Thanks for your passion and hard work Bill and Kerry... this is a great forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Ryan
In intel terms, this (Blossom Goodchild prediction) is non-verifiable, single-source information (containing pretty extreme information) and therefore the chances of it being valid are realistically very small indeed. The real issues during October are elsewhere, and are economic (as is currently being confirmed) and geopolitical.
|
You'd have to say that all alien/UFO revelations are 'pretty extreme' as are many of the claims of Project Camelot and Disclosure Project interviewees, whether or not they're corroborated by more than one source. On the face of it, the Goodchild prediction for Oct 14 is no more or less extreme, except of course for the rediculous assertion that the illuminati will then be destroyed; but then again, Benjamin Fulford threatens the same from his teenager mutant ninja turtles.
Seriously though, our analysis of Goodchild's prediction would be better directed at what an overt UFO flap on Oct 14 would mean and frankly it could mean anything other than what it is claimed to mean. The same questions apply to it as to all information we're given on aliens/UFOs.
1) What is the source of the info?
2) Is the claimed source the same as the actual source?
3) If the UFOs appear (on Oct 14 in this case) so what? Who are the occupants?
As we've seen, it takes a lot more than fluffy messages and dire predictions to convince everyone of the identity and orientation of any source of information whether channelled or from deep black. All the predictions for earth changes, war and economic collapse have been psychically predicted for many years not to mention that many internet journalists have been reading the signs of the times and bringing very similar possible futures to light during recent years.
Yes, Goodchild's prediction is certainly nonsense but it will be nonsense even if UFOs appear. The only thing we could tell with any certainty in that event would be that whoever inspired the channelled messages also arranged the UFO flyover. That is all no more or less. The orientation and identity of that group would remain in question regardless of the claimed source.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Ryan
Kerry and I were surprised at the reaction by some to Miriam Delicado's interview. My personal viewpoint is that there may be a separation going on: those who realize what's happening and what's at stake... and those who don't. Nothing here is intended to be disrespectful to those who did not resonate with Miriam's interview. I wrote about my own feelings about the matter here on this thread, and I'll copy my response here as it might be helpful to some: |
Bill, after reading everyone's reaction to the Miriam Delicado interview aren't you and Kerry entertaining any doubts about her claimed source? Sure her predictions might resemble the so called 'T1v83 timeline' as do the speculations of literally dozens of other garden variety terrestrials who maintain internet blogs and 'conspiracy' websites; but don't some of the points raised in that thread we all wrote bring her sources into serious question for you too?
Surely the separation you're referring to is based on more than whether or not each of us realises what's happening and what's at stake? For example, if the worst soon happens, as it appears it is beginning to, then it's not irrational to make preparations individually or in self-sustaining communities. I don't see a problem with the general idea. But the caution i have is the philosophical basis of the whole thing.
Firstly, unlike Clark Kent, i don't believe that preparing to survive an obvious problem is going to cause the problem. The causes have been a long time in the making and they are not based simply on our own subjective mindset in the present. They are based on concrete actions of the power elite over time and our own inaction to percieve and prevent them. And it will take a lot more to prevent them than an immediate change of mentality and intent on our part. Although that is what we must do whether or not we also prepare and whether or not the plans of the power elite materialise. So again, no problem with alternative communities per se.
Second and more importantly is the source of the philosophy upon which proposed communities are based. I understand each community can be founded on principles agreed by its members. Good. Given the quality concerns of some of the sources of this directive to prepare for the worst, that philosophical foundation is something each group should pay close attention to. Communities cannot allow obviously tainted philosophies from obviously tainted sources to compel individual compliance in matters of conscience. All the inalienable rights to a free conscience and freedom of speech, assembly and press should be guaranteed by each community. Individual freewill should be protected to enable the enjoyment of life according to the individual's inner compass without impinging on individual rights or basic responsibilities to the community.
This might seem axiomatic but given enough power within a group, the human ego, allied to external sources of authority (such as "aliens" in UFOs) could easily find justification for the persecution of individual community members who exercise their freewill in matters of conscience. A religious ferver expressed in new communities under the pressure of perpetual crises could lead to poor judgement and poor decision making if power, rights and responsibilities are not properly divided among members and if effort is not continually made to uphold the principles of freedom upon which communities are founded.
Given my concerns about the quality of some of the sources' sources and the propensities of the human ego in a community setting, i feel the need to present this whole question to the forum for it's own philosophical response. The United States of America has grappled with these same questions since the beginning and as you can see, if a community doesn't get the philosophical foundation right and protect that foundation over time then a manipulative dictatorship develops. It may not even be percieved as manipulative or dictatorial (if it appears benevolent on the surface) because individuals do have a bad habit of abrogating personal power and responsibility to external authority. Nevertheless these subtleties can develop without due consideration to the eternal principles of freedom.