View Single Post
Old 03-04-2010, 08:23 PM   #191
Lightpotential
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: England
Posts: 64
Default Re: The Jonathan Reed Hoax - Project Camelot impersonation on YouTube

Quote:
Originally Posted by THEWATCHER View Post
What neither yourself nor Kerry did was to stand back and look at the queue forming of 'insiders' ready and willing to spill the beans for Camelot. I should refrain from name calling as I'm sure you and Kerry will state you are comfortable with the way certain individuals have approached you, given interviews, and have embedded themselves into the regular Camelot 'family'. Perhaps neither of you thought about WHY these 'insiders' suddenly formed that queue to see you guys and get their testimony on film? No one here will accept what I'm saying, some say I'm p****** in the wind in this area BUT from the inside I too see whats happening, whether anyone cares to believe is up to them. Just a friendly warning from one whom sees more than most. Camelot ran into problems the minute certain 'insiders' got their feet in the door and got their feet under the table. I refer specifically to DB, BD, PP. Too many cooks spoil the broth, too many docs spoil the disclosure. Think my friend. Barry

Dear Watcher,

I agree completely with your assessment here. And it was bound to happen. It could not really have played out any other way for PC. The more successful, the more people would be approaching Bill and Kerry. As I am sure you realise, one thing in insuring that you are not being taken for a ride - at least an important thing - is the question of who exactly approaches whom?

If Bill or Kerry looked at someone's work and thought it sound, and approached them, then that would be far more credible than if somebody sought them out.

I would say that what is really lacking with PC are the researchers to back up the stories of the whistleblowers. This is critical for me. For the latter do indeed simply 'tell stories' e.g. I was at a deep underground military base once, turned a corner, and saw an 8 foot tall alien with weird eyes etc... Of what value is this kind of testimony, when put on the internet by an anonymous source behind a fake name?

I personally like researchers more than whistleblowers. I like people like Joseph Farrell for example. Or even Patrick Geryl. Now indeed, of the latter, I do not believe his catastrophic theories of 2012, but I respect that he lays out his theories and you can judge them.

If PC is to have any real strength of credibility (of its whistleblowers), it needs to have solid researchers back up the science behind some of the more 'fantastic claims' of the whistleblowers themselves. When a man like Henry Deacon says "I went to Mars", I want to know how? I want to know something of the science behind such a transportation. Without that, he is just telling a story. And lets face it, I do not know this man. Not really. And this is the position that most people here who participate on this forum are in.

LP
Lightpotential is offline   Reply With Quote