems to me that these two things are often confused. My theory as to why is because in my own experience, what I deeply want to be true is a matter of heart where what might actually be true or not may often remain blind to the heart and if there's not enough actual, real information, impossible for the mind to decide. That leaves one all and only left with the gut.

So then how could the gut be ignored or so marginalized that gut signals end up being suppressed?

I have an example as this happened with me.

It all happened all and only by way of suddenly being offered an explanation to the one and only very most important strictly personal question in my entire life - a question of an immensely personal nature and a question that emerged from an anomalous experience which happened when I was a child that opened up my mind to all sorts of anomalous possibilities and in this case because the heart suppressed the gut, I seemed to be blocked from being capable of any critical thinking. I found myself suddenly, personally emotionally close (thus trusting, open and thus vulnerable) to the one who suggested the explanation.

Thus what folks call heart (at least for me) is what often leads me into trouble.

In summary, within the first few conversations of my recent experience, it was told to me that the one I was in communication with was closely related to a current major mythical powerful space being and what I was told was that what happened to me when I was six years old (which also happened to Simon Parkes and within at most a few months time of each other) was what this space being does to his sons to prevent the son from having any knowledge of or connection to "their soul mother."

Because of the fact I have had essentially no loving relationship with my Earth mother, this possibility meant even more.

So within the first few conversations I am suddenly looking at the possibility that I finally have an explanation, an explanation that strongly implies I am also a son of this space being and if so, that makes me a brother (at least at the level of the soul) of the being I had just met and who took me quickly and deeply into an emotional entanglement.

Any gut from that point forward was unconsciously suppressed and I began to operate in a state of cognitive dissonance with regards to any ability to critically think.

How could my (possible) brother lie? I saw no shot of that. Why, if he could, would he? An impossible question to answer.

Posted by Silo (here)
Usually, if you listen close you will have your answer. Other times, you will have to honestly say "I'm not sure".

I think it's this last part that bothers us. Most of us are tired of being unsure. Most of us don't have the patience to sit and wait.

Yep... I was tired of not knowing, not understanding what happened to me. I have asked and asked for years and years... many who might know... Peter Moon, Eve Lorgen and Stewart Swerdlow (said it sounded like "the secret gov/military project) - posted it here hoping one reader may know or may have had the same experience. The list goes on as to who I shared the story with. I related the experience to anyone who presented themselves to be someone who may actually have a real answer. Never had I ever experienced receiving an answer (or even speculation) that simultaneously tied me in at a deep emotional level to a grand space opera and the being providing the explanation.

It was craftily done - never a direct... "this is it." Always leaving it up to me to decide yet clearly anyone in that type of situation - clearly vulnerable, would be ripe to eat it up.

And guess where this left me? Not only believing every word spoken in private about all the "fantastical" stories involving my long lost brother but I had to! If anything turns out to be a lie, I would have to throw away the truth I thought I had found regarding this single incredibly important event that was such an important mystery to me personally for 52 years.

So now... - why would someone do this? let's look at all the possibilities.

They might be mind influenced by some sort of tech and/or technique. If this is true then we have to explore why. There has been much discussion as to the possible reasons why already.

The individual may simply be a megalomaniac and thus then if this is true, why? One possibility which, if true, is terribly sad an this is the possibility where the story teller has experienced one or more terribly traumatic experiences. This possibility, if true, completely changes my view with regards to the story teller because now I see the being as suffering from something that may have been no Earthly fault of their own.

If this possibility is true then the next important question is... how conscious (meaning at the waking state level of one's consciousness) are they aware they are making stuff up? If they are mostly or completely not aware they are making it up, the truth could only be cracked by discovering true flaws in the story and confronting the individual. But even still - this might not shake out the truth as is well demonstrated in the movie - Shutter Island. I highly recommend folks see it or at least read the summary.

If they are conscious they are making things up then the only way to resolve it is to find the problems with the story and confront the story teller.

Now there is another possibility. And that is that the statements made both publicly and privately that are presented as fact and which are detailed enough as opposed to vague and thus open to interpretation are all true!

Regarding the Ruiner blog and the storyteller, despite my obvious lack of discernment, despite my heart having overwhelmed my gut, I can honestly say that though I have found a few things that could suggest the stories are untrue, I also see many ways how much of the things singled out as reasons to believe the stories are untrue could be addressed and explained. For example, if Shane had indeed shared detailed information with Stewart such that Shane could state, (paraphrased) "Stewart got all that information from me," and Stewart is asked about this and says he doesn't even know who this is, it is possible Stewart would say this because he promised Shane never to reveal Shane or that Shane was his source of the information. In fact long ago Shane told me that (paraphrased) "Stewart keeps my secret well."

So I will explore this a bit further. Let's say its all true but that there is not one single shred of evidence to verify even one single fantastical element of the story. I preface this by stating what most would agree with - we all are capable of making mistakes and we all probably have. Yet I also have to ask, if I were a kind of Superman... but one that has no powers which he could demonstrate to an Earthling which would prove he is what he claims... and yet if what he claims is also true, wouldn't a being of thousands and thousands of years old... a being that has relationships with the wisest beings in the near galaxy, beings that have been alive in one physical body for thousands and even tens of thousands of years... wouldn't wisdom suggest its best never to reveal these things to regular Earthling folks (especially the vulnerable)?

Lastly, where I (personally) am at now is knowing that it is almost a 100% certainty that for the rest of my life (or his), the truth of this will never be known. Even if one day there was a true, sincere sounding public admission it was all made up, at this point, it would not make any difference as that could actually be untrue.

In addition, though my gut change happened and though it was terribly and completely regrettably messy, I know there are others who may be deeply, personally entangled at such a powerful level that the story teller no longer has the option to come clean without hurting others. And I do not believe that it is possible that if it is all made up he would ever hurt those who are ardent believers. I saw the heartbreak of my son when he also went through his own gut change. Still - it could all be true. Anyways, it seem the odds are almost 100% certain that it will go to the grave.

My last point in this long post is -

Regardless of which of these possibilities are true... do we not each have responsibility? Let's say I am mind controlled... let's say it is possible for nefarious third parties to mind hack and take over someone's mind. Does that suggest that that the target being no longer has any responsibility? If so, doesn't this suggest we and all our ancestors are completely and permanently screwed?

This is something I have thought about a great deal. And to me the only solution is this approach - no matter what thoughts may enter one's mind, we all must decide thought by thought which thoughts we then decide to own. If I cannot be sure where from the thoughts come, then I better start examining these thoughts before I act upon them.

This is now a major part of my own, personal operating principle though it is very hard to do, especially when emotions rise and I still fail far too often. Still - I see this as the only hope any of us have if third parties are able to hack and influence or outright control one's thoughts. The only other solution is that these nefarious forces, if they actually exist (odds are high they do) and if they actually do this (sadly there's lots of evidence this is also true), that these folks are stopped. Some say raising their vibration prevents exposure to nefarious thoughts. Well I know some very good hearted and well intentioned folk who are quite messed up - for example, Sam Jenkins - Bases 26 parts one and two.

Clearly by now most readers can conclude I got close. That is true and in fact - that things went as far as they did and got as big as it was starting to become is in large part my own fault. BUT! also... it could all be true and maybe I am the one mind controlled and meant to blow it all up. Or maybe I am just a pure jerk in my core and there are a few who likely have this view.

All possibilities are..... possible.

Ultimately I rejected my heart (that I wanted it to all be true) and finally acknowledged my gut that finally screamed so loud I could continue no longer ignore.

[Selene]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Selene (here)

authoritative

Your word, not mine!

But I presume you're appreciative that I shared my experience (part of which was by definition unique). What's your personal experience of Andy Basiago? Please do share that, too.

Unless I misunderstand, you seem to be implying that my question to you suggests I have some superior private information. But like most members and readers here, I have never personally spoken with Andy Basiago. I have never met him nor communicated with him.

So in that case – again, like most members and readers here – I must rely on analyzing the interviews and material presented by others.

And I think it is fair to say that for interviews presented by Project Avalon, which consistently aspires to present authentic information, I must rely on the “gatekeeping” capacity of one Bill Ryan as to who gets interviewed or not here. And that person (pardon me for referring to you in the third person here, Bill) has decreed Andrew Basiago to be off-limits, whose “claims don’t stand up” (your words, not mine) to scrutiny.

I consider that to be an “authoritative” stance.

Posted by Google Dictionary
au•thor•i•ta•tive

əˈTHôrəˌtādiv/ adjective
1. commanding and self-confident; likely to be respected and obeyed.
"she had an authoritative air"

And at the risk of hammering a point, I’d like to mention that the very same “ask” phenomenon happened not long ago here at Avalon, which you yourself, Bill, posted here: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post897280

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
-------

I have to share this real-time anecdote. I am still amazed. More than amazed!

On the rolling Mods Skype chat just now, Ilie, Paul and myself were discussing the longstanding problem of bringing another admin on board... someone who can do real geeky server stuff. Because Paul and Ilie are VERY good and together make a perfect team.

But it would really be smart to have someone else on the bench. We had periodically touched on the problem, but there was no simple solution in sight.

Then, in pops [long-serving mod] Sierra... saying: "I can do that." It was like.. "Huh?" I honestly thought she was joking. I asked her what she could do.

"Uh, programming school, halfway through made sys mgr, on HP 48 platform. Programming jobs, political campaigns, Litton Computer Services, Power Up Catalog, CSAA, EDS, Blue Shield. MS Access databases, Visual Basic, API, back ends Oracle, SQL server, then as programming went to Russia, became server admin mostly on SQL servers."

We were all knocked out.

"Why didn't you tell us?"

"Well, you never asked."

So, et in Arcadia, even this.

Cheers,



Selene

[gripreaper]

Posted by ghostrider (here)
Another reason the ETs stay hidden , earth humans will embrace fantasy and kill the truth quickly... Most earth humans do not want to be responsible for their thoughts , actions and feelings... Its much easier to look for higher powers, or people in the know , anything to keep from looking in the mirror... Remember we are genetically altered with short life spans , our Syrian creator overlords knew what they were doing, it kept us from learning the truth and made us easy to control and manipulate...We operate on 10 percent brain use, imagine us at 50% , or 80% ...

That's right, subjectively this resonates with me, although most of what you write I cannot verify in any objective fashion, although I am open to the possibility that what you write could be true, as I recognize that reality and all manner of manifestations can be and is much stranger than my little subjective viewpoint can manage.

So, reading over the last several pages and looking at how different people discern and what filters they use, both subjective and objective, how they triangulate material to develop a "probability" and how to assign variables to these probabilities to develop a synthesis, I see that viewpoints are as varied as there are people.

So, is there really any way to get to a collective consensus on what is the truth and what is not? If it is possible, there has to be a mutual amount of variables distributed pretty evenly amongst the collective, in such a way that it correlates to the current reality, and then most would need to be at or near the same level of consciousnesses to absorb the variables in any similar fashion to come to similar conclusions.

Sometimes it just makes my head spin.

[Sierra]

Selene,

Don't use me again as a means to attack Bill. You have no idea of the befores and afters of that conversation, as I could say applies to many of your posts lately where Bill is concerned.

Ew. I'm grossed out, seeing the ugliness you make of something that was hilarious in my memory.

I tell you again, leave me the **** alone.

[Elainie]

The Mars issue is a whole topic onto itself IMO. I'm someone who has memories of being taken to Mars. I know it to have been drug/mind controlled induced as a small child and how I arrived at that personally for myself is via a lot of shamanic work over the past 10 years which broke these memories down and returned me to a place of wholeness. I have noticed that many in my age bracket who are MILABS have been overlayed with what I term the Mars Material.

[Selene]

Oh dear. Sierra’s cat Grumplestiltskin seems to have commandeered her keyboard…

I hope she’ll be back online herself soon.



Cheers,

Selene

[awakeningmom]

Wow. I didn't see Selene's post as an attack on Bill! Is disagreeing with BR (or asking him to explain something) now considered an attack? Or can we have differences of opinion? I guess there's some backstory there I am not privvy to, cause that was a really harsh response. Even got thanks too. Jeez. Disappointing.