Project Camelot

[George Hayduke]

Howdy,

I don't know if this is a redundant thread but here's a site with a bunch of videos of some whistleblowers:

<a href="http://www.projectcamelot.net/" target="new">http://www.projectcamelot.net/</a>

Check out the Dan Burisch interviews.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Info on Dan:
http://ufowatchdog.com/burischdirtbag.html

 

[George Hayduke]

Great Scott! Typical hit piece, though. So anyway ignore the Burisch interviews and check out the rest. That is unless there are hit pieces on all the other interviewees. Then ignore everything everybody says about everything. Pretend you don't exist.

<B>(snip/paste)</B>Kudos to <i>UFO Magazine</I> for doing a fine job exposing Burisch<B>(snip/paste)</B>

But is UFO mag to be trusted: <a href="" target="new">This guy says "no."</a>

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Great Scott! Typical hit piece, though. So anyway ignore the Burisch interviews and check out the rest. That is unless there are hit pieces on all the other interviewees. Then ignore everything everybody says about everything. Pretend you don't exist.

<B>(snip/paste)</B>Kudos to <i>UFO Magazine</I> for doing a fine job exposing Burisch<B>(snip/paste)</B>

But is UFO mag to be trusted: <a href="" target="new">This guy says "no."</a>

More so than Howe, Hamilton, and Dan. Ufo Mag was just a small part in what is now known. You think UFO Mag, forged the document at the site I linked? Know how much trouble they'd get into for that? Know the risk? Well, me neither other than it's a lot and very large

Anyone know if Birnes was the editor of Ufo Mag at the time of their article on Dan? The link provided above is about Corso, which means Birnes, not Don Ecker.

 

[George Hayduke]

That's a shame about Howe. I truly dug Earthfiles.

On that subject I was pondering today how inconvenient it is that the "Chad" dragonfly drone whistleblower, supposedly an employee of a DoD contractor, sought total anonymity when coming forth with his files and testimony. Needless to say I now understand why.

Any other whistleblowers I need to know about?

 

[George Hayduke]

You think UFO Mag, forged the document at the site I linked?

I didn't say that. I did say that the page seems to me to be a typical hit piece. Maybe there is some truth to it. Maybe it is entirely true. When I see shoddy hit piece pages I get a warm tingly feeling in my scrotum. It's because no matter the amount of truth to a hit piece page, the damage is irreversible. You sow that seed of doubt and no matter how much one chops away at the growth, there's that whole subterranean system, that root structure, of doubt down there that's tough to get at.

 

[David Biedny]

Yeah, lovely. Burisch, Wacko Lear, Mr. X and other assorted wackos.

Bill Ryan has been involved in helping spread the Serpico, er, Serpo nonsense. So much for these folks. More crap that steals any sense of legitimacy from this field.

dB

 

[Jersey John]

From David

Yeah, lovely. Burisch, Wacko Lear, Mr. X and other assorted wackos.

And they're nowhere near as entertaining as Long John Nebel's regulars...and they don't even bother with the tinfoil hats anymore.

 

[George Hayduke]

Touche, David. But since you like to call people names (and maybe kick sand in their eyes when they are on the beach or give them wedgies in the locker room) maybe you'd like to discuss gubbermint disinfo. I mean, when you say wackos do you mean gubbermint disinformation agents? Or are they entertainers here to mess with out heads for a laugh? B/c as I am sure you know if they were truly disinfo then certainly a portion of what they say must be true; some say as much as 85 or 90 percent. Now if they simply fraudulent actors, one has to ask why and what motivates them.

Let's say that dishonesty is a crime. Now to convict someone of being dishonest we have to prove they had the means, motive and opportunity to do it. Where I get hung up is the motive because this is the caramel nugget of the phenomenon of their dishonesty. Were they paid to be dishonest? Were the foisted up to tell fraudulent stories so that the UFO-field can be discredited? If so, who foisted them up? And if this is indeed the case then we have to consider this something of a psy-op, an instance of perception management; sorta like the Masons pressuring A. Clarke to write into his book the ramming of Jupiter with a spacecraft turning the former into a star so that people will read it and when a conspiracy theory surfaces asserting that exactly that is on the horizon everybody sighs and says that it can't be because that plot has already been proven to be the fodder of science fiction. Right.

I guess it's just easiest not to even go into all that and call them "wackos." It's the whole "lone gunman" theory rehashed for UFO whistleblowers: "Yeah, he's just some crazed nutjob living in his grammas basement looking to pull one on the world. Move on. Nothing to see here."

No there's something to see here and I doubt it's just a case of a bunch of wackos having a laugh on ol' Hayduke.

 

[David Biedny]

I don't take kindly to being called a bully. I'm the kind of person who isn't afraid to express my opinions, and call people on their BS. I've been doing it in the technology world for many years, and am now doing it in the paranormal field.

Most of the stuff over at Project Camelot consists of sad, lonely people desperate for ANY kind of recognition. For example: Burisch is, IMO, full of crap, and apparently, I'm not the only one who thinks so. When people have to fabricate credentials, degrees, job descriptions, why should anyone believe anything that comes out of their mouths? Being dishonest does not require "means, motives and opportunities", it just requires having a pulse. People lie for the silliest reasons, and most people lie without even expending much effort. In the realm of the paranormal, the kind of people who can't get arrested in any other part of society can quickly gain recognition and $$$ by making up ludicrous claims that cannot be proved nor disproved. For many people, either of those are motivation enough to spout completely nonsensical junk. The really sad part is that there never seems to be a shortage of idiots willing to lap this stuff up. You want me to take Lear seriously? LOL, not in this lifetime. He's a laughable, foolish clown, nothing more. I've had enough interactions with him on ATS to know this all too well. If Bill and Kerry are impressed by these people, so be it. For my money, they're batting zero so far.

 

[George Hayduke]

I feel ya. And to a certain degree I understand. I mean, you do have a horse in this race.

That said you've got to understand where I'm coming from as a 911 researcher, a Kennedy researcher, and a UFOlogist. Nowadays when someone calls someone else disinfo I just have a laugh and then continue researching.

That said I did about short circuit when one of the Camelot "whistleblowers," I can't remember which off the top of my head, started his interview with the statement that the CIA was this patriotic organization of good folk who would never hurt anybody and how they were everybody's good pals. I turned it off there so I don't know what crazed **** he had to say after that.

I will say that in most cases I can't buy the lone-nutjob wanting attention theory. There's too much at stake for that. That's too convenient of a stereotype, if you dig. But you do your thing, brother. I do respect it.