Burisch Forum: Bill Ryan Q & A on Project Camelot

[billryan]

i think you missunderstood what bill meant here. all of the examples that you gave were not only critics but also advocates for important positions. i think what bill meant was that no-one honors people whose sole position is criticism. further it seems to me as if 48 hours is plenty of time to respond to the initial questions. really, hh, who else does this? maybe it'll start a trend.

Ry, the above is indeed what I meant. I enlarged on that a short while ago, I believe. It's about constructive vs. destructive activity. Apologies for not referencing it precisely.

Bill

[ryguy]

i think you missunderstood what bill meant here. all of the examples that you gave were not only critics but also advocates for important positions. i think what bill meant was that no-one honors people whose sole position is criticism. further it seems to me as if 48 hours is plenty of time to respond to the initial questions. really, hh, who else does this? maybe it'll start a trend.

Ry, the above is indeed what I meant. I enlarged on that a short while ago, I believe. It's about constructive vs. destructive activity. Apologies for not referencing it precisely.

Bill

No problems Bill - that single post of Kim's is the one I knew you were referring to. Jakereason didn't "get it". Thank you for clarifying.

Cheers,
-Ry

[ryguy]

Bill - in response to the following:

serponaut wrote:

8/ Do you background check your present and future interviewees for past or present credibility issues?

As best we can, given that we’re not insiders with access to confidential databases, etc.

I believe what serponaut was referring to was doing background checks on interviewees for past or present credibility issues based on public databases - not confidential databases.

Criminal history, claimed educational credentials, contact information, etc... are all available in the public domain (if you know where to look and who to ask), and there is no access required to confidential databases. I believe Serponaut's question is - do you intend to verify your interviewees credibility with such "checks"?

If your response was that you and Kerry don't know how to do such searches or investigations - as I've stated before, the investigative team at RU would be more than happy to assist you with any such research - for the sake of maintaining credibility and integrity of Project Camelot. We do share the common goal of wanting to encourage true disclosure - the last thing we want to see is the credibility of Project Camelot harmed by a failure to perform due diligence.

-Ry

[Hidden Hand]

A two-parter from me.

Bill wrote: (1) "After the information, comes the debate.

That’s not Camelot’s job to judge or preside over, any more than it is that of Rense, Pippin, Noory or any other information platform."

and

(2) "Remember, no-one ever erected a statue to a critic. It’s easy to knock, criticise and scoff... rather harder to build relationships, earn trust, align purposes, and have the guts to speak out openly under one’s own name. "

and in your email that Ry reposted in a diff thread (re your interview with Burisch) http://www.realityuncovered.com/forum/v ... t=272#3387
(3) "It’s NOT our place to judge claims or stories. Camelot will not be a kangaroo court."

Statement (1) is interesting in several respects - notably your choices of "information platforms" - I think that things like CNN and the Washington Post spring to mind as "information platforms" faster.

The reason I bring that up is that 1) those traditional "information platforms" do in fact have codes of ethics pertaining to accuracy - for example http://www.asne.org/ideas/codes/washingtonpost.htm; and 2) the "platforms" you cite all use disclaimers - see for example the "Disclaimer" at the bottom of http://www.rense.com/, or from an Art Bell bio: "he calls his show 'absolute entertainment', and further noting his statements that he does not necessarily accept every guest or caller's claims, but only offers a forum where they will not be ridiculed."

So my first question is - do you intend on having a similar disclaimer on Camelot's productions?

WRT quotes (2) & (3) (and the general tone of both missives). By my reading, you have framed this in an "interesting" context - you (ie Camelot) present yourself as a "David" versus the "Goliath" of.. well, I guess The Powers That Be. While anybody who asks questions is conducting a kangaroo court, a scoffer, and critic who will never be remembered.

i think you missunderstood what bill meant here. all of the examples that you gave were not only critics but also advocates for important positions. i think what bill meant was that no-one honors people whose sole position is criticism.

Ry, the above is indeed what I meant. I enlarged on that a short while ago, I believe. It's about constructive vs. destructive activity. Apologies for not referencing it precisely.

Bill

{First off, toon, it was Bill who said there were no statues to critics - I responded to exactly what he said.}

In other words, anybody who questions the information you present is being destructive and dishonorable? I'm sorry if I'm misreading this, but I don't see any other way to understand what you are saying. And I'm afraid I see it again here:

The critics to whom no-one erects statues are those who do nothing whatsoever debunk and discredit, and do not move the world forward one inch. Revolutionaries are essentially constructive inasmuch as they're always working towards a vision, whether they succeed or not.

Bill - Who decides?
If you do an interview with somebody, and later an investigator at RU (for example) digs up the evidence that debunks that person's claims - are you going to hold a grudge against the debunker, as a destructive force??


I think we are both just trying to get to the truth.



Bill - just so you understand (since your 1st message said "If anyone’s upset because we’re presenting information, then they have a problem that’s not mine") - I have no problem with Camelot - if you want to interview Burisch or anybody else under the sun *more power to you*

[ryguy]

EaglesDisobey.org update

In response to Bill's links to OM in response to many questions in the various forums (due to limited time to answer questions), Xena made the following point:

Bill I understand that you are pushed for time but as Kiwi has also mentioned, so are the rest of us. Also many here don't and won't go to OM/ Luci's.

It would be of benefit to us as a serperate forum to respond directly to the question asked, as it may be impractical for some of us to follow your links. I am already finding it hard to accurately follow some of your answers to Serponaut as they appear to be pasted straight from answers to questions posed at OM which I haven't visited for a while and have no time to do today.

[ryguy]

Bill - Who decides?
If you do an interview with somebody, and later an investigator at RU (for example) digs up the evidence that debunks that person's claims - are you going to hold a grudge against the debunker, as a destructive force??

Excellent post hh... This is precisely why I would hope either Bill & Kerry (or people they believe have the ability to do proper background research) would do such research ahead of time - no debunking required...nothing critical about it, just due diligence. It's a good thing.

-Ry

[ryguy]

Kiwicocky responds on EaglesDisobey:

------------------

Bill Ryan said (somewhere, I copied it from RU):

One of the things I've learned in the last nine months is that there's absolutely no substitute for meeting people face to face; one can't do good research by e-mail and by Googling search terms - it's just not possible. Recent experience has shown graphically how mixed up and tangled things can get, as misunderstanding and confusion piles upon misunderstanding and confusion, errors become facts as they're copied around the net, and the real facts are totally buried.

For instance, already on another forum there were speculative links being made concerning Camelot and real estate, MLM, scientology, Landmark, management training, and goodness knows what else. That was just in a couple of days. Those wild guesses are then picked up on and copied around, and that's how the facts get totally blurred.

That gives me no faith in the internet as a research tool. One has to meet people, look them in the eye, and spend time with them to make a sound judgment. Not many of those posting on forums, and keen to persuade us of their every opinion, have met anyone who is active in the UFO community, let alone whistleblowers claiming access to privileged information. It's an interesting phenomenon. In the old days it used to be called gossip, and is just as reliable.

And in Bill's initial post to all forums:

If anyone’s upset because we’re presenting information, then they have a problem that’s not mine. We live in the information age. We need more information, not less. After the information, comes the debate.

That’s not Camelot’s job to judge or preside over, any more than it is that of Rense, Pippin, Noory or any other information platform. And besides, Camelot is about a lot more than the interviews.

The following are my observations and comments on your posts, if you're reading Bill, no need to respond unless you wish to.

I disagree re the ability to do good research by e-mail and Google, we here, for example, have made contact with any number and all manner of people who have helped us in our research of DB. Look at what RU have achieved, and so quickly, by the same means.

You obviously wish to distance Camelot from your earlier interests - I would suggest this is going to be difficult, as more and more people realise it's not only the message that is important, but also the background and motivations of the messenger. I'm not specifying you alone in this comment - the ufology field appears to be littered with people whose credibility hasn't stood up to scrutiny, or who have ideas of forming cults and what-not, so the yardstick is applied to all.

Since late 2003, using the internet, I've had no problem making 'sound judgement' of the evidence presented - in collaboration with many others. Yes, we've done this largely without personally meeting any ufers, or whistleblowers - I really don't think it would make any difference to my view. It is an interesting phenomenon - we have a link to a blog here which pretty much sums it up: "Internet Killed the Alien Star" by Douglas Kern.

I can see why you'd be inclined to liken it to gossip - however we're not trying to persuade you of our opinions, I see it more as interested observers and truthseekers discussing information amongst ourselves. So far I've found it reliable too in the main.

You (and all the ufers and whistleblowers) put the info out there and we'll discern it - our way.

It's not us that are making any claims now is it?

As far as Burisch info is concerned, we here have had volumes of info and debate already, I'd say we're fairly well decided, bar a few loose ends. Do you really expect us to sit back and say nothing?

I really don't see the need for yet another 'information platform' that some will view as entertainment, others derision, and (the ones I'm concerned for) some fear.

However it's your credibility, reputation and bank balance at stake isn't it?

[Hidden Hand]

Bill,

This is not a question. This is my advice. And I give it to you free of charge.


You appear to be blissfully unaware of something important.

There actually are people whose jobs are to take really fuzzy shit like human observations, and work at them to produce significant real-world results: these people are called scientists and engineers. And there are people whose jobs are to sort through lots of evidence and information to find the truth: these people are called journalists and investigators.

These people all make their living and contribute in valuable ways to society based on their critical thinking skills.

If you are serious about what you say regarding Camelot's mission and The Powers That Be, these critical thinkers are the people you should be working with, not insulting them by calling them scoffers and destroyers.

What they can do for you:
1) help weed out hoaxes and frauds before it is too late.
2) help with the interviews by supplying questions that will maximize useful information from your whistleblowers.


If I were you, I would tone down your "martyred hero" schtick, as well as your insults to critical thinkers.



That's all I have to say - I'll step down and let the questions and answers flow.

HH

{no response required - just sharing my 2 cents}

[ryguy]

Xena points out the problem with referrals to one forum (Eaglesdisobey.org):

Why thanks for that Bill. I do personally have a problem with reading certain poster's words at OM, so I'll probably pass on that post until I feel capable one day in the future. My problem not yours:)

I feel that at this point, I do not wish to submit any questions if they are to be answered in that format, as I rely on responses to individual questions or at least individual questioners to assist me with my research, education and opinon forming. Perhaps if you offer yourself up for this sort of venture again, you would possibly find it more helpful to just take on one forum at a time.


Edit: I probably should've said that from the word go.... my bad:)

[Xena]

I'm bowing out from all this for now ,as I have no wish for further involvement, at least for today. I can't get motivated. But I'd like to say that I'm right behind the opinions of Kiwi, HH, Shawnna, Ry and co, both in what they have said and what they will say. Depending on how this pans out I'll bring my questions in here and at Eagles tomorrow, time permitting.

I will say how nice it is to not have to witness here the sockpuppetry that is in process at GLP. I know, I shouldn't have peeked, LOL.

Off to make bread and walk the dog:)

Edit: Ry, ya beat me to it, lol.


Further edit: to update my rather tragic spelling, now I'm definately gone:)

[ryguy]

Bill responds to Kiwicocky at Eaglesdisobey.org:

---------------

kiwicocky wrote:

Hi Alan and Toni, good to see you both here posting

Hi Bill, thanks for providing us all with a public opportunity to ask some questions. I hope I'm not repeating other posters questions, but like everyone else I'm busy in the real world and have not had time to visit all the forums you've registered at.

1. What or who encouraged you to approach Dan Burisch and Marci Mc Dowell for an interview?

Kerry and I have been following the Dan Burisch story for years. Like many others, my interested was captivated by his initial interview with Marci and Bill in 2002/3 (which has now disappeared from the net, though there are some (inaccurate) transcripts around).

We’re approaching all kinds of people, and have other interviews lined up. The history of this particular arrangement is Kerry’s interview with Bill Hamilton in March, where I (independently) met him for the first time. We met him again, this time together, at Landers in April and it was then that we discussed meeting Dan. Bill H helped make the introduction, and Jerry Pippin played a part too; we thank them both.

Kerry has also interviewed Robert Salas, Steven Bassett, Paola Harris, Peter Robbins and Jim Marrs, long before Camelot was thought of. These have not yet been published, and are part of a UFO documentary she’s been working on since November, when she started interviewing people at the Crash Retrieval Conference.

kiwicocky wrote:

2. You answered a question from serponaut at RU with the following:
Quote:
Who’s “decided” what’s true or false in the alternative world to date? All juries are out... though I have a firm set of provisional beliefs, and I expect you do too.

Could you tell us what these 'firm set of provisional beliefs' are please?

Sure. That aliens have visited us and have probably influenced our history and possibly our evolution in more ways than one; that there are many different races, and some of them are benevolent, but some hostile; that the USG has made agreements with some of them; that the USG is not to be trusted; that there are factions in existence that seek to dominate and control humanity; that, besides the alien question, there are factions seeking global control and which have vested interests to the effect that free energy, free thinking, and healing that really works – to name just a few examples – are to be resisted and suppressed.

I’m reasonably confident that all the above are facts.

kiwicocky wrote:

3. I'm a bit confused with these comments you made, that RU have copied from OM (I think that's how it worked)
Quote:
We were in ongoing dialog with Mr X for months before the video interview, during which time he'd also been talking to an experienced MUFON investigator. We're now introducing him to two very well-known and respected researchers who have their own detailed questions.

Kerry and I are in no doubt whatsoever that he's 100% genuine. McKinnon and Hamilton are well-known, so Dan Burisch was the first interesting test case.

kiwicocky wrote:

3a The person you believe to be 100% genuine is 'Mr X', or Dan Burisch?

I was referring to Mr X in the above.

kiwicocky wrote:

3b Dan Burisch was the first interesting test case because Hamilton is well known?

Yes.

kiwicocky wrote:

4. Are you planning on interviewing Bill Uhouse or members of his family- another Hamilton case?

Would love to, but this has never been brought up or discussed.

Thanks for the opportunities to clarify.

Best, Bill

[serponaut]

Ry, thanks for clearing up my "credibility issues" question. You are spot on. Due diligence is what it's all about.

Also, thank you for your massive effort in bringing info together in one place. Quite a task, including translation!!

Bill, thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions. I have not had time to absorb all answers/non-answers and just had a quick skim.

From what I read, and I say this honestly and totally without malice, it appears imho that yourself and Kerry are simply exploiting a niche opportunity you've discovered in this "politicormal" (political / paranormal) genre / market. Let's be honest, this IS a growth market in web-licity and re-invents itself in many forms as it staggers, stumbles and stutters toward any semblance of REAL disclosure or truth of any sort.

To realise that opportunity I read that you will provide a "stage" (with some trimmings) for alternative interest and the purveyors thereof , which is plausible to the two of you, and which you believe may provide interest (or entertainment depending on the occupier of the lounge chair) to the general public.

It appears there will be minimal rigour applied to the claimants or their claims, with the reader or viewer left to discern and decipher their own version of true or false.

That being the case, I really hope you both intend to stay at arms lengths from the claimants or their claims, lest you be hauled over the coals by talented investigators and researchers at some point. Kerry would well know the amount of undesirables who lurk in the shadows of this field. I say "talented investigators and researchers" as opposed to non thinking debunkers who may resort to ad-hominem attacks and the like. Not saying you shouldn't have your own opinions or be able to think, but the trouble starts almost automatically when the "messengers" of such claims start crafting, moulding or pushing the message in a particular way.

I must agree with HH in that I hope you are able to accept mature and responsible commentary from both claimants and investigators, as to do anything else would give rise to a potential agenda, and all of a sudden you become the conspiracy and your purpose becomes lost. I also really hope you are able to differentiate yourselves from the "entertainment only" quadrant of the sector, as so eloquently laid out by Alan.

The above all said, I again thank you for the effort to exchange in this discourse, and wish you both well in what's likely to be interesting times.

[sandman]

Wow.
So much to read in a short time.
Just from seeing some of the questions and the answers that were given.
I have no desire to follow along after this.

I will not quote because there are so many things that jumped out at me right away.

I already see run around answers from Bill.
That’s exactly the way Slurpo started.
The currier of a story then turned a blind eye when information came out that did not support it or showed overwhelming inaccuracies.

Bill claimed at one time that Slurpo was hurting him financially and emotionally then he starts “PC" for absolutely no reason but for the good of man? Ummmm Ok.

I seen the quote that he followed the DB story for years. How can he not see how most of it was picked apart?

I guess the premise of interviewing Whistle Blowers is a little bit more safer then being the messenger again.

I'm not trying to attack but it seems Bill just wants to be in the spotlight once again. I guess someday we will have to figure out why.

[ryguy]

Toni (someone with much experience concerning Burisch) shares analysis at Eaglesdisobey.org as well:

billryan wrote:

Who we met in Dan and Marci were two highly sincere, tired, vulnerable, and deeply human people whom we quickly liked and built a rapport with. Dan himself was fantastic on camera - if anyone has not yet seen the video, it's quite compulsive watching - and was exhausted afterwards. We both felt immediately that we wanted to give them our best.

Dear Bill

You are aware that Dan has been in front of the camera for about three years now basically going over the same material -- rehearsal rehearsal rehearsal. Marci's background is in part in re-enactments, (Improv), stage performance and theatre.

Are you aware that a number of so called different "personalities," with different names, representing themselves to be totally different characters, have manipulated (and terrorized) many people by posting false and contrary information on what has been come to be called "the Golden Thread " and that all these posts originated from the exact same IP as Marcia McDowell? Which leads one to draw the conclusion that Marci has indeed worked very hard to create the Saga - using up, spitting out and deceiving many people for years now all along the way?

What is you opinion of the forum antics on Eagles Disobey.net?

Are you also aware that there have been many attempts to "re-write" history by simply changing the facts after once presented? That most of the scenario presented in the non-fiction book "Eagles Disobey" by Marci McDowell is in fact -- NOT fact but FICTION? And that although it may seem like one can all lay all the cuplability at Marci's feet that Dan is completely complicit in this as he is a co-author?

Also what do you make of the fact that Dan was instrumental in getting Marci a farcical Doctorate in Cello and singing via the so call "Priory of Sion" because he "owed it to her?" - a fact that he admitted to to Don and has now denied - the Priory of Sion part that is... why tell such wild stories if: A - they are not true -- and B- if you are going to deny them later? (this being just one example of may confusing untruths that spill from these two)

I think this is what people have been getting at when it comes to the question whether the source of the information is verifiable or not.

What good is an affidavit if it can be illustrated that the person signing it had, on a number of other occasions, NOT told the truth with a casualness that is downright disturbing?

How can truly sincere people behave in such a manner?

Why have they toyed repeated with Bill Hamilton alienating him, brought him back to the fold - shunned him again for being too out there and mentally unstable, and then after his book embraced him again?

Where is the consistency in these actions?

billryan wrote:

Able, informed and intelligent people have been wrangling for years about whether the technicalities of Dan's revelations stand scrutiny. There was no way to try to verify these in a few days; we don't have the time or resources - and, in this case certainly, it was not our job.

My Ryan -- this last statement sounds to me like someone passing the buck. It reminds me of SERPO and how easily you have dismissed it now. Are you now saying that you have committed yourself to discussing Dan and yet you have not investigated all these detail and accounts that have been documented - including those by people who have met Dan and Marci first hand? And you made this decision based on the fact that they communicate via the internet? (and is not your very own Camelot project an internet based information outlet? - what are you saying? you do not trust your own information either? wink)


What is up with that? I guess to many of you it really is not a matter of truth or any sort of moralistic journalistic ideals but more of a good propaganda job? Is it all merely about content creation? Like Marci's favorite TV show The Jerry Springer Show? Who will you be interviewing next? The Ghost of Kenneth Lay? Charley Manson? where are your limitations..? I think that is really what people are trying to determine here...

It seems to me that the more far out and unbelievable the story has gotten -- the more it is to your tastes as it is easier now to laugh at and therefor no longer a threat in any way... or safe fodder to the propagana meme machine? What is your thoughts on this premiss?



Hey - sorry if the grammar and spelling - words are not my thing.

[ryguy]

Xena responds to Toni on Eaglesdisobey.org:

Thank you for the post Toni, I think you have definately helped bring our POV across.

To those who are just passing, Toni is certainly in a position to have a better understanding of Dan and Marci than many people. She has had extensive direct contact with Dan and Marci, even staying with Marci for a period of time, as well as via the internet. Neonsky/Alan is also in a position to have an excellent understanding due to his previous longtime friendship with Marci and Dan.

Both these posters are also from a different side of the fence to myself as they have been supporters and to some extent still are, of Dan Burisch or his majestic "claims". To view us as a group here and at the other Burisch forum (even at RU), as totally against disclosure or looking to "trash", well... that's not my problem. I certainly won't waste any time worrying about what anyone else thinks, as I'm not here to prove anything. The onous is on those who require either support, to sell a concept, a product or a story etc. We've all heard about the 'burden of proof' haven't we?

We've been together, in a fashion for a long time now, kinda like family, along with the odd simmering blood feud; and our family is still growing but not in the way any of us, or those who would try to use us would expect:) I believe we've learnt much along the way, grown some and are still learning, although the stakes for some have been too high, along with the pain it has caused. Views and emotions have been extreme for some, less so for others, but on we go, moving outwards in different directions or staying in the same straight line.

Now what was my point again, I've been typing for too long:)