The recent comments by qbeac & Spregovori on resolving contradictory/inconsistent information raise an important issue.
qbeac (#527) mentioned an inconsistency in the views of Benjamin Fulford and David Wilcock on Obama. Here's another example.
In an article posted today, Fulford explains as follows re: the Nov 09 hacking of emails from a server at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia:
"Russian BDS [Black Dragon Society] members hacked the East Anglia University computers and proved the "global warming" campaign was based on false data."
http://benjaminfulford.net/2009/12/2...b-250-billion/
David Wilcock provides a very different account in "Disclosure Endgame" part 3:
"As of November 2009, the Rockefeller faction -- now in complete free-fall after losing the 2008 election -- was almost certainly responsible for leaking the "Climategate" emails. This was a blatant, desperate attempt to destroy the credibility of any arguments to reduce our fossil fuel consumption -- and thereby preserve whatever shreds of economic power and oil money they still have at this point."
http://divinecosmos.com/index.php/st...ndgame?start=2
These are very different accounts of the same incident.
I agree with Spregovori/532 re: the need to create a situation whereby contradictions in the testimony of PC whistleblowers and others can be resolved. This would help to clarify the point where assumptions are shaping the interpretation of the facts. Ideally this process should be open for input from others.