Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

11933Re: [ufodiscussion] Who Monitors Our Internet and Why?

Expand Messages
  • masanga@talktalk.net
    Oct 5, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      I see I am going to have to chew the fat with Shane. I now
      appreciate why Bill has got burn out.

      Shane: "I said I would not respond to you anymore but I must just one more
      time."

      Regan: Surely you could have chosen not to. Or don't you really have the
      freedom that you claim to be bringing to the world with your tour? Freedom
      comes from self-control, Shane. But if you "must" respond, you are not in
      control of yourself, are you?


      Shane: "You are truly an idiot."

      Regan: You know what they say, Shane - it takes one to know one.


      Shane: "The Tour can not possibly happen without funding. Any fool can
      understand that. I thought up the idea of having ten million contributors
      share the cost, so the amount could be raised without strain on anyones
      budget. The $5 makes you a partner in the joint effort. If you're afraid I'm
      going to scam you out of your $5 I feel sorry for your frame of mind."

      Regan: No, it's not that. It's just that you have not communicated to me
      any clear and convincing reasons that I can grasp for me to become a partner
      in your "joint effort" in the first place. Hence I am not motivated to join
      it.


      Shane: "The Contributions are the funding, and I am the producer & manager.
      $5 is not a lot of money to entrust to someone who promises to the world
      that he will use it to create & manage this Tour, the first of its kind in
      world history."

      Regan: I think the question of whether $5 is a lot of my money for me to
      entrust to you is for me to decide, not you. You do not know my personal
      circumstances. I could be a down-and-out who lives in a cardboard box under
      a bridge for all you can tell. In which case, $5 would be one hell of a lot
      of money to me. It could buy me a meal and save my life. And you do not
      know how my existing finances are committed either. I have already told you
      that I need all my money for another project to which I am committed. If I
      give $5 to your project I will be depriving that one of $5 and I cannot do
      that with a clear conscience. Furthermore if I was to give $5 to everyone
      who requested it from me for a cause which they believe is vitally necessary
      to the well-being of this world as you have done, I would soon be in deep
      financial trouble. So I am wondering why your cause is so much more worthy,
      deserving and vitally necessary than all those others. You have not
      explained this.


      Shane: "Every move will be posted on the site daily for the world to see. I
      have the vision, I have a plan which I know will work, and I trust myself to
      carry it out to completion."

      Regan: I am not denying that you have your vision, Shane. Your problem is
      that you have not communicated your vision to me. Consequently I cannot
      have the confidence in you to manifest it that you have in yourself.
      Neither am I motivated to help you manifest it. I do not even know what it
      is that you are wanting to manifest!


      Shane: "I'm trusting there are ten million like minded individuals out
      there. For you to say you don't understand what I'm talking about, and then
      accusing me of wanting to promote myself, is not only unbelievably offensive
      and insulting, but also tells me you haven't read my site. Why should I
      bother with any individual who is too lazy or impatient to check out the
      explanations."

      Regan: Where did I accuse you of wanting to promote yourself? I just said
      that I am not here to subsidise your career if you do want to promote
      yourself. How am I supposed to know what you want the money for? You
      haven't told me here, in simple terms that won't take me geological ages to
      read through before I get to the nitty gritty. Although I have been to your
      site a few times and partially read it, there are several "explanations" for
      why I have not been able to read it in full. Let me list them so that you
      can check them out, if you are not too lazy and impatient to do so.

      i. I have poor eyesight for medical reasons and I find reading long blocks
      of text in varicoloured letters of different shapes and sizes confusing and
      tiring to the eyes. It is not long before the words all start to look to me
      like rock-and-roll music sounds - a horrible blaring, glaring jangle of
      meaningless colour and noise. So each time I visit your site, Shane, I am
      overcome with visual fatigue and exhaustion by the time I have got half-way
      down the page and I have to give it up.

      ii. The site is not well laid out and the information provided is not
      readily accessible. In order to find out what the objectives of the tour
      are I had to pore through what seemed like reams of other stuff first. I
      don't have time for that, Shane. Neither will ten million other folks, I
      imagine.

      iii. I could not tell from the information given whether the specific items
      mentioned under "Objectives" were objectives to which the Tour is committed
      in fact, or whether they are merely proposed objectives which have not been
      decided upon yet. (For example, the $1million fund to provide accommodation
      for people involved in legal disputes worldwide.)

      iv. This last issue under iii above calls up many others, such as whether
      or not these specific items are up for discussion and debate and how
      specific objectives are decided upon anyway. Unless the Tour takes its
      decisions in a formal, but open and democratic way, then just about every
      decision it takes will be endlessly disputed and the leadership will be
      accused of running a tyranny. In the time that I have spent at your site, I
      did not find where these issues are addressed if they are and I did not have
      the time I would have needed to hunt through the site in order to find them.
      The basic unanswered question: How will the Tour be managed?

      iv. I cannot tell - because I have seen no explanation of it anywhere - how
      the operation of the tour can be expected to produce the world-education and
      world-freedom that is claimed for it. Your site says: "Our objective is to
      free the world's people of Tyranny, and Empower them by Informing them of
      the Truth that is being hidden from them." Marvellous! But practically all
      of this "hidden truth" (and the evidence for it) is already being presented
      and debated on the web, at conferences, on television and radio and in
      magazines, books and journals anyway. So what does your Tour propose to do
      that is not already being done in fact? I have not found an answer to this
      question on your web-site and, once again, I do not have the time and
      eyesight-power to waste on hunting for it.


      Shane: "Trust is something your type knows nothing of, perhaps because
      you're untrustworthy yourself. I don't know."

      Regan: Why do you kid yourself in this way, Shane? You do not know me.
      How, then, can you possibly know my whole type? In any case, what does it
      matter whether or not I am trustworthy? I was not asking you for your
      money; you were asking me for mine.


      Shane: "If you can't get the picture, than you're not ready for this
      quantum move, and I'm not willing to convince you."

      Regan: Fine. Then I will remain unconvinced, won't I? But that does not
      give you the right to insult me gratuitously as you have done. I have been
      open to rational persuasion by you and have even requested the information
      that could convince me but you have chosen not to give it. So that was your
      decision, not mine, and the responsibility for my being unconvinced by you
      is yours, not mine.


      Shane: "My experience tells me I'd just be wasting my time."

      Regan: Yes, and my experience tells me that you would be wasting mine as
      well.


      Shane: "You see, I'm the real deal, and I'm searching for other real deals."

      Regan: I hear you say that but you have given me no cause to believe it. A
      "deal" is a mutually agreed transaction between two parties. In order to
      reach such an agreement negotiations have to be conducted in which each
      party first explores and then embraces the other's point of view. But you
      see everything only from your own point of view and refuse to enter into
      anyone else's. You have demonstrated that your way of negotiating a deal is
      to ask for what you want, offer nothing in return and when the other party
      says "I don't want to do that" you insult them, calling them
      uncompassionate, cynical, an idiot, and more. May you find many more "real
      deals" who are just like you, Shane.


      Shane: "People who aren't so ridiculously stingy and cynical, people who
      want to change bad for good."

      Regan: More gratuitous insults! You give me no justifying cause or reason
      for why I should subscribe to your project and you even refuse point blank
      to try and convince me of why I should yet you call me "stingy" and
      "cynical" for not subscribing to it anyway! I'm afraid your behaving in
      this boorish, petulent way only confirms to me the correctness of my
      original decision not to subscribe to your Tour. Knock it off, Shane. You
      are being a pest.


      Shane: "It really is as simple as that. You say a 'truly' compassionate
      person would accept someone who is not willing to pull their weight. WRONG.
      This Tour must be a group effort or not at all. For you not to see that is
      laughable.
      You are a joke. And I'm not laughing."

      Regan: The joke is on you. I did not say that a truly compassionate person
      would accept someone who is not willing to pull their weight onto your TOUR.
      I said that they would accept them into their WORLD!



      ----- Original Message -----
      From: shane eden
      To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 7:00 PM
      Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Who Monitors Our Internet and Why?


      Regan,




      I said I would not respond to you anymore
      but I must just one more time. You are truly an idiot. The Tour can not
      possibly happen without funding. Any fool can understand that. I thought up
      the idea of having ten million contributors share the cost, so the amount
      could be raised without strain on anyones budget. The $5 makes you a partner
      in the joint effort. If you're afraid I'm going to scam you out of your $5 I
      feel sorry for your frame of mind. The Contributions are the funding, and I
      am the producer & manager. $5 is not a lot of money to entrust to someone
      who promises to the world that he will use it to create & manage this Tour,
      the first of its kind in world history. Every move will be posted on the
      site daily for the world to see. I have the vision, I have a plan which I
      know will work, and I trust myself to carry it out to completion. I'm
      trusting there are ten million like minded individuals out there. For you to
      say you don't understand what I'm talking about, and then accusing me of
      wanting to promote myself, is not only unbelievably offensive and insulting,
      but also tells me you haven't read my site. Why should I bother with any
      individual who is too lazy or impatient to check out the explanations. Trust
      is something your type knows nothing of, perhaps because you're
      untrustworthy yourself. I don't know. If you can't get the picture, than
      you're not ready for this quantum move, and I'm not willing to convince you.
      My experience tells me I'd just be wasting my time. You see, I'm the real
      deal, and I'm searching for other real deals. People who aren't so
      ridiculously stingy and cynical, people who want to change bad for good. It
      really is as simple as that. You say a "truly" compassionate person would
      accept someone who is not willing to pull their weight. WRONG. This Tour
      must be a group effort or not at all. For you not to see that is laughable.
      You are a joke. And I'm not laughing.
      Shane Eden



      :(





      >From: <masanga@...>
      >Reply-To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      >To: <ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com>
      >Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Who Monitors Our Internet and Why?
      >Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 15:53:10 +0100
      >
      > Shane,
      >
      > Get real, man. Your world IS Wal-Mart World, where even your
      >compassion comes with a $5 price-tag. How much compassion are you giving
      >me
      >by rejecting me from your world for not paying it? The truly compassionate
      >accept others into their world anyway without exacting payment from them
      >for
      >the priviledge. But since my acceptance in your world evidently is
      >conditional upon my paying you a $5 entry-fee then naturally I don't want
      >to
      >be in it anyway.
      >
      > And you call me cynical because I would rather give $5 to a
      >project
      >that I can see does have some realistic hope of achieving
      >world-transformation than give it to you to spend in a way that I do not
      >understand but which appears to be about your going around the world
      >telling
      >your perceived truth to people and playing rock-and-roll to them. I am not
      >here to subsidise your international career as a rock-and-roll superstar
      >and
      >all-round saviour of mankind, Shane. The born-again Christians have been
      >on
      >that bandwagon since the 1960s and look at how that has benefitted the
      >world. It has given us the neocons and World War III. Their intentions
      >were good in their own eyes just as your intentions are good in yours. But
      >they have paved our road to hell with their good intentions. Why should I
      >trust you not to do the same? You have given me no clear, practical
      >explanation of how your proposed tour would bring any real benefit to the
      >world at all and you require me simply to take your word for it that it
      >will. How can you expect me simply to hand over $5 to you for no clear
      >reason or purpose and just because you asked me for it?
      >
      > I am not a lemon, Shane. You cannot just squeeze me and get the
      >juice out.
      >
      > Regan
      >
      >
      >----- Original Message -----
      >From: shane eden
      >To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      >Cc: shanesmusic@...
      >Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 3:57 AM
      >Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Who Monitors Our Internet and Why?
      >
      >
      >Regan,
      >
      >
      > Ha Ha, Good one. I'm
      >disappointed
      >in you, I thought you were better than that, but I'll put you next to Mr.
      >Wal-Mart, and when you both decide to wake up and smell the roses, don't
      >bother looking me up. It's off-world cynical beings like you that make life
      >so difficult for the rest of us serious minded compassionate types. I don't
      >want you in my world, so best of luck in yours. As long as you don't
      >physically attack me, you have nothing to fear from my end. And don't
      >expect
      >any more dialog between us, pearls before swine and all that, you know.
      >And
      >just so I make myself "crystal" clear, any of you who think I'm being petty
      >& vindictive, don't waste your head-in-the-sand rhetoric on me. Just get in
      >line with Mr. Wal-Mart and Regan. If you all lean against one another, you
      >can go on sleeping without falling over and hurting yourselves.
      > Ciao, Teesh La (Shane Eden) p.s. - once more with feeling:
      >www.worldfreedomtourinfo.com.
      >
      >
      >
      >:(
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > >From: <masanga@...>
      > >Reply-To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      > >To: <ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com>
      > >Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Who Monitors Our Internet and Why?
      > >Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 01:03:49 +0100
      > >
      > > Shane,
      > >
      > > Thank you for that explanatory reply. As I said, I wish good
      >luck
      > >upon your efforts. I cannot say that I understand your efforts, but that
      > >is
      > >another matter. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know why I shall not be
      > >donating $5 to your World Freedom Tour. It is mainly because I am
      >wanting
      > >to establish a colony of the new civilization of planet earth and I need
      > >all
      > >my money for that.
      > >
      > > Best wishes,
      > > Regan
      > >
      > >
      > >----- Original Message -----
      > >From: shane eden
      > >To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      > >Cc: shanesmusic@...
      > >Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 10:47 PM
      > >Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Who Monitors Our Internet and Why?
      > >
      > >
      > >Regan,
      > >
      > >
      > > Thank you, Regan. I understand
      > >completely. I have come to grips with the problem of the Wal-Mart people
      >of
      > >the world (I hope I don't sound too arrogant - sarcasm is a way of life
      >for
      > >me) and do not have a problem with them at all. They'll come around when
      > >they are ready. Waking up the world isn't a problem either. For the most
      > >part, the world IS awake now (some of us find it hard to sleep while
      >being
      > >tortured, sadly). Making them look at the truth is the tricky part that
      >I'm
      > >working on. And the truth is that all I need is $5 from aware individuals
      > >like Bill H. and yourself & others and I will do all the rest. Nothing
      > >could
      > >be easier, don't you agree. The Gods ARE on our side, you know it and I
      > >know
      > >it, and they're rooting for the home team. As long as we keep swinging at
      > >the ball, we can't go wrong. I'll bet our Tour Sticker would look great
      >in
      > >your collection. I so appreciate your candor and obvious compassion, my
      > >e-friend. And I appreciate so much this forum that we all can nexxus
      >with.
      > >My friend Ted knows how tenacious I am when I set my mind to a task, and
      > >this effort is very important to the time frame we're in at the moment.
      > >Excited and positive is my constant mood these days, and if I come off as
      > >frustrated and bitter, I apologize. I am neither. I'm a work in progress,
      > >and I'll work on that part. And for those out there reading this and
      > >finding
      > >it hard to see just what all this has to do with ufology, rest assured
      >that
      > >I also, like Bob Dean, believe contact is the most important issue facing
      > >the world today, as it will bring everything into perspective, and the
      >Tour
      > >will bring a high focus worldwide on the question. My hope for ten
      >million
      > >like-minded souls to join me is burning bright, and you know the light in
      > >the darkness always attracts. Good or bad, as long as they bring $5 to
      >the
      > >campfire, I can make the rest happen.
      > > Peace & LibertyShane
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >:(
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > >From: <masanga@...>
      > > >Reply-To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      > > >To: <ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com>
      > > >Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Who Monitors Our Internet and Why?
      > > >Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 18:16:24 +0100
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Shane,
      > > >
      > > > I see that you are wanting to wake-up the world. I'm afraid
      > >that
      > > >looks like a task for the gods to me. At least, it is too big a task
      >for
      > > >me
      > > >to take on. I have my work cut out just waking myself up fully! Maybe
      > > >when
      > > >I've done that I'll be able to help you wake everyone else up too, but
      > > >meanwhile I'll have to leave you to it. I'm sorry if you cannot reach
      > >the
      > > >Mr & Mrs Wal-Marts and the bible-punchers of this world but I think you
      > > >evidently need greater help than I can offer if you want to do that.
      > > >
      > > > Regan
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >----- Original Message -----
      > > >From: shane eden
      > > >To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      > > >Cc: shanesmusic@...
      > > >Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 6:11 AM
      > > >Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Who Monitors Our Internet and Why?
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >Regan,
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Thank you. Now, if you can just
      > >tell
      > > >me what the ambiguous solution is that you mentioned in the first
      > >sentence
      > > >of your first paragraph, I'll be more than happy to pass it on to Mr.
      > > >Wal-Mart and his friends. Because he does have lots of friends. I'm not
      > > >being facetious, it's just that "what interests them" is the 64 dollar
      > > >question. I have long ago put these dolts on hold ("dolts" is such a
      >cute
      > > >word, don't you think) and am concentrating only on aware like-minded
      > > >individuals to join me in the effort I like to call the "World Freedom
      > > >InfoTour". Found at www.worldfreedomtourinfo.com, I think it will be a
      > >fun
      > > >way to 'spread the news' so to speak. As far as Mr. Wal-Mart and the
      >rest
      > > >of
      > > >his ilk (and usually King James Christian types are the worst at
      >seeking
      > > >the
      > > >truth - about anything) are concerned, pearls & swine rule the walk.
      >Only
      > > >until there is SUCH a clatter that he and his missus MUST rise to see
      > >what
      > > >is the matter will their minds be opened. That's what I meant in my
      >note
      > >to
      > > >Bill. "We" must raise the bar on the dialogue NOW, and the more of us
      > >there
      > > >is to do it the quicker things will progress. Besides, how do we
      >interest
      > > >the sleeping walking brain dead. I'm still waiting for your "solution".
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Shane.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >:(
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > >From: <masanga@...>
      > > > >Reply-To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      > > > >To: <ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com>
      > > > >Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Who Monitors Our Internet and Why?
      > > > >Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 05:20:30 +0100
      > > > >
      > > > > Shane,
      > > > >
      > > > > I know you were speaking to Bill, but I've just thought of a
      > > > >solution to our problem of pounding sand that doesn't require any
      > >effort
      > > > >and
      > > > >would cause all the guys and gals standing next to you in Wal Mart to
      > > >beat
      > > > >a
      > > > >path to your door. Interested? Shall I tell you what it is?
      > > > >
      > > > > Well, I've just demonstrated it. You see, I've offered you
      > > > >something that you want - a solution to the perceived problem of
      > >pounding
      > > > >sand to no avail. It's when you offer people something that they
      >want
      > > >that
      > > > >you get their willing attention. It's the first rule of advertising.
      > > >And
      > > > >it's how all the great leaders of people that the world has ever
      >known
      > > >have
      > > > >become great leaders, whether we're talking about Jesus or Genghis
      > >Khan,
      > > > >Mahatma Gandhi or Hitler. The reason for your being dismissed as a
      > > >"crazy
      > > > >commie bastard long haired nutcase conspiracy lunatic" was because
      >you
      > > > >didn't offer the guy anything that he wanted. Do that next time and
      > > >he'll
      > > > >suddenly discover that he likes "crazy commie bastard long haired
      > >nutcase
      > > > >conspiracy lunatics" anyway and he'll open up to you.
      > > > >
      > > > > So if you want people to start opening up to the
      > >UFO/ET-reality
      > > > >and
      > > > >accepting it as their reality, I think the first thing to consider is
      > >the
      > > > >age-old question of what's going to be in it for them if they do?
      >Why
      > > > >would
      > > > >they want it? How will they benefit from accepting it? What does it
      > > >offer
      > > > >them and what does it promise to do for them? Because at the end of
      > >the
      > > > >day
      > > > >they will only buy something that they truly want and if you offer
      >them
      > > > >something that they don't want, they will reject it.
      > > > >
      > > > > Acceptance of the UFO/ET-reality demands a lot from people.
      > > > >Basically it demands that they change their worldviews to accommodate
      > >it.
      > > > >Worldviews are very important to the people who hold them, more
      > >treasured
      > > > >than any amount of cars, houses and even love-relationships, because
      > > > >people's whole understanding of the world is based upon them. So if
      > > >people
      > > > >are going to have to pay a price as big as that for what you are
      > > >proposing
      > > > >to sell them, then what you are selling them is going to have to be
      > > > >outstandingly good and worth having. It has really got to change
      >their
      > > > >lives for the better, big-time.
      > > > >
      > > > > More exposure by itself won't work the magic, I fear. It is
      > > >first
      > > > >necessary to clarify what it is that the UFO/ET community is wanting
      >to
      > > > >sell
      > > > >and what the people outside it are wanting to buy. Only where these
      > >two
      > > > >domains coincide will it be possible to arrange mutually desired
      > > > >transactions.
      > > > >
      > > > > Regan
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >----- Original Message -----
      > > > >From: shane eden
      > > > >To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      > > > >Cc: shanesmusic@...
      > > > >Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 11:20 AM
      > > > >Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Who Monitors Our Internet and Why?
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >Bill,
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > Surely you jest. Maybe
      >you
      > >&
      > > >I
      > > > >and the other zillion trillion "wackos" like us know who he is, but
      >the
      > > >guy
      > > > >standing next to me here in the biblebelt Wal-Mart I've been
      > >frequenting
      > > > >lately hasn't got a clue, and if I mention to him that perhaps that
      > >plane
      > > > >that hit the first tower wasn't really what Giuliani & the crew said
      >it
      > > > >was,
      > > > >and what about building 7 anyway, well, he gives me a look like "you
      > > >crazy
      > > > >commie bastard long haired nutcase conspiracy lunatic get away from
      >me
      > > > >before I hit you with my King James" and I get that burnt-out feeling
      > > >like
      > > > >'why am I wasting my life trying to reach this dummy so we can make
      > >some
      > > > >headway here on earth and beat the bad guys.......God forbid I even
      > >bring
      > > > >up
      > > > >the subject of UFO's!!!!!!!! Come on, my friend; Hannity & O'Reilly
      >&
      > > > >Maher
      > > > >& Geraldo & Oprah & Greta & Montel & Maury & Jay & David & Imus &
      > > >Sharpton
      > > > >&
      > > > >Jon & Rush & Britney & Barbara & Rosie (well maybe we got a ray of
      >hope
      > > > >with
      > > > >Rosie) sure as hell aren't going to squeek they're little squeeky
      > >voices
      > > >to
      > > > >the masses to raise the level of consciousness one inch to allow a
      > >crack
      > > >of
      > > > >the light of day on the subject, don't you know. And let's face it,
      > >until
      > > > >these "average American" types get a clue, we're all just pounding
      > >sand.
      > > > >And
      > > > >we're running out of sand. You could do a lot to join the voices of
      > > >reason
      > > > >right now. Who knows, if we can get them to acknowledge that
      >something
      > > > >absolutely is rotten in Denmark AND Roswell, maybe we can get 'em to
      > > >watch
      > > > >a Billy Meier tape or two. Charles Hickson, who I had KFC with in his
      > > > >kitchen in Pascagoula, with his wife AND the kids in the mix, would
      >be
      > > > >happy
      > > > >to see it so before he takes a dirt nap. Yah, we need more exposure.
      > > >Quick.
      > > > >
      > > > > Shane
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >:(
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > >From: "William Hamilton" <astroxplorer@...>
      > > > > >Reply-To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      > > > > >To: <ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com>
      > > > > >Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Who Monitors Our Internet and Why?
      > > > > >Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 08:23:09 -0500
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >----- Original Message -----
      > > > > >From: "shane eden" <shanesmusic@...>
      > > > > >To: <ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com>
      > > > > >Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 8:22 PM
      > > > > >Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Who Monitors Our Internet and Why?
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > > Hi, Bill: How about helping to get David Ray Griffin & group
      >into
      > > >the
      > > > > > > limelight? Shane Eden
      > > > > >
      > > > > >Shane,
      > > > > >
      > > > > >Not sure what you mean here. Certainly David Ray Griffin is well
      > > >known.
      > > > > >
      > > > > >Bill
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > :oP
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >>From: "William Hamilton" <astroxplorer@...>
      > > > > > >>Reply-To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      > > > > > >>To: <ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com>
      > > > > > >>Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Who Monitors Our Internet and Why?
      > > > > > >>Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:16:35 -0500
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>Dex,
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>A lot of clap-trap, errant opinions, and just plain garbage gets
      > > > >posted
      > > > > >on
      > > > > > >>these forums
      > > > > > >>about Dan B. I have to fend off some very offensive material
      > > >myself.
      > > > > >The
      > > > > > >>Golden
      > > > > > >>Thread is old and not up to date. Very few of these yahoos have
      > > >seen
      > > > >or
      > > > > > >>understood
      > > > > > >>Dan's work. I am so disgusted with the responses I have decided
      > >to
      > > > >fade
      > > > > > >>out
      > > > > > >>of
      > > > > > >>ufology for a while and do something more productive.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>Sincerely,
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>Bill Hamilton
      > > > > > >>AstroScience Research
      > > > > > >>http://www.astrosciences.info
      > > > > > >>"I don't see the logic of rejecting data just because they seem
      > > > > > >>incredible."
      > > > > > >>Fred Hoyle
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>----- Original Message -----
      > > > > > >>From: "Dex" <dexxxaa@...>
      > > > > > >>To: "UFO-Prepare4contact" <prepare4contact@yahoogroups.com>
      > > > > > >>Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 8:32 AM
      > > > > > >>Subject: [ufodiscussion] Who Monitors Our Internet and Why?
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>See if you can follow this discussion from the Golden Thread
      > >forum..
      > > > > > >>A=Ann
      > > > > > >>D=Dan B.
      > > > > > >>M=Marci
      > > > > > >>J or J1=McConnell, heads our National Intelligence Agency.
      > > > > > >>--------------
      > > > > > >>Dxx=Dondep
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>Dex
      > > > > >
      > >>******************************************************************
      > > > > > >>Cross posting:
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>Dondep wrote:
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>And, to quote Dex; Wowie Zowie!
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>I wouldn't put it past the thugs to have set up that post at GLP
      > >as
      > > >a
      > > > > > >>feint,
      > > > > > >>a 'trial balloon' to draw fire and ignite ire.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>I thought there were some very good posts that give a better
      > > >snapshot
      > > > >of
      > > > > > >>how
      > > > > > >>the 'saga' or 'farce' is faring as a whole, to the outside
      >world.
      > > >The
      > > > > > >>Knappster had one of the most open missives he's ever written in
      > > > > >response
      > > > > > >>to
      > > > > > >>some sort of saga-related stimuli.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>I see Marci's own "not wellness" is showing in how she's so
      >quick
      > >to
      > > > > > >>instigate or otherwise "explain" those that don't toe her party
      > > >line.
      > > > >I
      > > > > > >>think you're right, mjc; she's had a "humour-bypass" following
      >the
      > > >May
      > > > > > >>18th
      > > > > > >>induction last year.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>Which reminds me; Shady, Dan was the one that confirmed what
      > >emails
      > > > >from
      > > > > > >>Commaj and K had already told me, unbeknownst to Dan (unless he
      > >was
      > > > >the
      > > > > > >>author of those emails himself, in which case he comes across as
      > > > >worse;
      > > > > >oh
      > > > > > >>lawdy! what contradictions!), about his pending acceptance in
      >the
      > > > > > >>'religious
      > > > > > >>institution' (the Priory of Sion - which he insists he never
      > >joined,
      > > > > >which
      > > > > > >>is what he swore to do). His and Marci's own comments to me,
      > > > >references
      > > > > > >>made
      > > > > > >>over the course of a couple of weeks, gave me the ability to
      > > > >triangulate
      > > > > > >>what was happening. Dan originally claimed not to want to have
      > > > >anything
      > > > > >to
      > > > > > >>do with relying on their offer of a replacement doctorate, but
      > >said
      > > >he
      > > > > > >>would
      > > > > > >>do it if SUNY wouldn't be allowed to admit to it. Now that damn
      > > > > >doctorate
      > > > > > >>is
      > > > > > >>going to be so discredited by the time the viewers of the NDA
      > > >validate
      > > > > >it
      > > > > > >>in
      > > > > > >>the courts that it'll be shown for what it is: a REPLACEMENT for
      > > > > >something
      > > > > > >>REAL.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>At least there are a whole lot of witnesses to the character
      > > > > >assassination
      > > > > > >>and name-calling initiated by the SNEDs thugs, copies of which
      >are
      > > > >being
      > > > > > >>carefully kept to show the hypocrisy.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>I'm posting here what I said at GLP, the "mother of all fringe
      > > > >forums":
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>Re: Dan Burisch & Bill Hamilton Cyberstalk UFO Researcher Quote
      > > > > > >>Vance at GLP wrote:
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>My biggest problem with Dan Burisch is how he could part of
      > > >something
      > > > >US
      > > > > > >>black ops and be free to talk about at all, no less for years
      >and
      > > > >going
      > > > > > >>around trying to make deals with Hollywood producers. I think,
      >if
      > > > >there
      > > > > > >>was
      > > > > > >>a program like he says and he was part of it then he wouldn't be
      > > > >opening
      > > > > > >>his
      > > > > > >>mouth to anyone about anything. He'd be stopped before he
      >started.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>I start from this point and judge everything else Burisch claims
      > >by
      > > > >this
      > > > > > >>simple fact. I think he's free to open his mouth because he
      >never
      > > >did
      > > > > >any
      > > > > > >>of
      > > > > > >>the things he claims. I also think his false claims become
      >helpful
      > > >to
      > > > > > >>conceal any real black ops ET agendas that may be in progress if
      > > >they
      > > > > > >>exist,
      > > > > > >>but that Burisch has nothing to do with. Burisch's claims would
      >be
      > > > >used
      > > > > >as
      > > > > > >>a
      > > > > > >>freebe disinfo tool.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>What's Burisch's excuse for getting around this disclosure
      > >problem?
      > > > >Have
      > > > > > >>you
      > > > > > >>ever checked out the disclosure problem I've pointed to? That's
      > >what
      > > > >I'd
      > > > > > >>like to hear. Make me a believer on this one sticky problem and
      > >I'll
      > > > > > >>consider other claims he makes.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>Quoting: Vance 302106
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>Vance, you ask "how could he be part of something US black ops
      >and
      > > >be
      > > > > >free
      > > > > > >>to talk about at all...."
      > > > > > >>----------------------------------------------------------
      > > > > > >>-------------------------
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>That part is answered in the orders that were issued by the last
      > > > > > >>'official'
      > > > > > >>lineup of MJ-12 on Oct. 12, 2005, (of which I recently received
      >a
      > > > >copy,
      > > > > > >>complete with Dan's signature, which we can take to court once
      >we
      > > >have
      > > > > > >>enough folks that have grown enough spine and stamina):
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>"...you are hereby instructed, ordered and enjoined to the best
      >of
      > > > >your
      > > > > > >>abilities and talents to present the truth of the
      >extraterrestrial
      > > > > > >>reality,
      > > > > > >>as you have personally known it, on dates yet to be established,
      > >to
      > > > >the
      > > > > > >>population of the world. ....."
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>It was also answered six months prior to those orders, in the
      > > >Request
      > > > >To
      > > > > > >>Admit that Burisch signed an admission to, followed by the
      > >Affidavit
      > > > >of
      > > > > > >>April 13th, 2005:
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>"...7. You [Dan Burisch] have also been a party during the
      > > > >negotiations
      > > > > >of
      > > > > > >>a
      > > > > > >>treaty known as the "Tau-9 Conference for the Preservation of
      > > > >Humanity",
      > > > > > >>between present human authorities and certain individuals
      > > >representing
      > > > > > >>themselves as extraterrestrial peoples, with their origin
      >alleged
      > >to
      > > > >you
      > > > > > >>as
      > > > > > >>the star constellations "Reticulum" and "Orion." You have had
      > > >physical
      > > > > > >>interaction with at least one such extraterrestrial.
      > > > > > >>8. The normally required secrecy for these issues, as a
      > >consequence
      > > >of
      > > > > >the
      > > > > > >>gravity contained within the aforementioned statement ("7."),
      > > > >stipulated
      > > > > > >>that individuals entrusted with such relevant information -
      > > >including
      > > > > > >>yourself - must swear a secrecy oath upon pain of death. You are
      > >not
      > > > > > >>currently under such an oath, the previous one having been
      > > >discharged
      > > > >by
      > > > > > >>the
      > > > > > >>issuing authority."
      > > > > > >>----------------------------------------------------------
      > > > > > >>---------------------------
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>The entire text of the Request To Admit and the Affidavit are at
      > > >[link
      > > > > >to
      > > > > > >>www.danburisch.info] Click on "The Legal Case".
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>When I hammered out that document with Marci (and the Majestic
      >12
      > > > > >lawyer,
      > > > > > >>Mr. Mundsen), I did so knowing that 'they' (the Maji) were using
      > >me
      > > >to
      > > > > > >>help
      > > > > > >>promote their semi-false 'Disclosure', which I agreed to do so
      > >long
      > > >as
      > > > > > >>they
      > > > > > >>would allow this method to help warn humanity of the coming
      > > >poleshift.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>Todd wrote:
      > > > > > >>He wasnt lied to by J1 Dondep. They have no connection
      >personally
      > > >and
      > > > > > >>McConnell wouldnt even know burisch. The amount of crap they
      >have
      > > > > > >>generated
      > > > > > >>with fake documents, sockp[uppet yahoo id's and emails etc is
      > >simply
      > > > > > >>amazing. What is equally amazing is the perpetuation of such
      > > >unproven
      > > > > > >>diatribe. You make it sound like theres fact in there. Where?
      > >Please
      > > > > >prove
      > > > > > >>any one of your sources outside of the internet. They are still
      > > > >writing
      > > > > > >>books and you are going to join the fray? Think carefully.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>Quoting: Anonymous Coward 302038
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>AC, you weren't there in Dan's apartment office (he uses, or
      >used
      > >to
      > > > > >use,
      > > > > > >>the third bedroom in the apartment as his 'office'.) I was. A
      > > >picture
      > > > >of
      > > > > > >>McConnell was still on display of John (er, 'Mike' McConnell;
      >Dan
      > > > >knows
      > > > > > >>him
      > > > > > >>as 'John' or 'Daddy-O', whereas I refer to him as 'Dadmiral'
      > >because
      > > > >of
      > > > > > >>all
      > > > > > >>the anecdotal stories I've heard about him, in context, from not
      > > >only
      > > > > >Dan
      > > > > > >>but others....not to mention the emails from Dan and Marci to me
      > > >that
      > > > >he
      > > > > > >>"stepped on" between their outbox and my inbox.) I know his
      > > > >personality
      > > > > >a
      > > > > > >>lot more than many of my colleagues at work, with whom I work
      > >day-in
      > > > >and
      > > > > > >>day-out. I can tell you he really really enjoys McDonald's
      > > > >filet-o-fish
      > > > > > >>sandwiches, and when Dan gets teed off at him he usually eats
      >one
      > > > >while
      > > > > >on
      > > > > > >>a
      > > > > > >>teleconference with him. He also likes a certain brandy and fine
      > > > >cigars,
      > > > > > >>which was what he bet Dick Cheney over whether Dan was going to
      > >sit
      > > >in
      > > > > >as
      > > > > > >>temporary J-9 or whether a permanent replacement would be found
      > > >before
      > > > > > >>that
      > > > > > >>happened.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>But hey! Don't take my word for it! Ask the DNI himself, and get
      > >him
      > > > >on
      > > > > > >>record denying Dan three times! Go for it! He and Dan joke about
      > >how
      > > > > >he'll
      > > > > > >>deny Dan in the morning on the Hill, then do lunch with him the
      > >same
      > > > > >day!
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>As for books; the reason I haven't joined that fray is because
      > >it's
      > > >an
      > > > > > >>admission of defeat, in a way.... a way of saying "the story's
      > >over"
      > > > > >when
      > > > > > >>in
      > > > > > >>fact it has yet to climax. It will ONLY be resolved when we can
      > >get
      > > > >Dan
      > > > > >in
      > > > > > >>front of Congress, TRANSPARENTLY (NOT limiting him to what he's
      > > > >already
      > > > > > >>had
      > > > > > >>to say to them in private) and then get ALL THE REST of the
      > > >black-ops
      > > > > > >>community that want to testify, following a provision of
      >immunity
      > > >for
      > > > > > >>them.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>JAnunknown, at GLP, wrote:
      > > > > > >>Hoi all,
      > > > > > >>Mr. Blair is still alive. Good to see. DD nuanced respons.
      > > > > > >>I´m an insider. I studied for many years on this.
      > > > > > >>I combine issues. I can see the whole picture. TV producer is
      >not
      > > > > >correct.
      > > > > > >>Dan Burisch, Marcia McDowell (and Bill H.) are honest. Think
      >like:
      > > >if
      > > > > >10%
      > > > > > >>is
      > > > > > >>correct. Forget the 90% that is not. I know too much, that´s why
      > >I´m
      > > > > > >>unknown.
      > > > > > >>JAn
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>Quoting: JAnunknown 8300
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>JAn, while it is true you are an 'insider' now, belonging to
      >Dan's
      > > > > > >>treehouse
      > > > > > >>Think Tank and having followed the saga since it began here at
      >GLP
      > > >on
      > > > > >Oct
      > > > > > >>2,
      > > > > > >>2003, I'm sorry to say you can't see the whole picture. You've
      > >been
      > > > > > >>blinded
      > > > > > >>by your good heart and earnestness: Dan Burisch and Marcia
      > >McDowell
      > > > >are
      > > > > > >>also
      > > > > > >>DISHONEST. You refuse to see it. While they may justify their
      > > > >occasional
      > > > > > >>lies by telling themselves - and the assembled acolytes and
      > > >black-ops
      > > > > > >>colleagues - it's "for the good of humanity", they are following
      >a
      > > > >bogus
      > > > > > >>paradigm. Some, such as yourself, seem not to be able to find
      >any
      > > > >fault
      > > > > > >>with
      > > > > > >>the policy of "the ends justify the means", but you HAVE
      >witnessed
      > > >the
      > > > > > >>ugliness of the command-and-control SNEDs forum (unlike the GT,
      > > > > > >>independent
      > > > > > >>thinking isn't allowed there, people are abruptly banned and
      > >without
      > > > > > >>public
      > > > > > >>explanation if they aren't oooohhhing and ahhhhhing enough in
      > >their
      > > > > > >>questions and statements). {P.S. You weren't there when Dan and
      > > >Marci
      > > > > > >>started talking excitedly about being able to get Bruce Willis
      >to
      > > >play
      > > > > >the
      > > > > > >>role of Dan.}
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>The science may be 10% correct, maybe 80% correct, but there is
      >at
      > > > >least
      > > > > > >>10%
      > > > > > >>lies to 90% truth. Sadly, if even 1% is a lie, who can believe
      >the
      > > >99%
      > > > > > >>isn't? This is the karmic epitaph to a project hatched by the
      > >likes
      > > >of
      > > > > > >>Dick
      > > > > > >>Cheney and Heinz Kissinger, not to mention George Bush and the
      > >rest
      > > >of
      > > > > >the
      > > > > > >>military-industrial-surveillance complex that gave Dan his
      > >'orders'
      > > > >and
      > > > > > >>signed the illegitimate Tau-9 Treaty. You may know too much of
      >one
      > > > > >thing,
      > > > > > >>but way too little of other things, things that are very
      >important
      > > >to
      > > > > >the
      > > > > > >>future of humanity.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>George Knapp, on GLP, wrote:
      > > > > > >>.........
      > > > > > >>When I first read the email from the producer, it seemed legit.
      > >I'm
      > > > > >still
      > > > > > >>leaning in that direction, although I had the same thought as
      > > > >"October",
      > > > > > >>that it might be a creation of Marcia or Dan as a way to
      >rekindle
      > > > > >interest
      > > > > > >>in their fable, or perhaps to suck people in to another of their
      > > > > > >>fantasies,
      > > > > > >>maybe with the idea of pulling the rug out from under the
      > >discussion
      > > > > >group
      > > > > > >>somewhere down the line, just for kicks. Two things bothered me
      > > >about
      > > > > >the
      > > > > > >>email. One, the producer says he had a meeting---one
      >meeting---to
      > > > > >discuss
      > > > > > >>the project. He says he met Dan and Bill and someone claiming to
      > >be
      > > > > >Dan's
      > > > > > >>mom. Dan's mother hasn't seen her son in 12 years, at least,
      > >that's
      > > > >what
      > > > > > >>she
      > > > > > >>has told me and others. She has been cut off from Dan by Dan's
      > > > > >wife...oh,
      > > > > > >>and by the secret government. Unless there has been a recent
      > > > > > >>reconciliation,
      > > > > > >>it strikes me as unlikely that Dan's mom would be at that
      >meeting.
      > > > > >(Maybe
      > > > > > >>someone was there pretending to be his mom. Nothing would
      >surprise
      > > >me
      > > > >at
      > > > > > >>this point.) Two, the producer says the meeting was set up by a
      > > >friend
      > > > > >who
      > > > > > >>is a UFO researcher. Somehow, this UFO researcher did not know
      > >that
      > > > >Dan
      > > > > > >>Burisch is the 'scientist' previously known as Dan Crain.
      >Really?
      > > >The
      > > > > > >>researcher knew enough about the story to pitch it as a movie or
      > >TV
      > > > > > >>project
      > > > > > >>but had no idea Burisch is Crain? That's odd, isn't it? He or
      >she
      > > > >didn't
      > > > > > >>know something so basic in the twisted tale? I'm not sure what
      > > > > >difference
      > > > > > >>it
      > > > > > >>should have made---Crain or Burisch, the story is still
      > > > >ridiculous---but
      > > > > > >>that's what the email says. Maybe the producer will weigh in
      >again
      > > >and
      > > > > > >>explain further.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>Quoting: George Knapp 302174
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>Hello George, it's good to read a post by you here at GLP,
      >though
      > >it
      > > > > > >>appears
      > > > > > >>the posting form truncated your post; maybe you can share that
      > >last
      > > > >bit
      > > > > >in
      > > > > > >>a
      > > > > > >>follow-up. BTW, I'm only regretful we weren't able to hang out
      >at
      > > > >least
      > > > > > >>once
      > > > > > >>and have a beer one of those nights I'd pick up Toni at KLAS
      >after
      > > >she
      > > > > >got
      > > > > > >>off work. When she got that job, working in the very same place
      >of
      > > > > > >>business
      > > > > > >>with you and actually working WITH you on occasion, the
      >black-ops
      > > > > > >>community
      > > > > > >>was in a tizzy for a short bit anyway, but I'm sure you can
      >attest
      > > >to
      > > > > >the
      > > > > > >>fact that the only thing you discussed with her was shoptalk;
      >the
      > > >Dan
      > > > > > >>Burisch 'story' never made it into conversation. You know they
      > >even
      > > > > > >>accused
      > > > > > >>her of spying on you for me? tsk, tsk!
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>I quoted the above paragraph from your post because it IS a big
      > > > >question
      > > > > > >>as
      > > > > > >>to who started this thread. Something about this doesn't "smell"
      > > > >right,
      > > > > > >>and
      > > > > > >>believe me, that says a lot. Many think I somehow fall hook,
      >line
      > > >and
      > > > > > >>sinker
      > > > > > >>for unquantified 'leaks' that appear designed to further the Dan
      > > > >Burisch
      > > > > > >>'myth', but while there are certainly elements of that, the fact
      > >is
      > > > >that
      > > > > > >>the
      > > > > > >>information that's been important isn't so much what's been
      > > > >volunteered
      > > > > >to
      > > > > > >>me (as this thread appears to do), it's what WASN'T told, or
      >what
      > > >was
      > > > > > >>shied
      > > > > > >>away from, or how it was shied away from, or what was
      >reluctantly
      > > > > >admitted
      > > > > > >>to. So much of what I've been told would point back to Marci,
      >Dan,
      > > >or
      > > > > >the
      > > > > > >>Dadmiral himself, but ultimately was designed to show the
      >falsity
      > >of
      > > > > >what
      > > > > > >>they have been trying to 'disclose'. Now, who would have an
      >agenda
      > > > >like
      > > > > > >>that? Hmmmmmm......
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>Sure Dan worked with a zetan J-rod ET in the bowels of the S-4
      > > > >complex.
      > > > > > >>But
      > > > > > >>then, so would a janitor! That means we should be able to see
      >that
      > > > > > >>corroborated by.....the janitor! At least one of them!
      > >Nonetheless,
      > > > >what
      > > > > > >>that zetan J-rod TOLD him is as suspect as what God supposedly
      > >tells
      > > > > > >>George
      > > > > > >>Bush about 'staying the course in Babylon, to be there to save
      >the
      > > >day
      > > > > > >>when
      > > > > > >>Armageddon arrives.' Not to digress; I'm convinced, having seen
      >no
      > > > > > >>evidence
      > > > > > >>to the contrary of the finely-detailed, highly-articulated
      > >diagrams
      > > > >and
      > > > > > >>first-hand accounts, that the so-called 'Clean Sphere' exists.
      >The
      > > > > >balance
      > > > > > >>of much other evidence argues for it, but again: THAT ISN'T THE
      > > >ISSUE.
      > > > > > >>"The
      > > > > > >>tissue ain't the issue!"
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>You're absolutely right about Doreen Crain being at any such
      > > >meeting;
      > > > > > >>Doreen
      > > > > > >>spent a chunk of time with Jerry Pippin, who would probably know
      > > >about
      > > > > > >>such
      > > > > > >>a meeting were it true. However, like the documents I recently
      > > > >received,
      > > > > > >>or
      > > > > > >>the ones Dan Rather is now suing CBS News over, there could be a
      > > >germ
      > > > >or
      > > > > >2
      > > > > > >>of explosive truth there, packed in with a sizzlin' pack of
      >lies.
      > > >One
      > > > > > >>could
      > > > > > >>spend years trying to separate them, or......they could simply
      >get
      > > > >their
      > > > > > >>Congress to deal with making it all transparent. These issues
      >are
      > > > > > >>actionable! That's the only way they will be resolved!
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>Sadly, I've come to understand that it will only be when the
      >earth
      > > > > >changes
      > > > > > >>become so dramatic that the Congress will do the right thing.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>Zack Savage, on GLP, wrote:
      > > > > > >>Hey DonDep!!
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>Good to see you're still out and about. This other person has a
      > > >thread
      > > > > >on
      > > > > > >>an
      > > > > > >>artifact dealing with time.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>Interesting, but I find the thread loaded with bits and pieces
      >of
      > > >the
      > > > > >work
      > > > > > >>of others. He has called hoax on many other players with
      >relative
      > > > >ease.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>Of course, we are to believe his info beyond reproach with no
      > > > >validation
      > > > > > >>what-so-ever.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>At least Dan puts his name behind his words.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>I found it disturbing when Thessa left in a huff about something
      > >you
      > > > >did
      > > > > > >>or
      > > > > > >>did not do. I don't follow the drama, just the clues.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>Anyway, I always found you to be a stand-up person in my dealing
      > > >with
      > > > > >you.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>I hope you and Starry are doing well.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>Namaste
      > > > > > >>Z
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>Quoting: zacksavage
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>Hey Zack! Thanks for the shout-out; being that you were one of
      >the
      > > > > > >>original
      > > > > > >>travellers of the Golden Thread, you can recall the sense of
      >drama
      > > > >that
      > > > > > >>once
      > > > > > >>permeated these threads over the 'saga' of Dan Burisch, and you
      > >were
      > > > > >there
      > > > > > >>during the infamous hours-long "huddle" chats when we'd
      >sometimes
      > >be
      > > > > >able
      > > > > > >>to
      > > > > > >>chat with him.....he almost seems more genuine in retrospect,
      >when
      > > >we
      > > > > >were
      > > > > > >>all naive to it.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>The thread you refer to I checked out; this seems like yet
      >another
      > > > > > >>black-ops
      > > > > > >>trial balloonist trying his wares out on the unsuspecting yet
      > >again.
      > > > > > >>Reason
      > > > > > >>argues against this paradigm of the stargates causing a
      >poleshift
      > >by
      > > > >all
      > > > > > >>being 'turned on' at once, which is what Dan originally was
      > >telling
      > > > >us,
      > > > > > >>via
      > > > > > >>the 'Ravens'. Reason would argue that these devices, if real,
      > >would
      > > > >have
      > > > > > >>been used, and our consciousness would have CERTAINLY been
      > >disrupted
      > > > >by
      > > > > > >>them
      > > > > > >>by now. First we were told that Saddam had one (the original
      >WMD),
      > > > >which
      > > > > > >>we
      > > > > > >>then captured finally, causing Rancher Bush to fly over suddenly
      > >for
      > > > > > >>Thanksgiving just to see it (oh, btw, it made for a nice
      >photo-op;
      > > >how
      > > > > > >>conVEEENient!), but now we're told that Saddamn 'never knew what
      > >he
      > > > > >had',
      > > > > > >>as
      > > > > > >>if to now explain away the obvious question which is "so why
      > >didn't
      > > >he
      > > > > >use
      > > > > > >>it?"
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>That Stargate Scenario is most plausibly put on by having yet
      >one
      > > >more
      > > > > > >>black
      > > > > > >>compartment design and manufacture the fake 'stargate stones', a
      > >la
      > > > > >Moses;
      > > > > > >>then, they were being sold on the internet! So, send in a
      > > > >photo-oppable
      > > > > > >>FBI
      > > > > > >>team to 'arrest' the theives. Ultimately, the only agenda this
      > > > >scenario
      > > > > > >>seems to serve is Bush's. And, in a world governed by a just and
      > > > > >merciful
      > > > > > >>God, that simply couldn't be truthful. "What's good for God is
      > >good
      > > > >for
      > > > > > >>America, and what's good for Bush is good for God." Say WHAT?
      > > > > > >>.......
      > > > > > >>"Of course, we are to believe his info beyond reproach with no
      > > > > >validation
      > > > > > >>what-so-ever.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>At least Dan puts his name behind his words.".......
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>Therein lies the quandary!
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>As for Thessa, I don't know; troubles me to hear she was in a
      > >'huff'
      > > > > >over
      > > > > > >>something I did or did not do. She dropped a few posts in the GT
      >a
      > > > > >couple
      > > > > > >>of
      > > > > > >>months ago, but while we were discussing something, she faded
      >back
      > > > >away
      > > > > > >>but
      > > > > > >>there wasn't a clue as to her being upset. That's news to me.
      >I've
      > > > > >always
      > > > > > >>had the deepest respect for Thessa, though we disagree on some
      > > >things.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>Then again, Starry and I disagree on some things, some that are
      > > >MAJOR.
      > > > > > >>But,
      > > > > > >>we're in this great old historic building and rebuilding our
      >lives
      > > > >here
      > > > > > >>having left Nevada 5 months ago; while I had few problems with
      >Sin
      > > > >City,
      > > > > > >>the
      > > > > > >>idea that we were continually under 'light' surveillance,
      >coupled
      > > >with
      > > > > >the
      > > > > > >>fact that Starry wanted away from there, and I knew it would be
      >no
      > > > >place
      > > > > > >>to
      > > > > > >>be trapped in either when the time came.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>"We're good", as some would say. Thanks for asking, and for your
      > > >kind
      > > > > > >>words.
      > > > > > >>_________________
      > > > > > >>Address to send information helping expose the Coverup:
      > > > > > >>Dondep or Dagwood
      > > > > > >>2433 E. Tropicana Ave
      > > > > > >>#420
      > > > > > >>Las Vegas, NV 89121
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>Dondep
      > > > > > >>Moderator
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>Joined: 25 Mar 2007
      > > > > > >>Posts: 255
      > > > > > >>Location: Las Vegas
      > > > > > >> Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:12 pm Post subject: Dadmiral,
      >Dan,
      > > > >Marci
      > > > > > >>and
      > > > > > >>Ann
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>Transcript Of Dan, Marci, Dadmiral, & Ann - April 2007
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>Even though a few months old, this transcript shows how
      > >strenuously
      > > > > > >>Dadmiral
      > > > > > >>is fighting to keep the consciousness of the REAL reason for the
      > > >'T-2'
      > > > > > >>calculations from crystallizing in Dan's mind:
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>J: Listen to me! (yelling) The Planet X thing takes credibility,
      > > >which
      > > > > >you
      > > > > > >>have, and throws it in the shitter! It's no more than him
      >changing
      > > > >what
      > > > > > >>you
      > > > > > >>said in the hallway about that other character and the
      >affidavit.
      > > > >Future
      > > > > > >>visions? You watched a video, right? Listen up here! Apophis
      >could
      > > >hit
      > > > > >us!
      > > > > > >>That's not a vision, that's science. That science backs up what
      > >the
      > > > > > >>Looking
      > > > > > >>Glass showed.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>D: What? I thought that was lowered?
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>J: We're waiting on better data. So, it's stock up for awhile
      >now
      > >in
      > > > > >case
      > > > > > >>we
      > > > > > >>can't stop it. It's not a planet killer, but it will interrupt
      >us
      > > >for
      > > > > >some
      > > > > > >>time.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>D: So, you are telling me Dxx is right?
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>J: Yes and no. No. He is waiting for some Pole shift right?
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>D: He is waiting for Nibiru as a Brown Dwarf or something like
      > >that.
      > > > > >There
      > > > > > >>is a decided difference between an electromagnetic pole flip,
      > >which
      > > >I
      > > > > > >>believe is underway now, and a geophysical as in T2. I tried to
      > > >speak
      > > > > >with
      > > > > > >>him about it, that this is a cyclic issue of chaos-cosmos.
      >There's
      > > >no
      > > > > > >>talking to him. He goes deaf just like the people he calls
      > > >dissonant.
      > > > > >Back
      > > > > > >>to the other. What's its potential as an impact event?
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>J: He is wrong about the Brown Dwarf, right about a higher
      > > >probability
      > > > > >of
      > > > > > >>impact of an earth disrupting asteroid. It should be within
      > >visible
      > > > > >range.
      > > > > > >>I
      > > > > > >>believe it will pass within the Earth Moon distance.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>D: Okay, I just wanted to make sure that this wasn't a T2
      >involved
      > > > > >thing.
      > > > > > >>This still troubles me, as it's too easily, ah too easy added in
      > > >your
      > > > > > >>subject matter. I've never heard you speak of this before?
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>J: It's been in the mainstream. It's nothing we've been hiding.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>M: Okay, we understand that! Well, no I don't! The stocking of
      > > > > >provisions
      > > > > > >>was earmarked as possible T2 stocking. I've never heard anything
      > >in
      > > > >the
      > > > > > >>way
      > > > > > >>of an asteroid until now. Plus, I still don't understand why we
      > > > >weren't
      > > > > > >>told
      > > > > > >>of you working an op against us involving Kxxxx's additions?
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>A: I spoke with J and he said it wasn't more important than us
      > > >getting
      > > > > >the
      > > > > > >>XXXXXXXXXX on board so you could cut the XXXXXXX off at the
      >knees!
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>D: Wasn't more important, what, Apophis or Dxx?
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>A: Dxx, silly!
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>D: Well, I will agree that we have had problems with Dxx
      > > >broadcasting
      > > > > > >>whatever he got his hands on, when it served his purposes, but
      > >these
      > > > > > >>issues
      > > > > > >>are apples and oranges to me.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>J: Dan, Marci, you two would be told before anything would get
      > > > >critical.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>D: Screw me! (yelling) What of the impact's ground zero? Are we
      > > > >readying
      > > > > >a
      > > > > > >>protocol for movement of the populace from even an estimated
      > >ground
      > > > >zero
      > > > > > >>location?
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>J: Dan, we don't know if it will hit us!
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>D: Right, but we know when it's passing, yes? Why not project it
      > > > >hitting
      > > > > > >>us,
      > > > > > >>and estimate from there? Jesus Christ! (yelling) Do you know how
      > > >many
      > > > >it
      > > > > > >>would wipe out, even if it isn't an Earth killer?
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>J: That depends on where we estimate it will hit us! We might
      >win
      > > >the
      > > > > >war
      > > > > > >>quicker! (laughing)
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>D: Not funny!
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>M: No, you know sir, I don't, I mean to say, I don't see that as
      > > >funny
      > > > > > >>either.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>J: Look Dan -
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>D: No, you look! (yelling) The first friggin chance I
      >legitimately
      > > > >get,
      > > > > >I
      > > > > > >>am
      > > > > > >>going to expose this information you just gave! (yelling)
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>J: You make damned sure it's not from me! (yelling)
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>D: I understand, you are in D.C. and trying to hold Dxxx
      >together.
      > >I
      > > > > > >>understand that. I also understand that this is information I
      > >should
      > > > > >have
      > > > > > >>been provided so that I could have given a more complete view of
      > > >what
      > > > >we
      > > > > > >>have, or what some have known. Now, what? This information comes
      > >to
      > > > >the
      > > > > > >>public, and it emboldens those who have been screaming doom? You
      > > > > >withhold
      > > > > > >>critical information, and how about you Ann? Did you know this?
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>A: Sugarlady said Apophis misses us in T1 but maybe not now that
      > > >we've
      > > > > > >>changed the course pushing us off T2.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>D: Which numbers? The ones before the stargates were grabbed or
      > > >after?
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>J: There are no real after numbers because we tore them down.
      >The
      > > > > >glasses.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>D: Exactly! Think about what Ann just said! I have no choice! I
      > >have
      > > > >no
      > > > > > >>choice but to announce what I've learned!
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>J: How? Exactly what have you learned?
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>D: Jxxx, I have no choice but to say that while there is a
      > > >possibility
      > > > > > >>that
      > > > > > >>Apophis will strike us, and that while this has been in the
      > > >mainstream
      > > > > > >>media, that the appearance of the lack of consideration by the
      > >Maji
      > > > >was
      > > > > > >>not
      > > > > > >>the full story.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>J: What does that do to help anyone? It will strengthen the
      > >idiotic
      > > > > >claims
      > > > > > >>of people like Dxx, who are waiting for the sky to fall!
      >(yelling)
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>M: What it will do, is tell the truth.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>D: Thank you!
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>A: For as bad as I've been, I agree that it should be told that
      > >the
      > > > > > >>Majestic
      > > > > > >>hierarchy has been watching the situation.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>D: Damned if we do and damned if don't.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>J: Not really, it will miss us.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>D: A moment ago you said we weren't sure it would hit us, now
      >you
      > > >are
      > > > > >sure
      > > > > > >>it will miss us?
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>J: The numbers say it will miss.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>D: Which numbers? The ones before the stargates were grabbed or
      > > >after?
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>J: There are no real after numbers because we tore them down.
      >The
      > > > > >glasses.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>D: Exactly! Think about what Ann just said! I have no choice! I
      > >have
      > > > >no
      > > > > > >>choice but to announce what I've learned!
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>J: How? Exactly what have you learned?
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>D: Jxxx, I have no choice but to say that while there is a
      > > >possibility
      > > > > > >>that
      > > > > > >>Apophis will strike us, and that while this has been in the
      > > >mainstream
      > > > > > >>media, that the appearance of the lack of consideration by the
      > >Maji
      > > > >was
      > > > > > >>not
      > > > > > >>the full story.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>J: What does that do to help anyone? It will strengthen the
      > >idiotic
      > > > > >claims
      > > > > > >>of people like Dxx, who are waiting for the sky to fall!
      >(yelling)
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>M: What it will do, is tell the truth.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>D: Thank you!
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>A: For as bad as I've been, I agree that it should be told that
      > >the
      > > > > > >>Majestic
      > > > > > >>hierarchy has been watching the situation.
      > > > > > >>_________________
      > > > > > >>Address to send information helping expose the Coverup:
      > > > > > >>Dondep or Dagwood
      > > > > > >>2433 E. Tropicana Ave
      > > > > > >>#420
      > > > > > >>Las Vegas, NV 89121
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>Back to top
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>Dondep
      > > > > > >>Moderator
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>Joined: 25 Mar 2007
      > > > > > >>Posts: 255
      > > > > > >>Location: Las Vegas
      > > > > > >> Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:56 pm Post subject:
      >Clarifications
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>Clarifications
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>Dan wrote:
      > > > > > >>D: He is waiting for Nibiru as a Brown Dwarf or something like
      > >that.
      > > > > >There
      > > > > > >>is a decided difference between an electromagnetic pole flip,
      > >which
      > > >I
      > > > > > >>believe is underway now, and a geophysical as in T2. I tried to
      > > >speak
      > > > > >with
      > > > > > >>him about it, that this is a cyclic issue of chaos-cosmos.
      >There's
      > > >no
      > > > > > >>talking to him. He goes deaf just like the people he calls
      > > >dissonant.
      > > > > >Back
      > > > > > >>to the other. What's its potential as an impact event?
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>Uh, not so fast Dan. That's what I mean by being dishonest... "I
      > > >tried
      > > > > >to
      > > > > > >>speak with him about it" isn't exactly correct. In the hallway
      >at
      > > >the
      > > > > > >>Hilton
      > > > > > >>you said at one point, just long enough for Marci to interrupt
      >and
      > > > >call
      > > > > >us
      > > > > > >>back in before I could respond, "you've got to give up on this
      > > >Planet
      > > > >X
      > > > > > >>thing..." Yes, I remember clearly NOT brushing that conversation
      > > > >aside.
      > > > > > >>The one time you volunteered the subject in a manner which would
      > > >have
      > > > > > >>exhibited respect for a whole side of the conversation you never
      > > > >heard,
      > > > > > >>and
      > > > > > >>it's blown by the usual reining in that always seems to occur at
      > >the
      > > > > >wrong
      > > > > > >>moments.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>Ann wrote:
      > > > > > >>A: I spoke with J and he said it wasn't more important than us
      > > >getting
      > > > > >the
      > > > > > >>XXXXXXXXXX on board so you could cut the XXXXXXX off at the
      >knees!
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>Cut WHO off at the knees? My, such humility and love for
      >humanity!
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>Dan wrote:
      > > > > > >>D: Well, I will agree that we have had problems with Dxx
      > > >broadcasting
      > > > > > >>whatever he got his hands on, when it served his purposes, but
      > >these
      > > > > > >>issues
      > > > > > >>are apples and oranges to me.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >>Did we just read an admission that Dan, apparently in cahoots
      >with
      > > > > >Marci,
      > > > > > >>Ann, and Dadmiral, was directing 'i<br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
    • Show all 16 messages in this topic