1 (edited by treehugger 2007-12-20 08:05:53)

Topic: Update from Henry Deacon at Project Camelot

Here's a third update from Henry Deacon, doesnt look too good.

http://www.projectcamelot.org/livermore … ist_4.html

In man's analysis and understanding of himself, it is as well to know from whence he came as whither he is going.   Edgar Cayce

Beliefs are tools for social conditioning, rather than expressions of inner realization or inner truth.   unknown
Ad Verecundiam

Re: Update from Henry Deacon at Project Camelot

Thank You,

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

Re: Update from Henry Deacon at Project Camelot

Much of what Deacon says is very interesting and sounds legitimate, but I detect an overall disinformative agenda on his part, the same agenda that Dan Burisch and Bill Deagle seem to be propagating. If you can leave the questionable points behind, then the other points are quite useful. Deacon, Burisch, and Deagle (and several others) do give out tidbits of truth so novel that there is no doubt in my mind they have access to inside information.

So it is very possible for a black ops scientist to "come out" and "blow the whistle" and reveal some previously unpublished information, but it is far more likely that this scientist is doing so as part of an engineered disinformation psyops to gain enough credibility with the truth tidbits to thereby unleash a package of lies designed to modify the behavior and beliefs of the target audience. It's just like Arizona Wilder coming to David Icke -- she probably was indeed a mind control victim, but more likely mind controlled to tell Icke a false and caricaturized account of what really happens in regards to the elite and reptilians.

Disinformation has no problem giving out legit information so long as these reinforce, or at least do not interfere with, what the disinformation is actually trying to get you to do. So when looking for disinfo in books or articles, skip to the end where the sales pitch is made, see what its "call to action" is and what the short and long term consequences are for following that.

This is not to diminish the other points made. As an example, one point was that what Wilcock calls jumpgates are really called jumprooms ... yes that appears correct. I could never figure out how a two dimensional gateway could be created using portal physics, but a room whose conductive walls generate an encapsulating event horizon -- that is pretty straightforward. And that detail among others indicates to me that Deacon has inside knowledge. But the concept of jumprooms has no bearing on the actual point of this article, so it is just a convenient truth to buy up credibility.

So with the Deacon article, take note of its call to action at the end:

Henry again stressed the very high level of complexity, urged us to take our attention off intriguing issues such as Mars, exotic technology and alien visitation, and focus instead on immediate threats to our survival, freedom and reorganization closer to your home. (original emphasis)

That's very interesting because researchers into exotic technologies and alien visitation are the ones who get taken out then most. Consider Dean Warwick, Eugene Mallove, Stanley Meyer, and Stefan Marinov - exotic technologies researchers who were onto something and died under suspicious circumstances. Or consider Karla Turner, Ellen Crystal, John Mack, and Creston -- researchers of the alien phenomenon who towards the end got pretty close to comprehending the nefarious nature of the alien agendas. They also died suspiciously. So why is Henry stressing that we should take our attention off these? Is it maybe because exotic technologies is one key to our freedom (due to our heavy logistical dependence on establishment-run services and energy supplies)? Is it because the alien agenda is the root of all this, and the ultimate beneficiary of this disinformation? When he says that, all I hear is, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

Also notice the heavy emphasis on survivalism. I believe in prudence, but there is a hyperdimensional tactic of spiritual suppression that involves programming and pushing people into attitudes and lifestyles of paranoid, fearful, survivalism, void of true practical spirituality like the importance of synchronicity, awareness, networking, keeping up your vibes, and relying on a combination of intuition and discernment. This is to lure them into a realm or timeline where they are easily defeated. John Titor is another disinformationalist I would include in the "inside information" category. His big emphasis (call to action) was on preparing to fight a violent war against the government, to buy yourself a shotgun, and train for what amounts to a highly negative probable future, a timeline where higher dimensional STS forces would have natural supremacy. I therefore question when Deagle, Deacon, and others do the same to such an extreme. If people can be pushed onto a negative timeline, any further fighting within that timeline is futile. Therefore circumventing that timeline in the first place is the key for us, and that's what I think the negative manipulators are trying to prevent with all this disinformation.

Acquiring fringe knowledge is like digging for diamonds in a mine field.

4 (edited by lyra 2007-12-21 10:02:11)

Re: Update from Henry Deacon at Project Camelot

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

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 roll   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...."   hmm 

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.  wink  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.

"Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "Holy shit ... what a ride!"  - Anonymous
"I get by with a little help from my (higher density) friends."

Re: Update from Henry Deacon at Project Camelot

Interesting thread.   When Project Camelot first posted the Dan Burisch interview, I started watching it and had to shut it off after about 3 minutes.   I had an instinctive revulsion to it for some reason.

So I'm not really surprised that this guy Deacon who is "confirming" Burisch's material also seems off.   I'll have to read through the Deacon material now just out of curiosity.    I agree with what Lyra said about disinfo agents knowing what's currently being discussed in the "fringe" community, and intentionally "confirming"  that material as well.  I scanned this article briefly and I see that Deacon is "confirming" that many UFOs are visible in the ultraviolet, saying "I don't think too many people are aware of this.".    Oh really?    This has been discussed for several years at least, including at recent UFO conferences.    So that just tells me that this guy is not being honest.

Re: Update from Henry Deacon at Project Camelot

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. roll
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. smile

In man's analysis and understanding of himself, it is as well to know from whence he came as whither he is going.   Edgar Cayce

Beliefs are tools for social conditioning, rather than expressions of inner realization or inner truth.   unknown
Ad Verecundiam

Re: Update from Henry Deacon at Project Camelot

David and Project Camelot -- New Video!

Friday 12 / 28 / 07

http://www.divinecosmos.com/index.php?o … ;Itemid=70

Re: Update from Henry Deacon at Project Camelot

morningsun76 wrote:

Interesting thread.   When Project Camelot first posted the Dan Burisch interview, I started watching it and had to shut it off after about 3 minutes.   I had an instinctive revulsion to it for some reason.

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

Bye, Pictus


Re: Update from Henry Deacon at Project Camelot

Well this is interesting. Project Camelot has posted a big hairy "2008: The Future is Now" which sums up possibilities for 2012. (Incidentally, that website really needs a content management system.) They say that we've moved off of "Timeline 2" which included global flooding, but "Timeline 1" still includes such fun events as:

• Rising sea levels and disturbed weather patterns.
• EMP spikes from increased solar activity (Solar Cycle 24).
• Geopolitical instability and risk of conflict.
• Economic instability and possible collapse of markets.
• Global pandemic.
• Political and societal problems in the US and elsewhere.
• 'Planet X'.
• False-flag 'alien invasion'

Has anyone else read this article? What do you think? How does this jive with the C transcripts?