I haven't paid much attention to the question of ETs until recently. It's just a subject where too little is definitely known, including whether or not the entities in question are really coming from outer space. There is also a huge amount of disinformation and wild speculation on the topic. It is impossible to rely on the testimony of whistle-blowers. Some are certainly lying and others may have been unknowingly fed wrong information. It just makes my head hurt. So I've chosen to devote my attention to more promising areas of investigation.
My position on the subject of ETs is necessarily vague, but here it is. Something is definitely going on. Our species is being interfered with by something that isn't human. It's behavior is secretive and dishonest. The powers that be on this planet are controlled by, or acting in collusion with it. (I favour the theory that what we call "ETs" are one of the many agencies of the Archons, but not synonymous with them.) Whatever it is, it wants us to either disregard it completely, or believe that it is an advanced extraterrestrial species. It's this last aspect that's gotten my attention recently.
I don't have television. TV is the most dangerous form of mind-control ever conceived, not least because it is believed to be harmless. Even people who know better than that, overestimate their own immunity. After only a few minutes of TV viewing, the brain begins producing mainly Alpha waves. You, the viewer, are now in a highly suggestible state, similar to a hypnotic trance. While in that condition, you are given programmes to watch. As an aside, have you ever wondered why they are called "programmes". The actual definition of the word "programme" is: a plan or list. "Programmes" should properly refer to the schedule of shows, not the shows themselves. It's actually confusing to call the shows "programmes". The modern use of that word, to refer to the shows, is itself a subliminal suggestion. Think about it. The producers of TV shows (and even more so, the ads) have access to psychological research far in advance of mainstream knowledge. This research is not in the mainstream because much of it is military, and therefore secret, and the rest is privately paid for by corporations and advertising firms, and therefore proprietary. The sheer amount of money spent on such research should make you think twice about watching TV.
OK, it might seem like I've gone way off topic. What does TV have to do with the "ET" agenda? Well, it makes sense to me that whatever beliefs and attitudes TPTB want to encourage in society will be reflected in the TV programming. In fact, they'd be crazy to pass up such a powerful tool. That being the case, knowing what TPTB want you to think can be very useful in predicting their intended direction. Which brings me back to "ETs". Since I don't have TV, I mainly glean my info about it from people who do. I especially take notice of shows that everyone is watching and talking about. Case in point: The History Channel's "Ancient Aliens".
This show is two entire seasons featuring six one-hour episodes. Wow! "Ancient Aliens" is now in continuous rerun mode and available for free on the Internet. Hmmm. I've only watched three episodes of the first season, but an ideological agenda is already clearly visible. It is suspiciously similar to the narrative advanced by Zecharia Sitchin and many of the channelled entities claiming to represent "The Galactic Federation", not to mention the Yahwist religions. It's a creationist/salvationist narrative, and seeing it pushed so hard by the MSM does nothing to ease my suspicions about it.
I have a big problem with the idea that the ETs, or gods, or whatever, created us. It's only a small step from there to, "they own us". If we assume that TPTB are taking their direction from these entities, one would expect their beliefs and attitudes towards genetic engineering to be fairly similar. If we look at the genetic engineering that is currently and openly being done, we find that no life-forms have ever been created from scratch. It's all mixing and manipulating what was already there. Yet, the "new" organisms so produced, are being patented and are considered by law to be the property of whoever owns the patent. The developers of these GMOs are unanimous in their assertion that their alterations are an improvement. I suppose they've got a point, if the only criteria being used is corporate profit. When these points are considered, doesn't it make you wonder if the "ETs" think along the same lines?
I prefer "fucked with", but in their minds, they may have "created" us. Do you trust that their intervention was an improvement? Or, isn't it more likely that the alterations they made were of benefit only to themselves? Evidence of highly advanced prehistoric civilisations would appear to refute the idea that our would-be creator gods originally found us in a condition much like that of chimpanzees. And then there's the fact that we, as a species have been systematically driven to the brink of insane, suicidal destruction by the very same entities who are now proposing to save us from our evil selves. I can hardly imagine anything more abusive and dis empowering. I wouldn't want to be saved by such beings, any more than I would want to be saved by the Yahwist's Jesus.
After I posted this yesterday, I watched the 4th episode of Ancient Aliens. It was focused on speculations about the "why" of ET visitation. A lot of material was presented, but it's relevance was never established. The majority of it had no real connection to aliens at all. Most importantly, no plausible reasons were suggested. Some reasons were proposed; they just weren't plausible. One was: they came to mine gold but they didn't want to do it themselves, so they genetically engineered a slave race (us). Really? They could manage interstellar travel, but they couldn't build robots? Then there was the theory that the ETs came all this way to have sex with us because Earth women are so irresistibly hot. Hmm, maybe burqas are a good idea after all. There was no mention of what I consider the most likely motive: the vampirism of consciousness. They are mind-parasites who feed on fear.
I have a hard time understanding why, if there are ETs out there, we aren't being contacted by any benevolent ones. If we're under some sort of quarantine, shouldn't we have been spared the predations of hostile ETs as well? Also, one would expect that civilisations advanced enough for interstellar travel would be predominantly, if not exclusively benevolent, since any who weren't would probably have destroyed themselves before they ever made it into space.
So, one of the darlings of the truth movement has switched sides. Charlie Veitch of the Love Police has publicly renounced his belief that 911 was an inside job after spending a few hours with experts representing the official narative, courtesy of the BBC. I'm sure it's only a coincidence that he was pre emptively arrested and held in police custody only a few weeks ago in connection with the royal nuptials. He spoke to Adam Davis and Max Igan in this series of videos. It's disturbing, to say the least.
Charlie makes some bizarre and self-contradictory statements in the second video segment, at about 7 minutes. When Adam asks him to account for the speed of his mental conversion, Charlie responds that he has to "stand by what he believes, currently believes". Then, in the next breath, he points out that beliefs are dangerous and says he no longer believes in belief. He also claims that his former conspiratorial view was based on nothing but belief. Yet, in the absence of positive proof supporting his new view of 911, he's just swapped one set of indefensible beliefs for another. So why the 180? Why not just say that he doesn't knowwhat happened? We don't get to find out because Charlie changes the subject and starts comparing the truth movement to a cult. Something stinks.
Something smells like decomposing fish. What the hell is it? Oh, of course, it's the BBC. This is definitely the most interesting aspect of the story in my opinion. Charlie admits that he's "going to get in trouble" for mentioning the BBC's involvement. Nothing sinister, they just wanted it to be a "nice surprise". He tries to distance himself from the BBC by stating that they contracted another company to produce the show. The BBC are still the ones who conceived and are paying for it. So, this other (nameless) company contacts Charlie, invites him to participate in the show, and Charlie agrees, even though he knows it will be a hit piece. Next, this company (who aren't the BBC) foot the bill to fly Charlie to America and take him on a guided tour of the WTC site in New York, the Pennsylvania crash site, Washington DC, and Baltimore, but not the Pentagon or NORAD. He can't tell us what they said that changed his mind because "it would spoil the fun".
I listened to the whole interview twice, and the only new pieces of information Charlie offers are as follows:
1. Charlie says he now believes WTC 7 collapsed into it's own footprint at free-fall speed because chunks of concrete and steel hit the basement, partially hollowing it out, and then the building fell into the hole. How did debris hit the basement? Oh, never mind.
2. The reason there is so little debris at the Shanksville, PA crash site is because the plane hit an abandoned mine shaft and the debris got embedded up to 40 feet underground. Other pieces, including the engine, "shot into the forest".
3. Charlie doesn't think powerful people would risk getting caught, because of the awful consequences they would face. Seriously? They get caught doing horrible crimes all the time and are never held to account. At worst they have to sacrifice a few of their minions.
4. Charlie says that there are 1,500 architects and engineers who publicly state that controlled demolition was responsible for the WTC collapses, and since there are approximately 1.7 million architects and engineers in the USA, that means 99.9% believe the official explanation. What?! No it doesn't. It just means that very few professionals in those fields are prepared to risk their reputations and careers in defense of the truth. We don't actually know the true opinions of the remaining 99.9%.
5. Charlie says he doesn't now think a false flag was necessary to justify the invasion of Afganistan, and later, Iraq. The PNAC group thought otherwise, as Charlie well knows.
I find it extremely hard to believe that such flimsy explanations could account for Charlie's massive cognitive dissonance and belief-transplant. I'd say there's a very high probability that Charlie Veitch was threatened. If so, he deserves our sympathetic understanding. We should not condemn his actions. Why should he sacrifice himself, or those he loves, to protect the beliefs of people who can't be bothered to think for themselves? I wouldn't. The evidence we already have refutes the official story. What Charlie Veitch believes, or says he believes, is truly irrelevant. If the 911 truth movement stands or falls according to the belief system of Charlie Veitch, or anyone else, then it really is a joke. Adam raises the concern, probably shared by many, that Charlie's about-face will discourage people from looking into the events of 911. I very much doubt that. Anyone who still hasn't questioned the official story, isn't open to doing so.
For me, it hasn't changed anything. I don't believe the official story because it's provably bullshit. I remember 911. I was suspicious right away because, in the week prior to the attack, while channel-surfing, I came across two programmes dedicated to Osama Bin Laden. One was "America's Most Wanted" and I think the other was "Biography". I thought it was odd at the time because I'd never heard of the man before, and then, only days later, America was attacked and Osama Bin Laden was immediately blamed, long before any evidence of his involvement could have been available. Nothing Charlie said addressed my reasons for concluding that 911 was a false-flag operation. Some of those reasons are as follows:
1. Osama Bin Laden personally denied involvement and specifically condemned the attack as morally wrong. There is no point in committing a terrorist act (assuming it isn't false-flag) unless you take credit for it. Real terrorist organisations always claim responsibility.
2. Evidence was manufactured. What kind of an idiot could believe that the passport of one of the alleged hijackers floated out of the plane, undamaged, and landed in the street, where it was found almost immediately and reported by the MSM.
3. Evidence went missing. Security cameras failed to operate. Air traffic control tapes were destroyed before they could be collected as evidence. If there is any video of a plane hitting the Pentagon, it has never been shown. Are we supposed to believe that only two security cameras recorded the impact (from the exact same angle) and both failed to show a plane? The person who posted this clip thinks he sees a plane, but I don't. Most chain-stores have better security than that.
4. The aerial maneuvers executed by the alleged hijackers would have taxed the skills (at least) of experienced pilots, and yet flight school reports show the accused were incompetent to fly single engine Cessnas.
5. NORAD possesses state-of-the-art capabilities for monitoring North American airspace, yet somehow, even after two planes had hit the WTC towers, they were helpless to prevent a third from crashing into the Pentagon. The Pentagon!
No doubt, the BBC's new hit-piece will answer all these questions, and it's equally certain that monkeys will fly out my ass.