The idea behind this second post is to tackle Bill Ryan in the open on his home turf, which I take to be
providing an enabling platform for whistle-blowers. That at least is how he started out with Camelot. Since I stopped posting, the Pete Peterson business has come to bite him in the rear, but until now I haven’t had an opportunity to comment. It is shockingly not good enough to be apologizing
only once found out that absolutely no due diligence was done in terms of checking credentials. It is counter-productive to be quoting the behaviour of Henry Deacon/Arthur Neumann as the perfect counter-example showing how things should be done. The honest reaction would have been, many years ago, to admit publicly, ‘If this is how it is done, then we slipped up badly with the other fellow.’ And take down the interview. And post a warning in its place.
Admittedly, it may seem a bit late for me to be talking. What happens is that we all focus on some of the things we find important; there are other things we also find important, but in a finite world, constraints of time and space mean that we cannot address every issue all at once. Meanwhile, some of these other things become urgent until they scream for immediate attention. What is urgent right now is to provide a contradictory reading of the Bill Ryan situation. Thank you for this thread, which has been doing precisely that. Below is the second of my two cents-worth, which is as timely as I can make it. ‘October the First is Too Late’ is the title of an SF novel by the astronomer Fred Hoyle; maybe not quite: I signed up at 11.17 on 1.10.17, bang on time if you ask me. I even answered 11 to a forward-looking question about the month of November.
Strangely, while I have little or no recall of anything Pete Peterson actually said, I do remember a few things said about his Camelot interview – notably the amount of off-the-record statements he made in addition to the on-the-record statements, the life-threatening nature of any lapses in this regard, and hence the need to submit the interview for clearance. Unsurprisingly, this approval never came, but the interview was published regardless. This whole scenario needs dismantling.
A few preliminary remarks.
An
official spokesman is qualified to make controlled on-the-record statements revealing previously off-the-record material. Everyone else signing non-disclosure agreements has to treat info like apples and oranges in the Garden of Eden: you are welcome to make yourself sick on these oranges, but don’t you dare touch them apples!
A
genuine insider respects this boundary to the best of his or her ability; but a leak may occur inadvertently, with an apparently harmless exchange possibly generating unforeseen results when applied to a different, outside, context. For example, while waiting at the photocopy machine, John Brandenburg shows his Mars xenon isotope material to a nuclear physicist waiting behind him, who blurts out, “Someone nuked them!”, and then on realizing the scale of his tiny mistake, promptly disappears (Death on Mars, p. 109). Brandenburg receives this cross-fertilizing insight, but he still has to do his homework. The actual disclosure is innocent enough in itself, and the leak is quickly mended; it only becomes a bombshell in this new other-worldly context.
A
genuine whistleblower is someone who deliberately crosses this boundary, making controlled leaks revealing previously off-the-record material. A genuine whistleblower is, if not an intruding outsider, a former genuine insider who is not an official spokesman, but becomes a
shadow spokesman with divided loyalties – their loyalty to their employer now comes second to their loyalty to society at large. Unfortunately their betrayal/illicit intrusion makes them pretty unbelievable: discredit (loss of reputation) leads to discredit (loss of credibility). The Trojan prophetess Cassandra was blessed with an ability to make correct predictions and cursed with universal incredulity.
A
total hoaxer is a parody of the above, just a shadow speaking mostly for himself. A
disinfo agent (willing or involuntary) is personally neither officially official nor genuinely genuine, and the same goes for their info. They produce a different kind of shadow, like projecting a rabbit on the wall with the hands in a given position: some parts may resemble fingers, but overall the illusion prevails.
Finally, there is the
reporter, who listens to and passes on information from all the above sources, with various combinations of objectivity and commitment depending on where they lie on a spectrum ranging from the
mainstream journalist to the
alternative researcher. Note that objectivity and commitment are independent parameters, not opposite ends of a single continuous scale. In other words, greater commitment is not incompatible with greater objectivity, nor does a non-committal attitude guarantee such objectivity.
However, to add a little historical depth, one might further mention the category of
witness. The Greek word is
martyros, and the early Christian martyrs were witnesses to spiritual values who blew the whistle on the political elite who were suppressing disclosure in these matters. In those days, the only genuine whistleblower truly was a dead whistleblower, since martyrdom combined in a single event the act of disclosure (profession of faith) with the elimination of the witness. This was verging on suicide, and as suicide is often contagious, it soon became a public health issue only resolved at the Council of Nicaea, which established a basis for dealing with it without undermining the root cause. Suicidal martyrs are a public health issue to this day, as we all know, and are generally neither heroes nor villains: just victims.
Hence the true, deliberate whistle-blower, spouting forth and getting killed for it, would be a latter-day martyr. All very admirable, but you don’t assert the glory of life either by taking it or by losing it cheaply. We don’t want that kind of whistle-blower any more than we want jihadists: the real task is to combine witnessing with survival. There are of course people paying with their lives for speaking out: this is precisely why it is so shameful to be playing games while at the same time claiming to honour their memory. My preliminary conclusion on the Peterson situation is that in this case we have no martyrs: we have survivors bearing witness – so far so good – but their testimony is false. Bill Ryan admits that Peterson’s evidence is not credible, but fails to see how it reflects upon himself. His own act is equally fake, as is easily demonstrated (see below).
So where does Pete Peterson fit in with the above dramatis personae now that doubt has been cast on the value of his info? Doubt must also be cast on his requirement of submitting his interview for prior approval: it was tantamount to claiming status as an official spokesman. That was never going to happen regardless of whether his bona fides are phoney. Why? Because any genuine official disclosure would pass through the normal open channels, and he likely had no access to those channels anyway. Quite simply, if an agency has anything they want us to know, they have the front office to issue the necessary propaganda. No need for undercover agents. Propaganda by definition is issued loud and clear, far too loud and clear to be entirely true. However, the falsity of the front story does not make the undercover story necessarily true: to think otherwise is the definition of gullibility.
Hence the ‘on-the-record’ info was basically garbage. Any genuine whistle-blower info had to be the ‘off-the-record’ variety. In other words, Peterson was not blowing the whistle, he was holding out the whistle to Project Camelot, saying ‘Just blow it and you’re dead’. In other words, we don’t need to know the value of his data to know that he is a hero in the Achilles mould: when the going gets tough, he... passes the buck to Bill and Kerry, who, perfectly understandably, sit on the information. They don’t want to be martyrs, which means they don’t want to be whistle-blowers either. And that amounts to saying they are pretending, they are playing games, they are not for real, they are fakes. They are themselves withholding information that they claim to be an important part of a necessary disclosure. We don’t know how important it actually is, but it sure makes
them look important.
The question of sanctions for overstepping prescribed limits then becomes somewhat academic. Kerry Cassidy, Bill Ryan once claimed, was nearly killed for publishing off-the-record material. He actually gave that as a major reason for their split. This claim also needs reviewing in light of the fact that said off-the-record material is now likely to be as worthless as the rest. Were the circumstances of this attack ever given? Did a bullet whistle past Kerry’s ear? Did she take a sip from a cup of coffee that tasted of bitter almonds? Did the brakes on her car fail? I don’t recall anything of that nature.
The thing about David Wilcock’s story is that he provided a garage bill as evidence that he did at least suffer some kind of mechanical failure. Regardless of what we make of this in real-life terms, it does make sense at the symbolic level. He was trying to stop doing whatever dangerous thing he was doing, but couldn’t, because his ‘braking system’ was faulty. It may be that he simply can’t drive. Going downhill, you brake very little, by relying on your engine brake, i.e. by staying in low gear. Too much ‘high octane speculation’ I reckon.
On the other hand, about the Kerry Cassidy accident – again unless I’m mistaken – we can say precisely nothing, rien, nada. To the point that some doubt even if there was ever a split in any real sense at all.
The question now becomes:
who would kill in reprisal for disclosing as genuine, material from a hoaxer/disinfo agent? Answer: no one. The more the merrier. Let them do their worst.
The kindest possible interpretation of what, if anything, occurred is that Cassidy, perhaps like Wilcock on a previous occasion, was prey to a panic attack. This is a very real phenomenon. No one can be criticized for succumbing to such an experience. But the reality (the panic attack) is based on an illusion (it has a cause, but no concrete cause). Again, who was responsible: Peterson’s superiors? It turns out, as far as we know, he had none. Peterson himself? Really? The only real enemy seems to have been the equivalent of Wilcock’s undermaintained brakes.
The not-so-kind interpretation would be to repeat that they are pretending, they are playing games, they are not for real, they are fakes.
This story has a corollary, which might lead us somewhere in practical terms.
The corollary is this:
if the alleged threat came through disclosing material from a whistle-blower as TRUE, then there is no reason for anyone to kill in reprisal for presenting material from a disinfo agent as FAKE. If Peterson is seen to be a freelance agent, then it should be possible for Camelot or Avalon to publish his off-the-record statements as disinfo with no fear of threat to life or limb, since the risk of reprisal was in all likelihood part of the disinfo. As I said above, if someone could kill, then who would that someone be? Not the usual suspects.
It would be useful indeed to know all the many things that are supposedly too secret to tell and yet probably false. This would be no betrayal of a private conversation. It would be an instance of the alternative researcher turning non-suicidal whistleblower. It could and should happen, but I am not holding my breath, because on previous form it would require quite a U-turn. It would also be useful to know what dangerous piece of information Kerry Cassidy let slip. That information is already public anyway, and since the danger has passed, it is a reasonable question to ask what it was, or alternatively what the reason might be for not answering that question. Once again, saying someone will get killed is no longer a credible response. It might be true, but it is not credible. The whistleblower community has painted itself into a corner.
The afore-mentioned previous form can be summarized as follows. Bill Ryan presents himself as a serious, committed reporter or alternative researcher. He has already admitted to being totally unserious (unprofessional or if you prefer, dangerously amateurish) in the basic matter of checking credentials. He is no reporter, but a fake newsman. He is not at all committed to the whistle-blower cause, since he declined to share what he had been told and is now prepared to throw Peterson under the bus at the first sign of trouble. And he is no researcher: had he done his homework to back up any of this stuff, as I explained John Brandenburg did, he would have discovered something to set off alarm bells. Maybe he did, but he never reported it; on the contrary, one may want to explore how much of his posting has been based on the lies. And finally he is no alternative researcher: whether deliberately or otherwise (I really don’t care either way), he is providing more mainstream entertainment, targetting and diverting an often vulnerable audience who are searching in deadly earnest.
The above is no more than a submission. If Bill Ryan is man enough to respond, I am prepared to back down on anything that he is able to explain more satisfactorily. But again, I am not holding my breath. On Avalon, he let his lady friends tell me he didn’t want me out. I pointed out that his silence spoke otherwise, since he hadn’t and wouldn’t say so himself. This he confirmed by maintaining his silence; nor did he respond to my criticisms, other than to say I needed to supply more evidence – which I did – again no response.
In a court of law, no defence is no defence: you are doing nothing to avoid being found guilty as charged. Internet forums are not a court of law. But then neither are they meant to administer justice; what they can and should be doing is warning users against abusers of any description. When a forum owner is accused of something, he can simply say (or silently express), Get out of here! If he is accused of something from a tiny forum like this one, he may think he can afford simply to ignore it. Silence is a fuzzy concept because no defence is sometimes the plea of the unconcerned innocent, although more often it is due to there being no possible adequate defence. Like an amber light that may mean stop and may mean go, silence may mean innocent and may mean guilty. It doesn’t mean undecidable. At an amber light, a decision is unavoidable one way or the other. Let’s see how Bill Ryan’s silence might be viewed as culpable.
Since the basic accusation is that he is a fake, pretending to be someone and do something he is not, most notably by holding info from Peterson allegedly at personal risk to his life, this amounts to pretending to play Russian roulette. How does this work? Well, I guess there are various ways of making sure that your empty chamber is lined up so that you can safely pull the trigger. That would be like publishing Peterson’s harmless on-the-record stuff. Or you can simply not pull the trigger at all. That would be like withholding Peterson’s unverified off-the-record stuff. I am suggesting a third solution: that these cartridges are blanks and so the trigger can safely be pulled.
The only shred of credibility left to BR would then be to fire his revolver till empty, which he absolutely cannot do. Why? Because either he would publish nothing but provably dud info, or he would fire live ammunition only identifiable as such by the physical damage to himself. He would need the courage of a true witness to take that risk; it’s not going to happen.
This is what I mean by painting someone into a corner. He has set up an amber light that is neither red nor green: what do you do when you cannot go and you cannot stop? Float off right out of this reality into another dimension, I guess.
How might this work? How can idle conspiracy nonsense turn lethal? Umberto Eco’s 1988 novel
Foucault’s Pendulum describes how some publishers (nowadays it would be conspiracy site owners) end up very dead after making up additional material to sell in their catalogue. Hoist with their own petard is the phrase that comes to mind: they are killed by their over credulous readers who take it all seriously.
Eco is reported as saying that Dan Brown is a character in his novel. I submit that Bill Ryan is another. All these characters have a real life equivalent. Hence David Wilcock might well be genuinely afraid for his life. This is the part of the story that maybe comes closest to being real. Being personally on the side of life every time, I suggest that, to avoid the story-book ending, there is a life-giving way out for these people. Let them just desist from their present activities, and go and do some real, serious work – I recommend heavy labour. They really have no choice, because their once over credulous readers are dwindling in numbers, wising up and walking away. It is like reverse blackmail: you just stop cashing in, go away and nothing will happen to you.
Stop strangling your own project. Stop detracting/distracting from the main task at hand, which is to build up a community, a community of communities.
I said that this forum was a ‘tiny’ TOT. This was not meant disparagingly. On the contrary, you guys have built a solid base on which the forum can grow. I am here to assist in that process of ‘Together we make a difference’. – Important note (abusers beware): ‘together’ does NOT parse as ‘to get her’. – Coming alphabetically after TNT, TOT could be quite explosive...
Originally posted by araucaria
Hi there Dumpster Diver, nice to meet you (or am I supposed to know you from elsewhere?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks