Confused About Who To Believe In The Alternative Media?

[Divine Feminine]

I can't believe I didn't come across this researcher sooner, holy sheep, so far I'm liking what I'm seeing and I even see a few of my own catches being researched by this guy, glad to know someone else is paying close attention, better than I could have ever done.

Confused about who to believe in the alternative media? Ya me too....after reading this you'll see why and probably walk away eyes glazed over and a headache to boot....welcome to hardcore researching, lol.....Lots of familiar names on here!

Comb through and decide for yourself....oh and P.S. It looks like he updates the information periodically so bookmark the link.

“I was a listener to Coast to Coast AM at one point. Loved it. Couldn't get enough of it. Sometimes listened to three shows in a row. I actually put aside all my prejudices and listened to just about every guest in the 2004-2005 period, making notes and organizing the information in the process. It didn't take very long to find out that the "information density" of the show is rather low. Listen to 500 hours of Coast to Coast interviews and you don't really learn a whole lot, mainly because it is impossible to tell truth from fiction. You only learn about dominant ideas in the "alternative" media and understand who the various authorities/gurus promoting these theories are.

While I was primarily drawn to shows about out of body experiences, reincarnation and the paranormal, already in the very beginning I recognized that the geopolitical and/or conspiracy side of the show was very weak. In 2005 I was creating the first articles on the Pilgrims Society, the 1001 Club, Le Cercle and other groups and noticed that none of the information I came across was discussed on Coast to Coast AM. All I could find was speculation about the Illuminati, the New World Order, and the occasional rant about Bilderberg. No riddles ever get solved and most certainly the show's guests never bring up any unique information.

Now, isn't that peculiar? Here you have a show that reached up to 15 million people a night in the late 1990s and still about 3 million today, but somehow it is unable to even occasionally invite journalists, researchers and whistleblowers with information that is actually unique and can be verified. For an influential media outlet focused on alternative research and whistleblowing, it is sure curious that Coast to Coast has never produced any unique documents or stood at the basis of any political scandal.”


And so his journey begins.......

http://www.isgp.nl/2014_08_Coast_to_Coast_AM_cult


Cult of National Security Trolls: Art Bell and Coast to Coast AM

[Divine Feminine]

Royals and Rockefellers financing alien abduction stories



Added after this article was finished: Project Argus and the Center for North American Crop Circle Studies (CNACCS), at the time ran by what may well be today's most prominent C2C AM guest, Rosemary Ellen Guiley, as well as Dan Smith, another C2C AM visitor. Both were close to the CIA's Kit Green and Ron Pandolfi, who manage the UFO/Alien community to a large extent. Like Alexander, these two men were/are tied to the top.

[bsbray]

This is interesting but I'm doubtful on some of these as a first impression, like Graham Hancock being associated with the Rothschilds. Graham is actually only reporting what researchers in the field are finding, and he cites all of his hundreds of sources in his books. I also don't see how Robert Monroe was working to anyone's detriment, considering he pioneered research into OBE's with a science/engineering background in electronics. Maybe the research and techniques he developed was useful to the military but it's been very useful to hundreds/thousands of people in the general population as well, so maybe those kinds of distinctions aren't being made here.

But I see a lot of names on there that I don't doubt are into some shady dealings...

[Divine Feminine]

Here's a blogger's comments on the same data. Decide for yourself. Link provides a better view of list below.

http://netteandme.blogspot.com/2014/...ls-art_29.html

Coast To Coast AM Disinformation

"I am obligated to comment on this before I post it, because of the nature of the material it contains.First let me say that I think Mr Van der Reijden is one hell of a researcher and I agree with almost all of his conclusions found in this lengthy essay.The one area I say we have disagreement on is the plane issue at the Pentagon.That said, just because I do not agree with him on this subject of flight 77, does not mean that his research and analysis has to be thrown out the window. On the contrary, I find his work to be some of the most stellar on the internet, and well worth sharing.

On this particular subject,he has hit the nail on the head with 99.9% of the folks he calls into question.If the reader cannot look at the background he has provided on this circuit of characters,and understand that people with these type of backgrounds are just not all of sudden doing altruistic things just for the heck of mankind,then you might already be beyond help. I am sorry if some of your 'favorites' have found their way on to this list, the facts speak for themselves, particularly with the fringe element dealing with aliens, new age mumbo jumbo channeling type. What these folks are really doing,is getting rich mind screwing you. YOU are the only one that can change this, because as along as these Charlatan's have an audience they are going to keep distracting you from searching for Truth, take care all... "


disinformation

Coast_to_Coast_AM_disinformation
Background and sources on individual Coast to Coast AM guests
Always a work in progress. And many dozens of other questionable names can be added.

UFOs Ed Dames John Anthony West Col. David Hunt
Col. John Alexander Uri Geller John Loftus
Colin Andrews Richard Hoagland Cayce Association Robert Spencer
Dr. Fred Bell Joe McMoneagle E. Evans Cayce Steve Quayle
Don Berliner Hal Puthoff Sidney Kirkpatrick James Fetzer
Robert Bigelow Jim Schnabel Greg Little Eric Hufschmid
Dr. Richard Boylan Stephan Schwartz Kevin Todeschi Jim Marrs
Erich Von Daniken Ingo Swann John Van Auken Jon Rappoport
Robert Dean Russell Targ David Wilcock Oliver Stone
Jim Dilettoso Charles Tart
Richard Dolan Alfred Webre Catholic exorcism Other
Joe Firmage Laura Eisenhower Dr. Coomaraswamy Ann Finkbeiner
Stanton Friedman Malachi Martin Catherine A. Fitts
Dr. Steven Greer Spirit/Quantum M. Ralph Sarchie Dr. John Gray
Budd Hopkins Skip Atwater Lorraine Warren Deborah Layton
Linda Howe Deepak Chopra John Zaffis John Petersen
David Jacobs Amit Goswani
Bob Lazar Robert Monroe John Birch politics Clear Channel heads
John Lear Robert Moss G. Edward Griffin Lowry Mays
Dr. Roger Leir Dr. Brian Weiss Nicholas Gruner Red McCombs
Michael Lindemann Alex Jones
Bruce Maccabee Ancient Egypt Mark Lane In the background
Dr. John Mack Robert Bauval Malachi Martin Bechtel family (SRI)
Dr. Edgar Mitchell David Childress Stanley Monteith House of Liechtenstein
Gordon Novel Dr. John DeSalvo George Noory (host) Laurance Rockefeller
Daniel Sheehan Christopher Dunn Jeffrey NyQuist James Woolsey
Jacques Vallee Dr. Patrick Flanigan Joel Skousen
Robert/Ryan Wood Graham Hancock Charles R. Smith
Dr. J.J. Hurtak
Joe Parr Neocon politics
CRV/SRI Joseph Farrell Jerome Corsi
Cleve Backster Zecheria Sitchin Frank Gaffney
Lynn Buchanan Dr. Robert Schoch Douglas Hagmann

Possibly genuine guests

William Buhlman Dr. Michael Newton
Dr. Mike Heiser Nancy Talbott

William Buhlman's basic OBE material works, which I can attest to from personal experience. Keep in mind that OBEs are much easier for young children, people who can concentrate, and persons whose meridian system hasn't been clogged up by bad emotions or, who knows, karma.

Since 2001 Mike Heiser has done a magnificent job debunking Zecheria Sitchin (not familiar with any other statements).

Unlike Brian Weiss, Michael Newton never regressed people to places as Atlantis--which never existed. Can't verify his work for myself though, although research linking persons, especially children, to a past life pretty much confirms reincarnation as real. Still wondering what Newton's expedition to Laos was about he hinted to in one of his books.

Crop circle formation researcher Nancy Talbott has appeared only once on Coast to Coast AM. The information produced by her and W. C. Levengood appears genuine--which might explain why Coast to Coast has shown so little interest in having them on the air.
***

[Divine Feminine]

Yes, one must definitely research independently and decide Bsbray. It's a lot of information to absorb, but many of us have seen the connections for quite some time, so each viewer will have their own opinion based on how much they've investigated on their own.

[bsbray]

Possibly genuine guests

William Buhlman Dr. Michael Newton
Dr. Mike Heiser Nancy Talbott

William Buhlman's basic OBE material works, which I can attest to from personal experience. Keep in mind that OBEs are much easier for young children, people who can concentrate, and persons whose meridian system hasn't been clogged up by bad emotions or, who knows, karma.
Since 2001 Mike Heiser has done a magnificent job debunking Zecheria Sitchin (not familiar with any other statements).

Unlike Brian Weiss, Michael Newton never regressed people to places as Atlantis--which never existed. Can't verify his work for myself though, although research linking persons, especially children, to a past life pretty much confirms reincarnation as real. Still wondering what Newton's expedition to Laos was about he hinted to in one of his books.

Crop circle formation researcher Nancy Talbott has appeared only once on Coast to Coast AM. The information produced by her and W. C. Levengood appears genuine--which might explain why Coast to Coast has shown so little interest in having them on the air.

The above looks like a typical example of how this guy is judging who is "genuine" and who is disinformation. I'm not particularly impressed by this because it looks like he's just employing his personal biases to make judgments on these people. It's almost as if the process is: "Who says things that I agree with and believe, and who says things that I disagree with and don't believe?"

For Graham Hancock in particular he says this:

In 1996 former Rothschild employee (The Economist, headed by Sir Evelyn de Rothschild 1972-1989) [28] and likely MI6 foreign policy asset Graham Hancock made the party complete when he visited the radio show for the first time, six months after fellow-"Egyptologist" John Anthony West's first appearance. Does one really think it is a coincidence that Hancock manipulates his data in order to claim a 10,500 B.C. origin of the Giza plateau? Of course not. His purpose is to back up the Cayce cultists he is so close to, including Coast to Coast AM rock star David Wilcock, whom everybody just accepts as the reincarnation of Edgar Cayce--and therefore also the reincarnation of "Ra-Ta", the half-god, half-man who built the Great Pyramid around... 10,500 B.C. The influence of Coast to Coast extends so far that Wilcock actually reached the 16th place of the New York Times best seller list. How incredible is that?

http://netteandme.blogspot.com/2014/...ls-art_29.html


Graham Hancock's bio on his own website says that he was an "East Africa correspondent of The Economist from 1981-1983." (https://grahamhancock.com/bio/) But he was going into journalism and wrote for more than that: "...he went to school and university in the northern English city of Durham and graduated from Durham University in 1973 with First Class Honours in Sociology. He went on to pursue a career in quality journalism, writing for many of Britain’s leading newspapers including The Times, The Sunday Times, The Independent, and The Guardian. He was co-editor of New Internationalist magazine from 1976-1979 and East Africa correspondent of The Economist from 1981-1983."

As de Rothschild was chairman of the newspaper The Economist from 1972 to 1989, Graham could in some way be said to be working for de Rothschild, the same way as all of the journalists and everyone else working there were, and Hancock was also writing for other publications before and after his ~2 year position covering events in East Africa. The significance of this is obviously not as clear as van der Reijden (the author of this information) makes it out to be, and he goes on to say that Hancock was also a "likely MI6 foreign policy asset," apparently also based on the fact that he worked for The Economist for two years, because I don't see any other reasons ventured.

Btw there have been estimates that in the mid 1800's, the Rothschild family controlled about half of the world's material wealth through their various enterprises. It's a much more complicated situation today, but by van der Reijden's reasoning, an awful damn lot of people are working for the Rothschilds, even if it's just menial labor. When this becomes a significant item of concern is another discussion, and one that van der Reijden skips over.


This is the part that I really have a problem with:

Does one really think it is a coincidence that Hancock manipulates his data in order to claim a 10,500 B.C. origin of the Giza plateau? Of course not. His purpose is to back up the Cayce cultists he is so close to, including Coast to Coast AM rock star David Wilcock, whom everybody just accepts as the reincarnation of Edgar Cayce--and therefore also the reincarnation of "Ra-Ta", the half-god, half-man who built the Great Pyramid around... 10,500 B.C.

Hancock does not manipulate data, and the data in his books is not even his data. He reports what other researchers have said (his background is in journalism), and cites those sources meticulously in his books, which is something that cannot be said for van der Reijden's research here. I have read Hancock's work and I have checked out his sources. He footnotes hundreds of sources from credible academic work of the best kind: the kind that inadvertently yet consistently supports a theory that the original researchers didn't even consider, which is a great way to circumvent bias.

The real problem for van der Reijden seems to be that he does not accept the idea of "Atlantis" or an advanced pre-historic civilization around the year ~10,500 BC. Because he does not accept this, without going into the details of why here (except that he believes that the idea is basically a cult), he rejects anyone who talks about this kind of thing out-of-hand and judges them to be disinformation. Maybe we should go back and have a discussion with him as to how exactly he has been able to discount all of this information in the first place.

Hancock doesn't support Wilcock's nonsense either. Even though what Hancock talks about is considered "alternative," he's still rather conservative as far as that goes, not to mention scholarly, and he does not get into all of the fast and loose gibberish that Wilcock is usually talking about. Lots of independent researchers are talking about the period of ~10,500 BC because there is a lot to be said for it. It was the end of the last glacial maximum. It was a time when there appears to have been a globally catastrophic meteor or comet impact, which is probably why the glacial maximum ended. It is also uncannily close to the date Plato gives for the sinking of Atlantis in a flood, which matches both the results of a catastrophic impact and the enormous rise in sea levels all over the world after the glacial maximum ended and all the ice melted.


I could go into other examples but just what I see from this one case is enough to show me the depth that this research actually goes to, and it's not very deep. It really looks to me like it's based on a lot of biases and assumptions. Even if there is a lot of good information in the article about various think tanks, the way individuals are linked in is very tenuous and through the same bias, which at least in Graham's case revolves around the fact that van der Reijden rejects the idea of an ancient advanced civilization.

[Dreamtimer]

Very interesting. Thanks Divine Feminine and bsbray.

I've listened to Graham Hancock in a few interviews and he's spoken of how 'anti cataclysm' the academic society is. It's only recently that he's been able to dialogue about this with people as more hard evidence and support is being gathered.

[Divine Feminine]

I understand what you’re saying Bsbray. I see a few things that I don’t necessarily agree with, BUT I see a tremendous amount of information that does agree with some of my findings. Honestly I’m still shuffling through this guys work as I only came across it last night so I haven’t had time to thoroughly investigate his every word. What he’s attempting to tackle is no easy feat and as you can see it gets complicated fast. I do see value in his attempts and I certainly wouldn’t throw out his research. I encourage you to contact him with your concerns and see what he has to say, then report back to us or even ask if he’ll come and discuss in more detail on the forum. He does update his reports so it looks like he's open to making changes should compelling information sway him.

I think what’s most important to notice about his research is how well intertwined all these people and organizations have become. Even if you don’t agree with some of his findings this in itself is noteworthy and pretty significant. I’ve noticed the same pertinent detail when researching various topics and it’s hardly a coincidence. It becomes extremely difficult as a researcher to decipher who’s telling the truth and who’s not, much less the public audience who does little research if at all. But there’s no doubt your core information sources are being controlled and manipulated loud and clear.

Hancock’s involvement with The Economist and individuals who are and have been tied to nefarious organizations doesn’t aid in his credibility. I was always suspicious that he got an invitation to speak at TEDX, an organization known to be supported by The Bill Gates Foundation and consisting of a think tank shrouded in mystery who insists on remaining anonymous. What’s the big secret? How do we even know the whole Hancock debacle that ensued afterwards wasn’t all for show and ratings? I don’t think TEDX invites just anybody, so you can't tell me they didn't know the content of his material.

This comment by the author is worth exploring or asking him about:
“Hancock has been in a permanent state of conflict with Zahi Hawass, a person who has been overseeing excavations at Giza since the late 1970s. Hawass has accused Hancock and friends of being manipulators - even Zionists who "control the whole world", try to steal the heritage of Egypt and pass it over to the Jews. In turn, Hancock and friends claim that Hawass is hiding evidence of a 10,500 B.C. origin of Ancient Egypt. Much to the surprise of many Hancock followers, Hawass in the one with the correct answers in virtually every instance I researched.”

Just to be clear, I have no solid opinion at this point in regards to Hancock as I have not researched his material or associations personally in great depth to be comfortable making any type of statement.


Consider some of the author’s quotes:
“The bizarre thing is that all the persons just mentioned are members of the Pilgrims Society and/or 1001 Club and, as usual, appear very high in ISGP's Superclass Index, a coincidence that never ceases to amaze me. Whatever conspiracy is put under the magnifying glass,we always find the same group of several dozen top persons involved. Or maybe we should say: allegedly involved, as nothing is ever proven, of course.”

“But equally peculiar is the fact that the truth is always being twisted, even when insiders appear to speak to each other.”

From my perspective, part of the researching aspect means being able to objectively look at their work, who they’re tied to and where they come from, not just the material at hand. If they’re going to put themselves out there as ‘experts’ they’re going to be ‘judged’. I remember talking to one researcher who told me she was always clear that she’s not an ‘expert’....well that’s all nice to declare your disclaimer while you’re on air, but the problem lies in the fact that if you’re on a live radio show it’s because you are considered to be an ‘expert’ in the field as that’s the whole point you’re being asked for an interview, lmao, and it is how the public will perceive you, regardless of your disclaimer to cover your a$$..that's just the reality.

Many of us who are researching and taking a closer look are realizing one key point, the same pattern that keeps evolving is just as he describes, “we always find the same group of several dozen top persons involved.”


I remember joking with a few individuals long ago that someone needs to put a game together using all these top names on the list similar to The Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon concept as it’s that damning.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_De...of_Kevin_Bacon
“Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon is a parlour game based on the "six degrees of separation" concept, which posits that any two people on Earth are six or fewer acquaintance links apart. Movie buffs challenge each other to find the shortest path between an arbitrary actor and prolific character actor Kevin Bacon. It rests on the assumption that anyone involved in the Hollywood film industry can be linked through their film roles to Bacon within six steps. The game requires a group of players to try to connect any such individual to Kevin Bacon as quickly as possible and in as few links as possible. In 2007, Bacon started a charitable organization named SixDegrees.org.”


I have openly stated on this forum a few times that it 'feels' like the public is getting mentored and strategically 'shuffled' along.... and is it the very reason why this entire elaborate scheme is needed... in order to control the reality and outcome? I mean seriously...look how many people are involved....it's incredible.

[bsbray]

Hancock’s involvement with The Economist and individuals who are and have been tied to nefarious organizations doesn’t aid in his credibility. I was always suspicious that he got an invitation to speak at TEDX, an organization known to be supported by The Bill Gates Foundation and consisting of a think tank shrouded in mystery who insists on remaining anonymous. What’s the big secret? How do we even know the whole Hancock debacle that ensued afterwards wasn’t all for show and ratings? I don’t think TEDX invites just anybody, so you can't tell me they didn't know the content of his material.

The problem is that, at least as far as Graham's research goes with an ancient cataclysm, it's not something that has to be suspected and guessed about, as to where these ideas are coming from or how valid they are. He makes it extremely clear what data his ideas come from. And for the same reason, it doesn't come down to requiring us to take him on his word or trust in his credibility. That's the beauty of scholarly writing. New ideas and interpretations might be presented, but if it's truly scholarly research then no one is just making things up and asking you to take their word for it. It doesn't work like that. I'm not sure that the author of the information above is that familiar with this type of writing.

Here is one example of the information Hancock cites:

Evidence for an extraterrestrial impact 12,900 years ago that contributed to the megafaunal extinctions and the Younger Dryas cooling

R. B. Firestonea,b, A. Westc, J. P. Kennettd, L. Beckere, T. E. Bunchf, Z. S. Revayg, P. H. Schultzh, T. Belgyag, D. J. Kennetti, J. M. Erlandsoni, O. J. Dickensonj, A. C. Goodyeark, R. S. Harrish, G. A. Howardl, J. B. Kloostermanm, P. Lechlern, P. A. Mayewskio, J. Montgomeryj, R. Poredap, T. Darrahp, S. S. Que Heeq, A. R. Smitha, A. Stichr, W. Toppings, J. H. Wittkef and W. S. Wolbachr

a Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720;
c GeoScience Consulting, Dewey, AZ 86327;
d Department of Earth Sciences and
e Institute of Crustal Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106;
f Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011;
g Institute for Isotope and Surface Chemistry, H-1525, Budapest, Hungary;
h Department of Geological Sciences, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912;
i Department of Anthropology and Museum of Natural and Cultural History, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403;
j Eastern New Mexico University, Portales, NM 88130;
k South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208;
l Restoration Systems, LLC, Raleigh, NC 27604;
m Rozenstraat 85, 1018 NN, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
n Bureau of Mines and Geology, University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557;
o Climate Change Institute, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469;
p University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627;
q Department of Environmental Health Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095;
s P.O. Box 141, Irons, MI 49644; and
r Department of Chemistry, DePaul University, Chicago, IL 60614

Communicated by Steven M. Stanley, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI, July 26, 2007 (received for review March 13, 2007)

Abstract

A carbon-rich black layer, dating to ≈12.9 ka, has been previously identified at ≈50 Clovis-age sites across North America and appears contemporaneous with the abrupt onset of Younger Dryas (YD) cooling. The in situ bones of extinct Pleistocene megafauna, along with Clovis tool assemblages, occur below this black layer but not within or above it. Causes for the extinctions, YD cooling, and termination of Clovis culture have long been controversial. In this paper, we provide evidence for an extraterrestrial (ET) impact event at ≅12.9 ka, which we hypothesize caused abrupt environmental changes that contributed to YD cooling, major ecological reorganization, broad-scale extinctions, and rapid human behavioral shifts at the end of the Clovis Period. Clovis-age sites in North American are overlain by a thin, discrete layer with varying peak abundances of (i) magnetic grains with iridium, (ii) magnetic microspherules, (iii) charcoal, (iv) soot, (v) carbon spherules, (vi) glass-like carbon containing nanodiamonds, and (vii) fullerenes with ET helium, all of which are evidence for an ET impact and associated biomass burning at ≈12.9 ka. This layer also extends throughout at least 15 Carolina Bays, which are unique, elliptical depressions, oriented to the northwest across the Atlantic Coastal Plain. We propose that one or more large, low-density ET objects exploded over northern North America, partially destabilizing the Laurentide Ice Sheet and triggering YD cooling. The shock wave, thermal pulse, and event-related environmental effects (e.g., extensive biomass burning and food limitations) contributed to end-Pleistocene megafaunal extinctions and adaptive shifts among PaleoAmericans in North America.

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/41/16016.abstract


If there is a conspiracy or need for someone to have credibility here, it'd be people like those listed above, associated with this paper. Graham doesn't make this stuff up, he just reports it. This is just one of hundreds of sources that Hancock cites in his books, and the citations are not arbitrary but directly back what he's saying. I have a lot of respect for this kind of scholarly research, because anyone can look up any of his sources and check it out for themselves. There is still room for corruption in academic research, but the procedures are detailed so meticulously in the paper that it would be relatively easy to find where any manipulation could have occurred, and contact and talk to the listed researchers for additional information, in contrast to vague suspicions and assertions that don't even lay out specific reasons or arguments to support them, let alone cite works of in-depth research. This is about as transparent as it gets. All of these kinds of academic sources that Hancock cites, are all more transparent and reasoned than a lot of the information I see being presented on the blog above.

That is also why I am really not that interested in even talking to the guy, because his problem is not how informed he is on any given subject, but the whole methodology he uses to go about making the claims that he does. He presents it a lot more professionally than the actual content justifies. The thing with Hancock is only a symptom of a wider problem of playing too fast and loose with ideas and information.

I agree that there is a lot of potentially useful information on that website, but the only way I would trust it is if I could look it all up and in some way verify it for myself. That has to be what is done because a lot of claims are not backed up with arguments or reasons or have any citations given. Otherwise you are taking this guy at his word. I don't want to take anybody at their word when it comes to this kind of stuff, because disinformation does exist and anyone asking you to take their word for something might as well be asking you to be a sucker. That's when you really have to start considering credibility and biases and all this kind of stuff as if you're talking to an eyewitness or some other primary source, which this guy clearly is not. If people made all of their assumptions clear and argued the reasons for making them, and cite whatever sources they are getting their information from for others to follow up on it, the issue of having to trust people you don't even know could be minimized.

This comment by the author is worth exploring or asking him about:
“Hancock has been in a permanent state of conflict with Zahi Hawass, a person who has been overseeing excavations at Giza since the late 1970s. Hawass has accused Hancock and friends of being manipulators - even Zionists who "control the whole world", try to steal the heritage of Egypt and pass it over to the Jews. In turn, Hancock and friends claim that Hawass is hiding evidence of a 10,500 B.C. origin of Ancient Egypt. Much to the surprise of many Hancock followers, Hawass in the one with the correct answers in virtually every instance I researched.”

I don't feel the need to ask him about that because I know who Hawass is. You can find video of him arguing with Graham online. He's a very unreasonable man representing the establishment in Egyptology (an extremely corrupt area of archaeology and history, as far as I'm concerned -- and I can give several examples of why) who takes credit for things that he doesn't deserve (rejects the claims of others and then takes credit when they're proven to be true), and he was literally arrested for corruption and thrown out of his position as head of antiquities in Egypt during the uprisings in Egypt. Since then he's been released again but still doesn't hold his former position, thankfully. Now he just goes around giving lectures and dismissing alternative views of history. If only our author above had given more detail about "every instance [he] researched," and how he determined what was what. For someone who neglects to mention so much information necessary to make his claims, he must be pretty knowledgeable in a wide area, from economics to global politics and now ancient history archaeology, though we'd have to take his word on that too.

Here's some clips of Hawass and Hancock for you:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ziu2ygE_Wc



Hawass finally agreed to appear beside Hancock but might have regretted it when he either revealed or feigned ignorance at the discovery of the Gobekli Tepe site in Turkey:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4NnCAZcxHg


The above shows gross incompetence at best, as Gobekli Tepe is the most important archaeological discovery in years, arguably more important than any of the finds in Egypt to date, because it has been dated back to around 12,000 years ago. And yet Hawass says he knows nothing about it. That's very convenient for Hawass because one of the chief arguments against the older dating of the Sphinx that Hancock promotes (based on weathering to the Sphinx that indicates a very long period of heavy rains, no longer common in Egypt obviously) is that there is no other evidence in the world of civilization at such a remote date. But now with Gobekli Tepe there obviously is evidence of civilization at such a remote period, and a surprisingly sophisticated one at that. And upwards of 90% of Gobekli Tepe remains to be excavated.

I have openly stated on this forum a few times that it 'feels' like the public is getting mentored and strategically 'shuffled' along.... and is it the very reason why this entire elaborate scheme is needed... in order to control the reality and outcome? I mean seriously...look how many people are involved....it's incredible.

I don't disagree with the general idea here but I disagree with the author of this website's tendency to play fast and loose with information that may be much more complicated than he is assuming. The final conclusion he draws from that data could be completely off. We could probably find less than 6 degrees of separation between Jack Ruby and Lee Harvey Oswald, but I think it's fairly obvious that this would not necessitate that the two were directly working together in a globalist conspiracy, considering one of them shot and killed the other on live TV. There are real intrigues, behind-the-scenes back-stabbings and generally selfish behavior in a lot of these groups, and it can make the situation extremely complex. In other words not everything is simply black and white, like "good guys vs. bad guys" and everyone making it clear which side they are on. That alone is reason enough why you can't just draw a colored line between two people that know each other and claim that they're both working together to do something dubious. There needs to be more substance to the claim, and in an academic environment that substance would be expected for good reason and in line with a long tradition of depth research.

This is one of those internet sources where we can use the information as a starting point to do our own research, but the website demands us to give it credibility in the first place in the assumptions that it makes, and just by the way it makes these assumptions I don't think too much credibility in any given claim it makes is justified. Someone might work in an office with a boss that is totally antagonistic towards that employee, that the employee hates and agrees to conspire against or maybe just quit the job. It's not an outlandish situation to consider, and probably something that happens every day. And a lot of people work in jobs where they have a lot of personal responsibility and hardly ever even see their own bosses. These kinds of details of how things actually play out in real life are just a starting point for the amount of information that has to be considered to link people together. If we have evidence of policy-making between two think-tanks towards an obvious global agenda, that's one thing. But I can go and draw colored lines between various people in chic-looking infographic right now based on my personal opinions, and still give more reasoned arguments than the above website offers.

[Divine Feminine]

The problem is that, at least as far as Graham's research goes with an ancient cataclysm, it's not something that has to be suspected and guessed about, as to where these ideas are coming from or how valid they are. He makes it extremely clear what data his ideas come from. And for the same reason, it doesn't come down to requiring us to take him on his word or trust in his credibility. That's the beauty of scholarly writing. New ideas and interpretations might be presented, but if it's truly scholarly research then no one is just making things up and asking you to take their word for it. It doesn't work like that. I'm not sure that the author of the information above is that familiar with this type of writing.

If there is a conspiracy or need for someone to have credibility here, it'd be people like those listed above, associated with this paper. Graham doesn't make this stuff up, he just reports it. This is just one of hundreds of sources that Hancock cites in his books, and the citations are not arbitrary but directly back what he's saying. I have a lot of respect for this kind of scholarly research, because anyone can look up any of his sources and check it out for themselves. There is still room for corruption in academic research, but the procedures are detailed so meticulously in the paper that it would be relatively easy to find where any manipulation could have occurred, and contact and talk to the listed researchers for additional information, in contrast to vague suspicions and assertions that don't even lay out specific reasons or arguments to support them, let alone cite works of in-depth research. This is about as transparent as it gets. All of these kinds of academic sources that Hancock cites, are all more transparent and reasoned than a lot of the information I see being presented on the blog above.

Yes I understand your point, but what I underlined above does need to be taken into consideration especially when it appears our entire history is inaccurate thanks to former 'scholarly research', lmao.....And of course we know how embedded the education system has become. So how 'valid' is the research he's citing? The average individual cannot follow every facet and detail. And in some cases, if you have no scientific background or knowledge base(another field of 'scholarly research' with it's own issues) you're cooked........The integrity of our entire structure is under question. So the same logic being used to question the author's research tactics need to be applied to the 'scholarly research'. I for one don't have the time. And I'm not questioning Hancock's work just to be clear, I did state I have not had the opportunity to fully research him...or is it the work of others? lol.... Whatever....I don't want people thinking I'm against the guy. I've only listened to one of his presentations and I liked what he had to say.

I agree that there is a lot of potentially useful information on that website, but the only way I would trust it is if I could look it all up and in some way verify it for myself. That has to be what is done because a lot of claims are not backed up with arguments or reasons or have any citations given. Otherwise you are taking this guy at his word. I don't want to take anybody at their word when it comes to this kind of stuff, because disinformation does exist and anyone asking you to take their word for something might as well be asking you to be a sucker. That's when you really have to start considering credibility and biases and all this kind of stuff as if you're talking to an eyewitness or some other primary source, which this guy clearly is not. If people made all of their assumptions clear and argued the reasons for making them, and cite whatever sources they are getting their information from for others to follow up on it, the issue of having to trust people you don't even know could be minimized.

I was thinking the same and glad you brought it up. I would use this site as a potential not the gospel. You really have to research on your own and compare notes rather than relying on the information of one individual. Again where I underlined above, the same goes for 'scholarly research' because there is no longer integrity within our systems. Who has time to do this? Until integrity is restored, there will always be questions.

If only our author above had given more detail about "every instance [he] researched," and how he determined what was what. For someone who neglects to mention so much information necessary to make his claims, he must be pretty knowledgeable in a wide area, from economics to global politics and now ancient history archaeology, though we'd have to take his word on that too.

Here's some clips of Hawass and Hancock for you:

Thanks for the clips...now I remember who this guy is...I had forgotten as I didn't get too entrenched in the argument, I just remember bits and pieces. I agree the author should reveal more reasons to back his assumptions. Keep in mind the article is already mega huge...I can only imagine if he had listed everything on every topic he'd still be writing. He may be trying to give us a ham sandwich approach. And he has taken on a monumental task attempting to cover such a wide range of topics so he's probably well aware of needed improvement. Even though in some of his citations he doesn't list enough substance I do feel many of his findings are accurate and the only reason I can say this is because I've done the research myself on some of the individuals and have drawn similar conclusions. To someone who hasn't, yes, information appears to be lacking.

This is one of those internet sources where we can use the information as a starting point to do our own research, but the website demands us to give it credibility in the first place in the assumptions that it makes, and just by the way it makes these assumptions I don't think too much credibility in any given claim it makes is justified. Someone might work in an office with a boss that is totally antagonistic towards that employee, that the employee hates and agrees to conspire against or maybe just quit the job. It's not an outlandish situation to consider, and probably something that happens every day. And a lot of people work in jobs where they have a lot of personal responsibility and hardly ever even see their own bosses. These kinds of details of how things actually play out in real life are just a starting point for the amount of information that has to be considered to link people together. If we have evidence of policy-making between two think-tanks towards an obvious global agenda, that's one thing. But I can go and draw colored lines between various people in chic-looking infographic right now based on my personal opinions, and still give more reasoned arguments than the above website offers.

Some of this does come down to what you consider to be credible evidence. There's no doubt in my mind that many of these people are working together in various organizations. I believe he noted this on one of his graphs, left hand side, so you would have to take the time to look up the companies to make the correlations on your own. And of course some evidence is never revealed, but it doesn't mean it's not going on. He does clearly state within his writing 'alleged':
"Whatever conspiracy is put under the magnifying glass, we always find the same group of several dozen top persons involved. Or maybe we should say: allegedly involved, as nothing is ever proven, of course.”

I believe somewhere else in the article he made an additional comment of being uncertain about some of his findings. Many of these people can found working in companies who are aligned with the policy and procedures of Agenda 21, which was implemented through executive order 12852 here in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. So when you research the specifics of that topic, you quickly begin to see how all these people, NGO's and corporations become connected as they are all following the same blueprint whether the people working there are aware or not. What's unclear is how this pertains to the alternative community as it seems more covert. I only bring this up, because through my research of specific individuals who were heavily entrenched in the Agenda 21 aspects,....they're also conveniently embedded in the alternative community.

If anybody thinks the alternative media isn't corrupt they're kidding themselves and I believe this is the intent the author is trying to suggest. He's also showing how the same names keep popping up which is clearly obvious when you do some of the research on your own. I always tell people, don't just believe me, go research it yourself. I would say the same in regards to the material presented by the individual. The problem with this is most don't have the time and with how complex the issues have become, it takes several years to grasp and build a knowledge base. I'm going on 8 years myself and I can honestly say...I don't even know the half of it. I also think what can happen to a researcher who's been doing this for a while, is they can easily assume the reader has a knowledge base equivalent to their own and therefore don't always remember to properly cite. For the most part I could follow his entire article, but I'm pretty familiar with many of the people and situations cited...for someone new,... this type of research is overwhelming.

[bsbray]

Yes I understand your point, but what I underlined above does need to be taken into consideration especially when it appears our entire history is inaccurate thanks to former 'scholarly research', lmao.....

Right, and I said above that scholarly writing is still susceptible to corruption. But what is the alternative? We don't need to abandon good research methods. We just need to make sure that they are being honored and held to a high standard.

It's not always possible to apply the scientific method to historical events, since they happened in the past. But there are great standards that have been developed that allow us to get as close to the truth as possible, with whatever evidence we may have, while still leaving the door open for additional evidence. The people who have corrupted the study of history have also violated the kind of integrity that good research demands, and if someone digs deeply enough they can still see that, even for works published in the 1800's and earlier. People were apparently a lot more gullible in the 1800's. Reading some of those reports out of Egypt today is almost comical.

And of course we know how embedded the education system has become. So how 'valid' is the research he's citing? The average individual cannot follow every facet and detail.

You're right that most people can't follow every detail. Most people don't have to, and most people aren't even interested in the kind of research we're talking about. But when someone is interested, they should be able to dig into the writing and verify every detail if they want to. We need that transparency. We have to take personal responsibility for understanding what we're reading and determining for ourselves how trustworthy it is, but we should hold ourselves to the same high standards that we want from others. When we don't follow good standards for evidence as a community, we end up with Corey Goodes and a lot of other problems.

So the same logic being used to question the author's research tactics need to be applied to the 'scholarly research'. I for one don't have the time.

It really doesn't take long to verify sources if they are cited properly. If you take scholarly writing seriously and you are interested in the subject matter, you could just pick two or three at random from a paper or book and verify that they actually say what is claimed, and I think that's enough to establish a fair level of confidence. And if you find some specific information that is particularly important to you, that you think is especially a bombshell, you can check the original sources or arguments for that claim as well and see if it backs up what's being argued.

I don't even mind people making speculative comments, having suspicions and biases and all that. Everyone has bias on any given subject whether they realize it or not. There's nothing wrong with stating an opinion. What bothers me about the site in the OP is that it presents itself, not as opinions or speculation, but as thorough research, and then doesn't meet the standard in the actual content. So that's actually very misleading in itself, whether it was the author's attention or not. If you read the author's "About" page on the website, he doesn't explain his own background, but goes on and on about the history and traffic to his website, how many hours he's spent working on it, etc. etc. This is an amateur project by one guy who presents himself as an "institute" and is obviously very attentive to how much traffic he's bringing to his site, and the praise he's received for it over the past 12 years or so. So since we are already speculating on various individuals' personal motivations in the "alternative community," it seems to me that this is someone with a lot of time on their hands, that treats their website as their "baby" in a lot of ways, obviously has a fascination with the subject matter but maybe moreso with the idea of getting a lot of positive attention on the internet. At least from what I figure, the focus on the traffic and history of his website is more conscpicuous than his making sure that all of his claims are documented by some kind of supporting evidence.

Keep in mind the article is already mega huge...I can only imagine if he had listed everything on every topic he'd still be writing.

Yes, I think he's really bitten off a chunk of information way too big for him to chew properly. It would help if it were an actual "institute" and had a team of people broken up and assigned to specific areas. Maybe one day that kind of work will be done.

What's unclear is how this pertains to the alternative community as it seems more covert. I only bring this up, because through my research of specific individuals who were heavily entrenched in the Agenda 21 aspects,....they're also conveniently embedded in the alternative community.

Interesting. Maybe this is what Al Gore meant when he said he helped create the Internet.

The problem with this is most don't have the time and with how complex the issues have become, it takes several years to grasp and build a knowledge base. I'm going on 8 years myself and I can honestly say...I don't even know the half of it. I also think what can happen to a researcher who's been doing this for a while, is they can easily assume the reader has a knowledge base equivalent to their own and therefore don't always remember to properly cite. For the most part I could follow his entire article, but I'm pretty familiar with many of the people and situations cited...for someone new,... this type of research is overwhelming.

Well for the sake of people like me who haven't been doing all of that, I hope you do save all of your sources and include them in the end.

[Divine Feminine]

Well for the sake of people like me who haven't been doing all of that, I hope you do save all of your sources and include them in the end.

Here's one for ya! See more details here: http://jandeane81.com/threads/8967-L...#post841947857



'Caravan To Midnight' is hosted by John B. Wells/ Remarks made around the 1:57:00 mark FEB 2014

According to Major Bill Donahue, former NORAD employee, U.F.O.'s don't exist...well in so many words this is what he's saying...

“We saw everything that entered the atmosphere because everything that enters the atmosphere, that I’m aware of, creates a heat signature as it enters the atmosphere, and I never saw any UFO’s or anything we couldn’t identify. So, uh, while I would love to believe in UFO’s, I never saw any evidence of it while I worked at NORAD.” - Major Bill Donahue

[JRS]

ISGP=some truth+some disinfo? =MI6?

[Divine Feminine]

Tell us why JRS, more specifics please...what are you basing your assumptions on is what I'm getting at.

[Chester]

The problem is that,...

Just had to say that posts like this one are what make TOT priceless. Thanks bsbray, thanks staff of TOT and thanks, Malc, for creating TOT.

and this point -

Right, and I said above that scholarly writing is still susceptible to corruption. But what is the alternative? We don't need to abandon good research methods. We just need to make sure that they are being honored and held to a high standard.

I agree... having learned the hardest of ways (thank you 2015).