Quote:
Originally Posted by Kerry Cassidy
Whistleblowers are people who have spent all or large parts of their lives working for the negative agenda. Once they become whistle blowers it behooves us to welcome them, with Christ-like forgiveness and acceptance, knowing they are reflections of ourselves, come home.
|
My question is what steps have been taken to prove that any particular whistleblower is in fact the real deal?
What I see a lot of all over the web is that many have no proof to offer other than their word. If they are a good story teller their word is taken as gospel. Almost cult like in some cases
When they are wrong on a prediction, people make excuses for them.
I have seen some that do not use a real name... no one has checked their background... and they can offer no documentation at all...
Even when this documentation exists. Why not present it? Would this not give credibility to your story?
And what do we do when more than one WB has a different story than the other one? Which one do we believe? So far now I wave seen many dates for Nibiru for example... from 2003 from Zeta talk to 2900 from Sitchins book "End of Days" 2007 pages 315 - 317 and every date in between.
I am not saying that they may not be true 'insiders'... I am not saying they may not have info to share... but where is the check and balance that ALL of them are 100% the genuine article?
You would think also that when a WB mentions a topic of 'revelation' in an interview... while most people will say "wow cool" some people will actually follow up on the leads. Seems to me that this would be expected?
That is how I met John Lear in the first place.. I was able to document a lot of what he talked about and as a result we became close friends.
But some people react the opposite... and that quite frankly raises red flags in my book. If you don't want someone to check... why would you mention it? Does not seem logical.
In a recent incidence I had written you and Bill about certain projects (trying hard not to mention names here to keep this a generic question
) that I already had documents on BEFORE an interview... actually before Avalon even opened...
There was no reply and Bill said you were busy... fine I understand that... point is it should not have been a surprise.... I gave advance 'notice'
Now over at ATS someone like Cliff Stone gets top billing with his FOIA documents... even gets ad revenues. Yet all those documents are old news easily found on the web... and better copies even without his watermark on them (watermarking a public document? Hmmm ) When you say FOIA in your post his banner appears from the snoop robots.
Yet when you show the real stuff like the 1992 Fusion rocket from Wisconsin U fusion lab, or the nuclear reactor SP-100 on the Moon from NASA, or the electromagnetic shielding for spaceships.. a contractor final report from NASA, GE as the contractor... THOSE things get buried in skunkworks...
Imagine my surprise when 'issues' happened here as well.
Most of the 'good info' comes from real government, NASA, University and .mil sites. In order to prove a document is not phony it is necessary to link to the original source.
For some reason linking to a .mil site here at Avalon scares people... so much so I saw a thread suggesting it be disallowed. It is true that most good .mil sites are not accessible from outside the USA. With good reason... while its free for us to see, do we really want some foreign terrorist to have such easy access to our military? Hmmm
So do people want the truth? Or just a 'good story' that fits their personal belief?
The Blossom Goodchild scenario that flooded all forums (ATS had 80 threads at one point) shows me that the 'good story' rules...
On a closing note...
Bob Lazar thinks John Lear is crazy on most of his theories...
But at a recent party (John's 65th birthday) Bob showed us his NEW Los Alamos ID badge... I will leave it at that