That is INTERESTING!

Nice piece. Diaz is very funny and a smart guy to boot. He really cracks me up with his MMA commentary.

 

Trump is a sociopath. Seriously. I had him pegged back when he was on his TV show The Apprentice. I didn't watch hardly any of the show. I would just be walking by while my tenant was watching it. Trump would be dressing somebody down, and I would stop for a minute in horror to listen to his arrogant manipulations. It was classic, in-your-face sociopathy. It was so obvious to me, because I wasn't caught up in the story like my tenant was. I would just be passing by accidently and get exposed to a blast of sociopathic behavior from wild man Trump. Evidently, it was good for the ratings. Now he's running for president, and he still knows how to pull those ratings in. No surprise there. But I still say Hillary, also a rich sociopath, is going to win. It's the hidden controllers' way of mocking us, by making us vote for the worst scum-bags and select them for our top leadership positions. That way the hidden controllers can justify their deceptions and manipulations and superiority, because we're obviously too stupid to notice we are being conned.

 

money, Money, MONEY!

 

Strangely, it just got dropped. Here's the latest info I can find on it, which is nearly three years old! (1 2 )

What I find most interesting is that nobody claimed it was a fake!

Instead they claimed it was human!

They must think we are idiots. That thing is not human. Even the DNA scientist expresses his obvious bias without hesitation:

You don't do science by going into an investigation seeking to prove a pre-determined conclusion!

Claiming the DNA results prove the creature to be human is the equivalent of running an Asch experiment on us. They expect us to agree the thing is human, when clearly it is not.

And where was this trusty BS meter when dealing with Bill Ryan at Avalon, or Atticus at Atticus1.org?

My point is that I have no issue with you questioning everything, including Greer's perspective, but I do have an issue with dismissing something just because it challenges your strongly held beliefs. We are all brain-washed, which means our strongly held beliefs are very likely orchestrated.

I wouldn't. It's not my recommendations that should guide you. It should be your own quest for truth. I typically look at Greer's videos seeking indications that he is lying. I even watch anti-Greer videos for the same reason. When I am consistently disappointed that he is not lying, I have to seriously consider his perspective, which I do.

 

In following Greer's activities, it's clear to me that he interfaces with many insiders, including Lawrence Rockefeller and the Clintons. It's also clear to me that the Clintons are both sociopaths. Lawrence Rockefeller I haven't studied, and I haven't seen anything from Greer that makes me suspect he is a sociopath. In fact, Bill and Kerry's contentious interview of Greer gave me some evidence that Greer is not a sociopath. But my point is that just because these people have contact doesn't mean they are all part of some dastardly master plan. Zook always assumes any cooperation between parties to be evidence of hidden collusion, and that's his infamous "guilty by association" assumption that I criticize so often, because he relies on it so often. I believe that given Greer's goals and intent, which I think are genuine, it's inevitable and expected that he will mix with some very unsavory characters.

You should always have these suspicions, but you shouldn't dismiss Greer's efforts as disingenuous without very good evidence. Meeting with the ultra-rich or the ultra-deviant is not grounds for dismissal.

I could never have anticipated how much difference it made in my life! It turned my life completely around. Truth tends to do that, I've noticed. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Greer himself underwent a similar transformation when he decided to leave the medical field and pursue disclosure. That's exactly how it happens. Your priorities change. It's like coming back from the dead. It's transformational. I'm not pushing this kind of truth-seeking on you or anyone else, as I have no desire to control others, but I do enjoy sharing the results of my learning with anyone who is interested. I find the whole process incredibly exciting.

My career was programming computers. I remember being told how I was in a dead-end job early on by an expert in AI, because computers would soon be programming themselves. That was 30 years ago, and it didn't happen. Instead, things went in the opposite direction. Programming became a mess. I actually left the field because the programming tools and methodologies became so bloated, inefficient, convoluted, unreal, and ugly. They were contrary to the intent I always had as a programmer -- to solve real problems with beauty and elegance, even though much of the beauty and elegance was only visible to me as the programmer. The end-user definitely saw his portion of it, but I saw all of it. Programming today is compartmentalized, designed by committee, and constantly being reinvented. Because money has made nearly all the decisions, computer programming has been completely corrupted. It's really sick now. Could AI clean itself up with such a foundation? I doubt it.

 

When it comes to truth, I don't trust anyone. We have all been fed so much propaganda, there is no chance that any of us speaks a truth you can trust. You cannot rely on any messenger. You have to judge the message by its inherent content, i.e. by its own merits.

Am I certain ET craft travel the universe? No.

Do I have any proof of this? No. I have only logical inferences, circumstantial evidence, and eye-witness testimony to work with.

Do I believe as Stephen Greer does we are soon to see disclosure? It's likely. However, I don't need disclosure to believe ETs are here. There's a mountain of evidence out there already that makes it foolish to dismiss the idea. That there is a cover-up is also undeniable. What else could they be covering up?

How do I think ET craft travel the universe? In ways we cannot imagine, probably. In ways we can imagine, possibly. Manipulating gravity. Manipulating space-time. Using physics we have yet to discover, and energy sources we don't know exist.

I don't know about the truth of eternal existence. It may be possible. I don't feel we can dismiss it just because of our life bias, living things apparently having very short existences.

There are many validities to quantum proofs. Remember Newton and his theory of gravity? It was excellent for its time. We are now finding that it is only one small part of a very complex picture. Everything we are doing today is the same way. Nothing is as simple as we think.

Yes, of course! Shows how long I've been away from TV. I was thinking Charlie was looking old. In my mind, I was seeing Charlie Rose, as I watched him more often than Bill Moyers. That shows the power of the mind and of self-delusion, which we all suffer from. I'm so glad you caught that! Great lessons in that mistake for us all.

Agreed. Some better, some worse, but the brainwashing is everywhere. What is the difference between brainwashing and education? Education is an attempt to get at the truth. Brainwashing is not.

You'll remember he said it could be the best thing to ever happen to humanity, or the worst. I say it could also be anything in between. It depends on uncountable variables. I still think that without empathy in the equation, it will converge on what non-sociopaths would universally agree is evil.

Are you thinking Sagan and Tyson didn't accept any money? Are you thinking any money they received wasn't tied to the Rockefellers or Rothschilds? What is your beef with Greer? Because I don't do the hero thing any more, meaning judging which messengers are trustworthy (rather than which ideas), I don't see much difference between any of the gurus. They all speak propaganda. None are pure and uncorrupted. Like with the 48 Laws of Power, you have to ask what the fundamental intent behind each one is, because the intent changes everything. Is Greer's fundamental intent just to live comfortably off his donations, to benefit selfishly through deception and manipulation? I don't think it is. Why would Greer sacrifice a lucrative medical career to do that? Ask the same question about Bill Ryan, and I think Ryan is definitely intending to be a deceptive parasite, and succeeding well enough!

But the bottom line is messages can stand on their own merits, or not, independent of the messenger. The problem is that most humans have not been taught to uncover those merits on their own, so they rely on "authorities", like Hawking or Tyson. In other words, we don't want to work to uncover the truth. We want it delivered to us on a silver platter with an authoritative signature as confirmation!

 

Now that I know a bit more of Hawking's work, I am also a skeptic concerning it. The red flags are everywhere. The first problem comes from the media itself, and also to some extent from our inability to communicate. Note that I underlined the word "proving". I am reminded of the "proofs" for God's existence that I studied at college in "Philosophy of Religion" class. Those learned men used the same kind of credible logic to arrive at inescapable "proofs" that God exists. This black hole stuff is just human mental frailty on display once again. We are such idiots. We've been down this road before so many times. Newton's theory of gravity is an example. Sure, it revolutionized human understanding of planetary movements, but it didn't do squat explaining how ET craft travel the universe. But then almost no one was wondering about that issue at the time. They wanted to explain planetary movement!

In other words, nothing Hawking did led to "proving that it was a singularity that led to the creation of the universe itself." There is no proof whatsoever of what was going on 13 billion years ago in the universe, nor is there any proof that the universe was created. The fact that we even assume the universe has to have a beginning is a potential indicator of our intellectual retardation.

The Charlie Rose interview was hard for me to watch (but I did). I used to watch him 15 years ago, when I still watched TV but was only watching PBS shows. I could literally almost feel the brainwashing trying to seduce me and pull me in. I felt like Odysseus tied to the mast listening to the Siren's song. Tyson was just as fake as Rose. I am so glad I broke the TV habit! That stuff is insidious.

The Hawking talk on AI was sad for me. He is so lost. I can point to natural intelligence that is running the world today and crippling humanity with stupendous effect. I call it organized sociopaths. Because they lack empathy, their intelligence is practically worthless. AI will be modelled after this kind of mind. Even if you could program computers to do empathy, it won't happen, because sociopaths run the show and won't allow it. When you realize how poor natural human intelligence is, especially when empathy is missing, the thought of an AI singularity is an absolute horror.

And what the *bleep* do I know, anyway? The fact that I see these problems while lots of other people just go with the flow and bow down to the spokesmen (like Tyson and Hawking) paraded in front of us by the unempathetic controllers of the world makes me really worried. "Let's make sure that wisdom wins," says Hawking at the very end. When has humanity ever done that? We let sociopaths lead us, for Pete's sake! We don't have wisdom!

 

And I would have argued that there is no difference! Interesting ...

Are you implying that one's focus determines one's credibility? It is the message that you must analyze, not the messenger. UncleZook Error again.

Perhaps yes. The Matrix movie also explored this whole question of "What is real?"



The Matrix -- What is Real

 

I'm not familiar with Stephen Hawkin's theory. What is it?

I no longer judge a message by the messenger. There are other sources concerning Sagan's disingenuous role as science spokesman, including me personally. I was a science adherent from the word "go". I loved Cosmos on TV, which led me to read all of Sagan's books, starting with "Cosmos" itself. I was a big Sagan fan. But in reading all his books, and getting inside his mind, there were hypocrisies plainly visible. The ET question was one. Sagan was essentially dismissing it, when his own scientific methodology argued to the contrary. I already had reasons to believe he was covering up the truth, and I suspected his public promotion was the payment for his "playing the game". If you research this Sagan anomaly yourself, as I have, you can draw your own conclusion without relying on anything Greer or I have to say.

And how many times has Greer been completely right? And how would you or I even know?

I hope you can see that you are essentially making the UncleZook Error. Zook likes to judge people based on their 9/11 beliefs, and in a very binary fashion. If they fail the test, anything they say can be dismissed as unreliable. If they pass the test, anything they say is more reliable. This is nonsense, of course, and it gets Zook into a lot of "predicaments".

UncleZook Error again. Kerry has her flaws, but the truth can pass from her lips as easily as it can pass from yours or mine. How often that occurs with any of us is the big question in my mind. I've certainly learned that in my case, it was far less often than I had been taught to believe, and I am still quite mad about that.

“I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche

 

What an outrageous fantasy! Neil deGrasse Tyson is the replacement for Carl Sagan, the former science "high priest" puppet, who was also bought and paid for (and blackmailed). The Big Bang theory is bunk, which is quickly evident when you review the steps leading up to it. Supposedly, all galaxies were moving away from each other, so by playing the clock backward, you could assume they all started from a single point in a powerful explosion. Say what?!

Photos of colliding galaxies did nothing to change the theory. facepalm

I love the way Tyson delivers the fairy tale so convincingly! Rupert Sheldrake provides some relief to the standardized dogma of science with his 10 questionable assumptions science makes.


Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion BANNED TED TALK

 

"Sinatra - Dark Star" was quite interesting. It shows once again how the public only knows the "appearances", which are often completely at odds with the hidden truth. This not only applies to Sinatra and the mob, but also to JFK. It certainly harkens back to the deception cultivated by the 48 Laws of Power.

Another very interesting note is the image at 1:12:42. We get about two seconds of video of a motorcycle cop parking his bike next to the storm drain in Dealey Plaza and looking down at it. Why? This is the location of the shot fired that hit JFK in the right forehead, pushing his head "back and to the left". A single rifleman was in this storm drain, accessed by an underground drain culvert for discrete entry and exit. The other hit teams had failed to kill JFK, despite putting a bullet in his back and another one through his throat, and this storm drain was the final station in the multi-station kill zone. It's why the driver of the limo came almost to a stop before the fatal bullet was fired, to give the shooter an easy shot at nearly point-blank range.



JFK Conspiracy? PROOF finally revealed! (with SOUND) Sewer RATS?