Bob Collins and Exempt from Disclosure

Project Serpo related discussion

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Postby ryguy » Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:05 pm

Access Denied wrote:Yes well coincidentally (or not) I too share that interest. In fact Dr. Puthoff is no doubt familiar with this study funded (in the interest of leaving no stone unturned) by an associate of mine who used to sit in the office three doors down the hall from mine…

Teleportation Physics Study
http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/teleport.pdf


Get outta here...he used to work 3 doors down the hall from you??

Why didn't you mention that before?? lol...oh yeah...I never asked.. :)

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension


Postby ryguy » Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:13 pm

Oh...and excellent reply AD...

For those who don't know, I think it should be noted (although I'll try to avoid using specifics) - AD works at an AF propulsion lab, and really knows his stuff when it comes to propulsion research. He has a great head on his shoulders, and I should state that he's been an overwhelmingly helpful resource - especially investigating many of the slightly more "fringe" propulsion and free energy claims out there.

We decided months ago to choose mods not so much for their expertise in forum moderation alone, but for research and scientific expertise - for their assistance with this kind of research. I think AD has demonstrated both here and in the Soccoro case thread - that he knows his stuff.

I write the above mostly for Dr. Green - so he doesn't think AD is just an amateur internet "blogger". He does this kind of scientific/physics research for a living and I'm personally honored to have him here with us.

-Ry
Last edited by ryguy on Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby ryguy » Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:26 pm

Access Denied wrote:Round and round we go…

AD


I hear your concern - as I understand it, although Steve could explain it better since he attended the conference and met Mark & John, their documentary goes behind the common history you've quoted above. As I understand it they headed in the same direction we have, which is why I anticipate it....however I honestly don't know if/what conclusions they might draw. I hope that it isn't the inaccurate "spy-story" plot that we've heard so often on the Doty issue, and I'm pretty sure it's not.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby Access Denied » Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:44 pm

ryguy wrote:Get outta here...he used to work 3 doors down the hall from you??

Yes, that would be Dr. Mead who has since moved to the building the across the street from mine where he is now working on Laser LightCraft among other things… needless to say he’s a very forward thinking and fascinating individual.

Speaking of forward thinking individuals, some of you might be interested in checking out Dr. Bae’s recent Photonic Laser Thruster (PLT) breakthrough…

http://www.baeinstitute.com/tech_advPropulsion.html

I had the honor meeting Dr. Bae during a seminar he gave us here recently… I thought he did very well fielding questions from a room full of skeptical rocket scientists… tough crowd. :D

Anyway, thank you for the “shout out” Ryan but it should be noted I don’t hold a PhD… I’m an Instrumentation Specialist… or a glorified janitor depending on who’s asking. ;)
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Postby ryguy » Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:03 am

Gary Bekkum has updated Starstream:

http://stargate007.blogspot.com/2007/12/cias-extraterrestrial-affair-where.html

It is, [**edit**] in small part [**edit**], a reference to many of Kit's comments here. Personally my take differs greatly from Gary's....but to each his own.

-Ry
Last edited by ryguy on Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby murnut » Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:09 am

ryguy wrote:Gary Bekkum has updated Starstream:

http://stargate007.blogspot.com/2007/12/cias-extraterrestrial-affair-where.html

It is, in large part, a reference to many of Kit's comments here. Personally my take differs greatly from Gary's....but to each his own.

-Ry


I read this earlier.
I finished EfD about a week ago.
For someone who has not been at this too long, Gary's article(s) opened my eyes to a new level of understanding of seemingly unconnected bits of information.
I don't know what your take is, but I am thrilled just to get to a point where I can form a "take" lol.
I am curious what else I missed right in front of me.
More curious on how yours and Gary's take differ.
"The Conformers are hard to read. They are rocks."
User avatar
murnut
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:35 am

Postby ryguy » Tue Dec 11, 2007 5:50 pm

murnut wrote:I am curious what else I missed right in front of me.
More curious on how yours and Gary's take differ.


Cool...thanks for asking. :)

The answer is - not greatly. I think Steve and I (RU) and Gary and Caryn (Starstream) overall agree on the specifics about what's going on - who's talking to who, what's being said, and the overall action involved in the plot.

However, where Gary hears from a source that the source has been "interviewed" by the FBI on a particular matter - Gary incorporates that into his article, often times without secondary verification. Why would someone dissemble about "FBI involvement"? Because it generates intrigue about an issue that is otherwise uneventful and unimportant.

Where I do see significance is in the attempt of some people to generate intrigue, mystery, and interest about "Aviary" activities. Why do they prefer to "feed" the intrigue...why do they like to maintain the mystery and drama surrounding them? That's where I believe the answer lies.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby murnut » Tue Dec 11, 2007 5:59 pm

murnut wrote:Interesting theories Dr.Green. Thank-you for sharing. Although my "nickname" implies otherwise, I am as sane as anyone else. My wife might have a different opinion, but who cares. I am not anonymous at all. I am in fact a nobody end user, of the material supplied.

There are many wild theories perpetuated by the internet, the genie is out of the bottle and it is not going back in.
I have no desire to demonize you or anyone...some do take the material personally ...they feel slighted...and they lash out at whatever target suits their needs. In this regard, rightly or wrongly, targets have been painted on your back and many others. You and your known associates represent the face of disinfo to so many that have followed this saga. These memes do spin out of control and they do become UAR's you spoke of.

But this particular UAR orginated somewhere else and was dumped on the internet. Maybe someone wanted to shine a light on you and your known associates. Have you made enemies?
What other outcome was really expected?
Maybe the target was you.
Of course my comments only add to the UAR and for that I apologize.
But my hands are tied, bound by the reality of the material supplied. I am only fufilling the expectations of the stimuli provided.

In summary: This Hoax of Serpo "feels" to me to be too important to be explained by the simplistic facts of the jerks we know (or I know, anyway) who are the low-lifes that are involved.


Spiderman is a fictional story about ....well I am sure you know.
However, even though it is completely made up lies, there is a great truth that comes out of it . With great power comes great responsibility Even an uneducated nobody like me can recognize this. I feel it.

What truth of Serpo do you feel?
Other than an interesting Science Fiction read, I don't feel it.
There is nothing to me that screams truth, but that is not to say it is not there.

I am glad you did take the time to acknowledge us here, and I hope your insight will assist in a better undersatnding of such a confusing viral.


While re-reading this thread, I came accross this post of mine, and I dont like it too much. My attitude has changed. New understanding has come my way and the above quoted post was based on a misguided perspective on my part.

I apologize to all especially Dr. Green.
"The Conformers are hard to read. They are rocks."
User avatar
murnut
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:35 am

Postby Gary » Wed Dec 12, 2007 1:57 am

ryguy wrote:Gary Bekkum has updated Starstream:

http://stargate007.blogspot.com/2007/12/cias-extraterrestrial-affair-where.html

It is, in large part, a reference to many of Kit's comments here. Personally my take differs greatly from Gary's....but to each his own.

-Ry


Hi Ryan -- It would be interesting to compare notes!

I am wondering if you have spent any time examining the STAR GATE files? They are eye-opening examples of the military interpretation of paraphysical phenomena.

Most of my article came directly from my notes written in the margins of dozens of pages of email exchanges discussing national security concerns. (See stargate007.blogspot.com for more of the raw notes.)

I refrained from releasing any of this information since August-September of 2006 at the request of the parties involved. In early August , 2006, Kit initiated a private discussion of the core story which was soon ended by Dan's indiscretions.

A much earlier article elicited comments from Ron Pandolfi regarding my reporting of the meeting at CIA re: the polygraph results. The leaked emails confirmed the correctness of my original reporting; apparently Pandolfi had left the meeting prior to the confrontation that erupted.

I am not clear how Pandolfi could be aware of the request to revoke clearances by USAF officers since he claimed to be unaware of the conflict over the polygraph.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Postby ryguy » Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:43 pm

Gary wrote:Hi Ryan -- It would be interesting to compare notes!


Sure would...

I am wondering if you have spent any time examining the STAR GATE files? They are eye-opening examples of the military interpretation of paraphysical phenomena.


Yes - although I'm positive I haven't scoured them as much as you probably have. I've read through particular ones that referenced particular years of the RV research I'm most interested in, in conjunction with a few interviews with folks who were involved in the research, as well as Ken Kress' excellent assessment...which I have read, re-read, and read again.

A much earlier article elicited comments from Ron Pandolfi regarding my reporting of the meeting at CIA re: the polygraph results. The leaked emails confirmed the correctness of my original reporting; apparently Pandolfi had left the meeting prior to the confrontation that erupted.


I'm confused....how does his leaving the meeting and stating that he is unaware of any such confrontation confirm your reporting of a confrontation taking place? How many sources do you have who confirmed that the confrontation ever took place? One?


I am not clear how Pandolfi could be aware of the request to revoke clearances by USAF officers since he claimed to be unaware of the conflict over the polygraph.


Exactly. Think about that. If Pandolfi states he is unaware of an event...how can you then turn around and say that that confirms it? In my view it does just the opposite.

Ask him about all of the FBI claims, you'll see the same response. Ron does not come right out and make the statement that a story isn't true - he simply says he is "unaware" of that version of the story. On the flip side, when a story is true he will typically confirm in the affirmative (if he can). It's up to us to track down additional sources who might confirm the story (or not).

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby Gary » Thu Dec 13, 2007 2:26 pm

However, where Gary hears from a source that the source has been "interviewed" by the FBI on a particular matter - Gary incorporates that into his article, often times without secondary verification. Why would someone dissemble about "FBI involvement"? Because it generates intrigue about an issue that is otherwise uneventful and unimportant.


I can be somewhat more explicit here.

The primary source is currently a Senior Intelligence Official who passed the messages, apparently without consulting with the secondary source, whose messages were among the emails passed to the civilian and the foreign national.

It appears there may have been two different levels of interaction with FBI for two different sources of emails from the same group of messages forwarded by the primary source.

The first involved a meeting with FBI re: review of security clearances, where the affair was discussed very briefly (about three minutes of conversation as I recall).

The second is a direct reference in an email about FBI involvement, Justice Department, and Internal Affairs.

Neither the primary source nor the secondary source have disputed the content of the emails that were passed. The secondary source was quite upset about the leak, and raised issues of possible violation since topics were related to an on-going investigation involving Federal and State employees.

Veracity of the emails is less of an issue than the reason they were passed in the first place: of course the content is suspect given the counter-intelligence potential of the material (this also confirmed to us by the primary source in a request to withhold details that might identify methods and sources, primarily methods used).

I hope that helps to clarify the situation.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Postby Gary » Thu Dec 13, 2007 2:42 pm

I'm confused....how does his leaving the meeting and stating that he is unaware of any such confrontation confirm your reporting of a confrontation taking place? How many sources do you have who confirmed that the confrontation ever took place? One?


Good point. Actually, the original tale of the conflict came from Dan Smith almost two years ago, and was also discussed in private emails shortly thereafter when it was mentioned in an article I wrote that elicited a reaction from Pandolfi. There was some confusion since the meeting was unofficial and only used a CIA office as a favor to the polygraph expert who had once worked at CIA Life Science Division.

We can be certain of two things: the secondary source confirms everything in my article re: the polygraph as 100 percent accurate; the primary source confirms the reaction from USAF officers who were present at the meeting.

I can also confirm that the primary source sometimes tap dances around sensitive topics and later back peddles when shown evidence to the contrary.

If you read your history (aka STAR GATE on journalists leaking information on rumored secret programs) you will gain a better understanding of how and why this is done.

Lastly, the polygraph had absolutely nothing to do with the UFO topic; it was concerned with possible wrongful action on the part of an American agent.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Postby ryguy » Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:44 pm

Gary wrote:I can also confirm that the primary source sometimes tap dances around sensitive topics and later back peddles when shown evidence to the contrary.


Yes - and it is this behavior which I am, frankly, sick and tired of. And reporting the tap-dance as though it is true without first checking for that "evidence to the contrary" bothers me. Journalists typically will attempt to verify a claim - and while reporting the statement of "source #1", will also follow up with "calls were placed to the Justice Department to confirm such an investigation took place, and we were told there was no such investigation is, or was, in progress."

If you read your history (aka STAR GATE on journalists leaking information on rumored secret programs) you will gain a better understanding of how and why this is done.


Yes...but what do you call it when a journalist attempts to leak information on a secret program they *think* exists, but it doesn't?

Lastly, the polygraph had absolutely nothing to do with the UFO topic; it was concerned with possible wrongful action on the part of an American agent.


I beg to differ - who was the polygraph done on? Nothing to do with the UFO topic? Maybe we're referring to two different polygraphs then....

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby Access Denied » Thu Dec 13, 2007 4:01 pm

ryguy wrote:Yes...but what do you call it when a journalist attempts to leak information on a secret program they *think* exists, but it doesn't?

Disinformation.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Postby ryguy » Thu Dec 13, 2007 4:05 pm

Access Denied wrote:
ryguy wrote:Yes...but what do you call it when a journalist attempts to leak information on a secret program they *think* exists, but it doesn't?

Disinformation.


LOL....exactly. :)
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

PreviousNext

Google

Return to Project Serpo

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests

cron