Update from Henry Deacon at Project Camelot

Thank You,
Treehugger

Updating my own research on this because of your link here!

Okay, here's my less eloquent take on it all.  

As a source of valid information "Henry Deacon" feels very off, to me.  I read his first interview earlier this year and my intuitive antennas were going off with regards to his word choices and the way he was choosing to answer questions.   "Sure" instead of "Yes" ?   

Project Camelot:  "So we’ve explored Mars already."
Henry Deacon:     "Sure, a long time ago. Have you seen Alternative Three?"

Something either is or it isn't, yes or no.  But saying "sure" (which has a connotation of a big indifferent "shrug" behind it) in lieu of "yes," as trivial as it may sound, is questionable.  "Sure" isn't fully "yes."   It means "Whatever you want to think or believe.  If that's what suits you, then..............sure." shrug.  But....it's not "Yes."  You say "sure" when you're lying.  He does this more than once in the interview.

Also, another thing he does throughout his interviews are long "pauses."  After reading a few of his dramatic "pauses" before answering some supposedly "BIG QUESTION" I thought    Throw in a few dramatic pauses to make people believe that you're only reluctantly revealing some deep dark secret! 

Or this gem, when asked a question by the PC interviewer, Henry did the following:

[looks at us without answering, slight enigmatic smile]

"Sure."  And dramatic "pauses" and "slight enigmatic smile".......what kept going through my mind as I read the first interview was slick calculation, somebody playing games and toying with their prey.   

Also, a big important thing to note, for me, is the way he gives the "thumb's up" to sources and people that I think are questionable, which means I have to dismiss him as well.   Even more irritating to me is the way the Project Camelot interviewers say throughout the latest interview that "Henry has confirmed that so-and-so was accurate" or "fairly accurate" or whatever.  Who gives a flying flip what Henry has "confirmed"?  I don't need him telling me "who's right" and "who's wrong."   I don't even know who this guy is....and I'm supposed to just take his word for it and let him think for me?  !   This reminds me of a former NR poster who did the same thing, going around saying that "So-and-so has it mostly right" and "This and that person are right" with this air of knowing confidence.  The way this particular NR poster said things were, was how it was, period.  To that I say, No.  People need to make up their own minds about "Who's right" and "who's fairly accurate" and so on.  And that goes for Henry as well.....I'm pointing out what I noticed and picked up on as I read through his interviewers, but ultimately the NR reader has to decide for themselves whether what I'm saying has any merit.   That's why I make sure to clarify my statements with "in my opinion" and "to me" and "for me." 

This ties into some basic human psychology though.  If somebody says something with authority and conviction, people will usually just accept and believe it instead of thinking for themselves.  That's why the U.S. television news has been so successful all these decades.  Confident newscasters sit behind their desks or on their seats "confirming" for the public what happened and how things are.  Meanwhile, as the average person sitting at home, listening, just takes their word for it because they weren't there to see for themselves.  But it's said with such knowing conviction, coming from "respected authority" that they choose to follow along.   By Project Camelot promoting what Henry "confirms" it's saying to the reader that he's even in the position of a respected, knowing authority figure in the first place.  I don't know who this guy really is.  Does anybody?  So why should I just trust what he "confirms" ?   

He does make some interesting points though.  In particular I enjoyed his take on the moon landing and how instead of it being that black-and-white-false-two-choice-dichotomy thing I'm always talking about - either we did go to the moon exactly in the way that it was presented to us using 1969 technology, or, we didn't go at all and it was completely fabricated in a movie studio - how about the third choice option?  Which is that we DID go....but we had a little help from some higher technology that the general public wasn't supposed to know about.  And as a result, some of the pics released to the public were fake PR for that reason.  But it explains why the astronauts have been reluctant to talk about things clearly, and why Buzz Aldrin got insulted when told by somebody that he never went to the moon....then punched the guy in the face.  So I thought Henry's third choice option made a lot more sense, because I myself have never been comfortable with either position.  Deep down I believed we went, but, something felt off about it all.   I also really enjoyed his bits about timelines, and space/time being so screwed with that things are ALL messed up at this point and the more they try to fix it, the worse it gets.  I can definitely believe that.

However............there are also a lot of things that Henry talks about that are not necessarily revelatory.  What I see is him throwing out a bunch of stuff that's already known and talked about in the fringe circles, so it gets people nodding their heads "Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes....." in agreement as they recognize stuff they've either read about or witnessed for themselves, so that when he throws out an endorsement of disinformation or a questionable source, people will just keep nodding their heads "Yes, Yes, Yes...."    

Related to this, is how in his latest interview he makes sure to say this:

"Separately, Henry has asked us to state on his behalf that he is fiercely critical of anyone who is producing information or making money on the back of potential catastrophe by selling products or information at anything other than reasonable normal prices. (Of course, we agree.) He believes that all helpful information must be free and available to all people, with consideration given that one must weigh if what is disseminated will provide the greatest good for the overall future of humankind."

Well duh, of course.  Who wouldn't feel this way?   It's so manipulative.  Make sure to go on record saying something really "nice" so that everybody can agree with it, and it makes him look like a sincere, caring guy, because that's all it takes to fool a lot of people.  They won't use their intuition to sense the motivation behind the words, or analyze word choices, or body language (as noted by the PC interviewers), or look at all the interviews combined....and the disinformation lurking at the end.

At the risk of offending treehugger who may take my critique of Henry as some personal affront against her, I guess I'm just so tired of hearing about these slick, supposed "three letter agency whistleblowers."  I don't trust any of them fully, they're all promoting such questionable things.  Henry promotes William Deagle, but there was SO much questionable stuff going on with the one 4 hour Deagle interview we watched.  (That was already discussed over in that thread, won't retread over it here.)   Now, it doesn't mean 100% of what these guys are saying is all lies and disinfo..........it just means that some of it is.    The points that Montalk made though really sum up the whole "Disinformation Angle" you have to be on the lookout for with these guys. 

I'm surprised at my need to really dissect this all the way I have, but it's not even fully about Henry Deacon, it's about any of these sorts of guys supposedly revealing dark secrets for the public.   You see them all the time in magazines like Nexus and such.  (in fact, Henry was featured in Nexus earlier this year.) And they seem to be on the increase during these times.  I'm sure some of what they're saying is true, but how much of it isn't true, and what agendas might be going on?  I can see a few in the latest interview.   Again, see what Montalk said about it all.

Very valid points everyone. As always, use discernment when reading this type of info.  I also have to mention Bob Dean.  He is also interviewed on Proj. Camelot.  He talked about "The Assessment" a  military document from the '60's which talks about everything from Ufo's to Jesus Christ, info supposedly the military has kept fromt the public.  As sweet  and chariming of an old man he appears to be he never really says whats "in"  the Assessment.  He keeps saying it has the most important mind-blowing info in it but he never really says what that info is.  He keeps going off on little side stories and repeating himself. Kerry, who did the interview , kept tring to keep him on course but he blew her off a few times and wouldnt answer the question directly, he would talk aboutl what HE wanted to talk about. I sat thru all three of his interviews, waiting and waiting, and waiting for him to get to the juicy stuff...he never did.  So I tend to take what he said with a grain of salt.
In defense of Bill Ryon and Kerry Cassidy of Project Camelot, I give them kudos they're trying to figure it all out just like the rest of us. They present the information and leave it to the viewer to believe or not.
I also caught that part  of Deacon's the"focusing on survival instead of..." thing as Montalk mentioned, that kind of raised my eyebrows.  But that's what I love about NR, if anything Ive learned a lot about disinfo and what to look for and know I will get feedback and insights from others that I might not have caught.

Me too!
But have that from the info, so not even saw the video...