[Unified Serenity]

I hope no one is offended by this analysis, but this is my take on watching the interview and looking at certain criteria.

I watched the interview to get some time hacks on who spoke when, how long, and what were the reasons for interruptions. Let me say that Mr. Greer was obviously offended by Kerry's using the word "insidious" regarding the comments made by him. She tried to deftly get past that by stating it was not personal or about Mr. Greer, but rather the affect of his "all ET's are positive" could have because to Bill and Kerry there is no definitive proof of that. Those are Mr. Greer's views and while He challenges them to prove a negative, where is the proof that all ET's are positive? He would have to have all knowledge and I do believe most reserve that status to God/Goddess.

On the flip side, it is just as insulting to accuse Bill and Kerry bringing up the possibility of negative oriented ET's of making "dangerous" comments. What is the difference between saying someone's comments are insidious vs. dangerous? None as far as I can tell, it's semantics.

I do appreciate the dynamic that Mr. Greer pointed out that people have for thousands of years turned to warfare and the us vs. them paradigm which is not the best way to live in a harmony. While he says it is possible that there could be negative ET's that has not been his experience nor the experience of thousands who have initiated contact via his methods. I will go so far as to say that even those awake to what is happening who are seeking truth if they were to hear Mr. Greer say, "Yes, there are people who have had negative personal experiences with ET's" would help germinate a seed of fear should contact come about, and that might turn into a violent reaction from us less evolved humans. We do have a track record, and if I were a capable explorer then I might not want to have such contact or help them. Much as when someone may try to help a drowning victim if untrained they may find themselves drowned in the end. We have shot them down, used weapons against them and therefore might they take precautions?

Mr. Greer also pointed out that if someone who did not understand medicine were to see him inserting a chest tube in a small child who is not sedated and screaming would think he were a monster, so might we think an ET is a monster who may be trying to save us. We are killing many species here every year, and we are killing each other.

I was not offended by Kerry or Bill's attempts to gain some control of the interview. They were interviewing Steven Greer for THEIR program. They have a right to talk! First off, I would say do NOT sit on either side of a guest because it puts the guest in the awkward position to keep turning their head to appear to be engaging both hosts. This would have been alleviated easily by Bill and Kerry sitting next to each other.

In the first roughly 30 minutes of the interview, Mr. Greer spoke for 22 minutes. Kerry's questions were on average of 44 seconds. On two occasions she or bill spoke for 1:35 and 1:10 while the other times were for 10 to 47 seconds. At one point Mr. Greer spoke without interruption for 7:10. He spoke another two times for 4:45 and 3:05 while his other responses were usually over a minute. I saw people comment on Kerry touching Mr. Greer's arm, but I noticed that Mr. Greer made the first invasion of personal space with Bill regarding his hat. This is all really silly because they are not arch enemies, just having a difference of opinion on one area. Yes, there was tension over it, but Mr. Greer made the first real invasion of personal space and I did not see anything aggressive from Kerry towards Mr. Greer in touching his arm (Or Bill for that matter) nor did she wag her finger at him, but raised a finger in emphasizing a point of fact in her views.

The last half of the interview was a pretty good give and take on both sides. It had some contention, but I do think Mr. Greer bears just as much responsibility for over-talking Kerry or Bill. He would talk for a minute and a half and get irritated when they wanted to interject something to deal with something he said and Mr. Greer accused them of not letting him speak! Had they not interrupted him, I doubt we would have gotten as much detail as we wanted as he could just talk and talk for an hour without a problem.

All in all, I think the interview was ok. It would have been much less uncomfortable to watch had B & K sat together and table would have been nice as well. The chairs looked uncomfortable and Mr. Greer appeared to not want to be there or appeared a "victim" in some aspect by his posture as if he were saying, "OK, I'm here, let's have it and get it over with". That would not have been as apparent had they been sitting at a table in a more professional setting.