Robert David Steele Interviews Kerry Cassidy

[Dumpster Diver]

I sincerely hope that your above statement is not an allusion to the proven-false-ad-nauseam supposition that autism would be caused by vaccines. Because if it is, then I'd like to state the following:

• The "research" supporting this quack theory has been proven false, and the "researchers" behind it were simply out to con the government out of subsidies and grants. Just because Andrew Wakefield was deprived of his right to ever practise medicine again in the United Kingdom doesn't mean that he would be some anti-establishment hero who was crucified for going in against Big Pharma™. The guy was a conman.
  
  Furthermore, most of the people who claim that vaccines cause autism are people who don't understand first thing about genetics and neurology. They are not trained medical professionals. And if they are, then they're either unworthy of their diploma because of their incompetence, or unworthy of same because they're charlatans.

• I am autistic, and I'm probably more empathic than 95% of the members of this forum. I do however have mild dyslexia, as well as mild motor skill impairments which (among other things) affect my speech, which is what you may pick up from my participation in the Voices of the Forums video conferences, and which may wrongfully raise the impression that I would have an accent as the result of my not being a native English speaker.
  
  Yet, in spite of the very thorough and very traumatizing attempts to dumb me down by my environment when I grew up, have me believe I was retarded and mold me into a docile serf, I think I've managed to develop my communication skills rather well, and in five different languages (English, Dutch, French, German, Afrikaans) to boot, with notions of a few additional languages (Spanish, Italian, Latin, Greek) on top.
  
  I also started teaching myself English from the age of 6-7 onward, long before we ever had English classes — or for that matter, French classes — at school. And even though I'm not a native English speaker, my English is apparently so good that one of these "alt media celebrities" launched the rumor that I would be an artificial intelligence, just because I happen to know the rules of grammar and because I know how to use a spell checker — which, for someone with dyslexia, is a blessing. (It doesn't do autocorrect, by the way — I don't even use that on my phone, because I hate it — but it does highlight misspelled words. I also keep a bookmark in my browser to an online dictionary for in the event of doubt.)

Don't believe a word of it. Aragorn is one of my sock puppets.

[Chester]

One must interrupt sometimes to interject a necessary point.

A necessary point to who? The interjector? Or maybe, a few of the folks listening may (after the fact) agree? Isn't the decision as to what might be a point so necessary to justify interrupting a subjective opinion?

What about the folks who were following the words and thought flow of the speaker and wanted to hear that speaker complete their thought?

And so then since there's a way that both goals can be accomplished, which would entail Kerry saving her own thought/point for after the speaker's thought flow is completed, why does she not have enough savvy to do so?

The above is one significant reason among several others why I (and others I know) have stopped listening to her interviews.

If she didn't have a strong ego, she couldn't possibly be doing what she's doing.

Unchecked, "ego run riot" is an extreme most of us are put off by. Self confidence and a sense of healthy self-esteem is another part of the overall spectrum that is anchored by individuation / self identity. In speaking for myself, I have no doubt I have expressed at specific times in ways an observer could conclude one or the other. I stated that so as to qualify "the pot calling the kettle black" as I am about to do.

In the case of Kerry, I have all too often experienced her acting like she is indeed "the knower" of much of "other worldly" matters and that she imposes her "knowing" in ways that are much like a bully does to the vulnerable. Having said this, I enjoyed the Kerry of the early days of Camelot when she "knew less" and was "curious about more" where her other trait of impulsive interrupting was easier to overlook.

And considering the nature of the subject matter she's dealing with, being wrong sometimes goes with the territory.

Actually, when there's no proof either way, there's no wrong or right either way. It is up to each of us to decide what we take on board and elevate to the status of "a provisional assumption." Thus when people impose their unprovable, other worldly beliefs on others, they are doing others a disservice.

This is why I prefer sources for these types of things (both the interviewers types like Kerry and the interviewee types like say, a Simon Parkes) to share about their experiences and then "full stop" at that point. Then, if the interviewer (investigator) is remaining pure to the role, they then might ask the one being interviewed the following...

"How do you interpret what you experienced?"

"Have you formed any conclusions based on your interpretations of your experiences?"

But you never, ever hear any of these interviewers separating the experience (as recalled by the experiencer) from the interpretations of the experiencer and finally, from the conclusions drawn by the experiencer.

And guess what all too often happens as a result? Either an existing paradigm which may have room to conveniently fit some newbie's experience/interpretations and conclusions is supported or a new paradigm emerges. Sometimes the new paradigm grows legs and eventually may catch on like wild fire (such as the Corey Goode/Wilcock/Gaiai version of SSP/savior alien races/time traveling sci-fi gobbledy goop).

[WantDisclosure]

A necessary point to who? The interjector? Or maybe, a few of the folks listening may (after the fact) agree? Isn't the decision as to what might be a point so necessary to justify interrupting a subjective opinion?

What about the folks who were following the words and thought flow of the speaker and wanted to hear that speaker complete their thought?

And so then since there's a way that both goals can be accomplished, which would entail Kerry saving her own thought/point for after the speaker's thought flow is completed, why does she not have enough savvy to do so?

The above is one significant reason among several others why I (and others I know) have stopped listening to her interviews.




Unchecked, "ego run riot" is an extreme most of us are put off by. Self confidence and a sense of healthy self-esteem is another part of the overall spectrum that is anchored by individuation / self identity. In speaking for myself, I have no doubt I have expressed at specific times in ways an observer could conclude one or the other. I stated that so as to qualify "the pot calling the kettle black" as I am about to do.

In the case of Kerry, I have all too often experienced her acting like she is indeed "the knower" of much of "other worldly" matters and that she imposes her "knowing" in ways that are much like a bully does to the vulnerable. Having said this, I enjoyed the Kerry of the early days of Camelot when she "knew less" and was "curious about more" where her other trait of impulsive interrupting was easier to overlook.



Actually, when there's no proof either way, there's no wrong or right either way. It is up to each of us to decide what we take on board and elevate to the status of "a provisional assumption." Thus when people impose their unprovable, other worldly beliefs on others, they are doing others a disservice.

This is why I prefer sources for these types of things (both the interviewers types like Kerry and the interviewee types like say, a Simon Parkes) to share about their experiences and then "full stop" at that point. Then, if the interviewer (investigator) is remaining pure to the role, they then might ask the one being interviewed the following...

"How do you interpret what you experienced?"

"Have you formed any conclusions based on your interpretations of your experiences?"

But you never, ever hear any of these interviewers separating the experience (as recalled by the experiencer) from the interpretations of the experiencer and finally, from the conclusions drawn by the experiencer.

And guess what all too often happens as a result? Either an existing paradigm which may have room to conveniently fit some newbie's experience/interpretations and conclusions is supported or a new paradigm emerges. Sometimes the new paradigm grows legs and eventually may catch on like wild fire (such as the Corey Goode/Wilcock/Gaiai version of SSP/savior alien races/time traveling sci-fi gobbledy goop).

To each his own, I say.

Everyone has his or her own contribution to make.

[Dreamtimer]

Great comment, Sam. I was just reading something about doing a good interview yesterday. I have to go find it again. One of the points made was that it's good to let your guest go on and tell their story and put themselves on record and wait to give the probing questions until after the guest has laid their foundation (or dug their hole).

Interjecting is different, imo, than interrupting. Interjecting goes with the flow of the conversation. Interrupting doesn't. In conversation, people read each other and give pause for others to comment or ask questions (hopefully). In interviews, the interviewer has more control. It's a directed conversation. Interviewer's have cause to interrupt and interject. A good interviewer knows when and how.

Kerry has a 'style' and it seems like it won't change. So if I listen to an interview by her I prepare myself for what I know will come.

I've definitely heard interviewers ask the kind of questions you point to at the end. I don't have names off the top of my head, I've listened to gobs of interviews online, on the radio and on TV, over many years. One that comes to mind is Streiber. He's very much about the experience and he does separate out interpretations and conclusions. Jimmy Church is like a really enthusiastic boy who loves to hear every detail of the story, and then he'll ask about what the guest thinks it was or it means.

People gotta get past seeing what they want to see and hearing what they want to hear. That's where so many followers come from. Many people just don't want to think. They want to pick an authority. imo.

[WantDisclosure]

People gotta get past seeing what they want to see and hearing what they want to hear. That's where so many followers come from. Many people just don't want to think. They want to pick an authority. imo.

You're taking a shot at people who find Kerry Cassidy's work credible?

[Dreamtimer]

I'm not taking a shot at anyone. I was thinking of people who might choose to follow the blue avian stuff without looking into it in depth. Sam referred to them at the end of his comment.

I was also thinking of people I know first hand who do just what I said. One of them says on a regular basis, "I don't have time to think. I don't have time to listen." The problem is, in the long run he's ended up being really uninformed. And now I take most of what he says with a big grain of salt. Natural consequences.

I don't know Kerry and have no reason to take shots at her or anyone else.

I think she's clumsy with her equipment, starts the shows unprepared with stuff not working right, can be abrasive, and I still listen to her interviews.

[Chester]

You're taking a shot at people who find Kerry Cassidy's work credible?

This statement demonstrates you did not understand the excellent points made by Dreamtimer. I recommend you consider re-reading her comments which, were clearly stimulated by mine that I made just above Dreamtimer's post.

[WantDisclosure]

I'm not taking a shot at anyone. I was thinking of people who might choose to follow the blue avian stuff without looking into it in depth. Sam referred to them at the end of his comment.

As this thread is about an interview of Kerry Cassidy and has nothing to do with blue avian stuff, I suggest that you both are off-topic, and that we now get.

[DNA]

I sincerely hope that your above statement is not an allusion to the proven-false-ad-nauseam supposition that autism would be caused by vaccines. Because if it is, then I'd like to state the following:

• The "research" supporting this quack theory has been proven false, and the "researchers" behind it were simply out to con the government out of subsidies and grants. Just because Andrew Wakefield was deprived of his right to ever practise medicine again in the United Kingdom doesn't mean that he would be some anti-establishment hero who was crucified for going in against Big Pharma™. The guy was a conman.
  
  Furthermore, most of the people who claim that vaccines cause autism are people who don't understand first thing about genetics and neurology. They are not trained medical professionals. And if they are, then they're either unworthy of their diploma because of their incompetence, or unworthy of same because they're charlatans.

• I am autistic, and I'm probably more empathic than 95% of the members of this forum. I do however have mild dyslexia, as well as mild motor skill impairments which (among other things) affect my speech, which is what you may pick up from my participation in the Voices of the Forums video conferences, and which may wrongfully raise the impression that I would have an accent as the result of my not being a native English speaker.
  
  Yet, in spite of the very thorough and very traumatizing attempts to dumb me down by my environment when I grew up, have me believe I was retarded and mold me into a docile serf, I think I've managed to develop my communication skills rather well, and in five different languages (English, Dutch, French, German, Afrikaans) to boot, with notions of a few additional languages (Spanish, Italian, Latin, Greek) on top.
  
  I also started teaching myself English from the age of 6-7 onward, long before we ever had English classes — or for that matter, French classes — at school. And even though I'm not a native English speaker, my English is apparently so good that one of these "alt media celebrities" launched the rumor that I would be an artificial intelligence, just because I happen to know the rules of grammar and because I know how to use a spell checker — which, for someone with dyslexia, is a blessing. (It doesn't do autocorrect, by the way — I don't even use that on my phone, because I hate it — but it does highlight misspelled words. I also keep a bookmark in my browser to an online dictionary for in the event of doubt.)

I purposely did not use the word autism because of how someone on this forum has been known to get triggered from time to time when that word is used.
As I wrote what I said, I stand by it and I see no reason to modify and or add anything.

[Chester]

to Dreamtimer. Great example... Whitley Strieber. In fact, about a year ago I read an excellent book co-written by Strieber and Jeffrey J. Kripal that demonstrates this superior approach to exploring the anomalous.

The book is entitled - The Super Natural and any serious student / researcher / explorer of anomalous, other worldly and un-provable experiences, interpretations and conclusions of these types of phenomena would be greatly benefited by reading this book.

One thing my own explorations (which included reading this book) has done for me is that I have learned that I can believe people when they share about anomalous experiences without having to accept their interpretations as "fact" and their conclusions as "fact." I adopted this approach after my series of experiences with Simon, Corey and Shane and for this reason I have developed relationships with over a dozen either "relatively unknown" experiencers or "all but completely unkown" experiencers who have shared incredible experieces.

My new approach (adopted in late 2015) has led me to understand that folks can indeed have incredible anomalous experiences and that where all the trouble begins is when they start to form "set in stone" conclusions about them where they invariably attempt to fit it all in an existing 'popular' paradigm or form their own. Sometimes the new paradigm is an amalgamation of more than another already existing paradigm. It is my firmest belief that this is exactly what has happened with those prone to supersticioun/new age dogma and the prospects that "we are not alone."

As this thread is about an interview of Kerry Cassidy and has nothing to do with blue avian stuff, I suggest that you both are off-topic, and that we now get.

This is not off topic - it is pointing out differences in how to benefit the public in the way you investigate matters and share what you investigate... It involves a process and I shared what I believe is a more productive process than what Kerry does. Thus all ties right back into Kerry, her style and the damage she may do as opposed to how what she does might help folks.

To each his own, I say.

Everyone has his or her own contribution to make.

Yes and also, everyone could perhaps improve in how they deliver their contribution and this includes myself. I am open to critique as I desire to improve.

[Chester]

I sincerely hope that your above statement is not an allusion to the proven-false-ad-nauseam supposition that autism would be caused by vaccines.

From my understanding there is a great deal of research that suggests that there are materials used in some vaccines which are not the active ingredients of the vaccine itself which link these shots to increasing rates of autism. - Specifically Thimerosal (aka Thiomersal).

From my understanding, this debate is still unresolved.

It is understandable why those who do not dwell in the details might erroneously blame "the vaccines." But I have excellent sources of information on this subject, specifically Thimerosal and my mind is still open there may be a legitimate link and thus a legitimate concern.

Frankly, what concerns me the most is if a government or any outside third party imposes these shots on others against the will of the parents. That, to me, is the most terrifying concern.

[Dumpster Diver]

What I found to be interesting about this interview is, other than the implied single SSP (and reviewing this, I think other writers in the thread are correct, Kerry did not exactly state there is one SSP) there is NO substantial difference between Kerry's views as expressed in this interview and those expressed by DW and CG. BTW, I keep up with the "Blue Chicken Show" and the other stuff on Gaia TV (I'm a subscriber).

Also, Sean Stone has a great interview with Kerry on his Buzzsaw show also on Gaia TV. His interview heads in a little different direction. Bottom line for me here is: good on RDS for keeping Kerry on track and pulling out a ton of info in a short amount of time, bat sh!t crazy or not.

[WantDisclosure]

What I found to be interesting about this interview is, other than the implied single SSP (and reviewing this, I think other writers in the thread are correct, Kerry did not exactly state there is one SSP) there is NO substantial difference between Kerry's views as expressed in this interview and those expressed by DW and CG. BTW, I keep up with the "Blue Chicken Show" and the other stuff on Gaia TV (I'm a subscriber).

Also, Sean Stone has a great interview with Kerry on his Buzzsaw show also on Gaia TV. His interview heads in a little different direction. Bottom line for me here is: good on RDS for keeping Kerry on track and pulling out a ton of info in a short amount of time, bat sh!t crazy or not.

David Wilcock used to be a very important part of Project Camelot.

I sincerely hope that at some point in time, Kerry and he can publicly reveal what real differences they have about what the facts appear to be, at this point in time, and why.

Also, I believe that Kerry may have made an error in journalistic responsibility when she first talked publicly about Corey Goode. I believe him when he says she outed him and that it was not his intention to go public.

[Dumpster Diver]

David Wilcock used to be a very important part of Project Camelot.

I sincerely hope that at some point in time, Kerry and he can publicly reveal what real differences they have about what the facts appear to be, at this point in time, and why.

Also, I believe that Kerry may have made an error in journalistic responsibility when she first talked publicly about Corey Goode. I believe him when he says she outed him and that it was not his intention to go public.

I think Davy Will-talk-about-his-cock (there has to be some sort of synchronicity on this and his actual name...call it a Tourette's-synchronicity thingie) had a falling out when he uncovered BR's Dark Passenger (I'm going Dexter on ya here) and moved off in another non-Hat direction. BR now has found a way to counter-attack thru Chicken-Corey. Kerry is caught in the cross-fire, and as a former love-interest of Darth Hatman, is probably is in damage control, if not PTSD, as well.

[Dreamtimer]

Did she 'out' him before the video released on PA? I don't recall her ever saying anything about him before the interview by Christine.