"Awake and Aware" Conference 2011 (Project Camelot)

[anart]

Well, that might mean something or it might not. I don't think we can read too much into it. What if Kerry was used to driving an automatic car and this rental van was manual? I know all sorts of people who would have difficulties reversing a rental van down unfamiliar terrain!

I agree - the way a person drives isn't really 'fair territory' for deciding what sort of person they are. I think that Kerry's actions will always be louder than her words, as are everyone's. In this case, I don't think we need to go on a personal attack of Kerry - I don't think it's necessary nor is it wise. That's NOT the point. The entire core of the issue here is facts - truth - and the relaying of such. What Kerry does is entertainment and what Laura does is education. It's Kerry's choice to do what she does, it's just incredibly unfortunate due to the history of promoting hysteria regarding bodies following comets and all the people who died unnecessarily last time. One would think that was enough of a lesson for anyone - yet - Kerry is promoting such hysteria again. It's exceedingly unfortunate.

There IS a truth here and that is what matters and come November I think it's going to be blatantly obvious. Will these people involved in the disinformation and hysteria campaign apologize at that point? If history serves, they won't, but we'll see.

 

[mkrnhr]

"it's a goat, even if it flies!" that's the essence of the spaceship or planet-X nonsense: "if it looks like a comet, if it behaves like a comet, if it moves like a comet, then it is a.... spaceship!". The level of disinformation is deteriorating, seriously!

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Wow. Let's take a look at this. First of all, our conference if you have bothered to listen is a rather sober affair and costs money to view.... so whoever does so is not in a crowded theater but at home presumably watching on their computer screen.

Right away this is missing the point entirely. How many people, at home watching on their computer screen, after hearing Hoagland's baseless claims, will believe him? A lot, I think. Hoagland has a long history of making baseless claims, presenting his own daydreams as if they were incontrovertible truth. And it follows the typical disinformation tactic used by government plants and shills in the media, "We've heard from confidential inside intelligence sources that Bin Laden is planning a major attack on US soil, blah blah." The point being that what he is saying is baseless, possibly inflammatory, and irresponsible.

It's a calm and scientific discussion with many points of view about Elenin and other incoming bodies... And Hoagland's claim that Elenin may be a controlled body/comet sent to "usher in a new age" is simply his current hypothesis based on his current research.

There's a difference between an hypothesis and simply a baseless assertion. For a good hypothesis, one should have some actual data to back it up, not the word of "anonymous insiders".

What seems to be the problem with having serious researchers get together and exchange their views with whatever supporting evidence and logic they have to bring forward?

What logic? What supporting evidence?

I replied that the last time I looked free speech was alive and well on the net.

This is a baldly paramoralistic statement. There's a difference between stifling free speech and not giving disinformation artists another venue to spout their disinfo. Hoagland has his own website. He can post what he wants. But people with a brain should be responsible enough to call people like him on it.

 

[Chu]

"it's a goat, even if it flies!" that's the essence of the spaceship or planet-X nonsense: "if it looks like a comet, if it behaves like a comet, if it moves like a comet, then it is a.... spaceship!".

This would be hilarious if it wasn't so descriptive of what is actually happening!

I replied that the last time I looked free speech was alive and well on the net.

This is a baldly paramoralistic statement. There's a difference between stifling free speech and not giving disinformation artists another venue to spout their disinfo. Hoagland has his own website. He can post what he wants. But people with a brain should be responsible enough to call people like him on it.

And this:

And what is she so frightened about? Actually if this is a controlled or piloted craft it has a lot more to do with who is doing the piloting rather than a "doomsday scenario". In fact, what was stressed by several of the speakers in our conference is that this is not, Nibiru or Planet X and that there is no catastrophic scenario associated with it according to our evidence.

It either shows a serious inability to think, or I don't know what if it is not an agenda.

Laura, frightened? Only because she pointed out the obvious? Gee...

How about none of the above? What is the data to back up that it might be something "piloted"? And if it is not (obviously), why would it only have to imply a "doomsday scenario"? At least not in the way she seems to be implying it.

Her whole post seems to me as an attempt to mud the waters (or maybe she is confused herself), instead of sticking to the facts. That's her right, if she wants to promote "free speech", but I can't help feeling sorry for the audience who is not always capable of discerning between true facts, plausible hypotheses and pure lies and ridiculous assumptions...

 

[Rabelais]

Well, that might mean something or it might not. I don't think we can read too much into it. What if Kerry was used to driving an automatic car and this rental van was manual? I know all sorts of people who would have difficulties reversing a rental van down unfamiliar terrain!

I agree, but her issues with the car were a bit more than what would normally be expected of someone even in an unfamiliar vehicle. It needed to be seen. The terrain was perfectly flat and straight.

 

[Joe]

Well, here is Kerry's reply to Ryan X's article posted on July 11th:

Hi all,

It has been brought to my attention that Laura Knight-Jadczyk and company are making claims in regard to Richard C. Hoagland's statements during our Elenin conference... without having watched it and checking their facts or context of statements being made. Not the sign of good research.

Ryan X of SOTT.NET wrote the following..."What Cassidy, Hoagland and others have started here is most shameful. Presenting Comet Elenin as a spacecraft sent to "usher in a New Age" is just plain irresponsible considering the recent history of such claims. The UFO and contactee community tends to house some of the more mentally unstable individuals. These claims by Hoagland as promoted by Cassidy seemingly amount to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater."

Wow. Let's take a look at this. First of all, our conference if you have bothered to listen is a rather sober affair and costs money to view.... so whoever does so is not in a crowded theater but at home presumably watching on their computer screen. It's a calm and scientific discussion with many points of view about Elenin and other incoming bodies... And Hoagland's claim that Elenin may be a controlled body/comet sent to "usher in a new age" is simply his current hypothesis based on his current research.

For the record I don't agree with him about that part of his analysis but he has a right to voice his opinion in the Camelot Roundtable discussion format that we are pioneering on the web at this time.

What seems to be the problem with having serious researchers get together and exchange their views with whatever supporting evidence and logic they have to bring forward? Does Laura and team have a problem with open discussion in a public forum? It would seem so.

And what is she so frightened about? Actually if this is a controlled or piloted craft it has a lot more to do with who is doing the piloting rather than a "doomsday scenario". In fact, what was stressed by several of the speakers in our conference is that this is not, Nibiru or Planet X and that there is no catastrophic scenario associated with it according to our evidence.

And yes, whistleblower testimony... Way back when I interviewed her, Laura could be classified as one herself as I recall. Don't knock it. You may find yourself in that role sometime in the future...

Take it for what you will... We put out our views and information.. how it all works together is still to be determined. The primary conclusion of our conference, if you want to call it that is that we need more information.

What people won't be aware of is I asked Laura if she wanted to join us on the discussion because she wrote to me before it happened saying we would have "blood on our hands".. obviously making an assumption about conclusions she expected us to reach before we had even had the discussion!

I replied that the last time I looked free speech was alive and well on the net.

Let's hope it stays that way.

Kerry Cassidy
Project Camelot

My god! I don't think I've ever seen anyone miss the point so consistently in such a short response:

so whoever does so is not in a crowded theater but at home presumably watching on their computer screen

Does Kerry really not get the symbolism of "shouting fire in a crowded theatre"?? And that it doesn't actually mean that anyone is accusing her of gathering people together in a theatre????

What seems to be the problem with having serious researchers get together and exchange their views with whatever supporting evidence and logic they have to bring forward? Does Laura and team have a problem with open discussion in a public forum? It would seem so.

Serious researchers?? When there is NO scientific evidence for Elenin being anything other than a space rock? Laura and her team have a BIG problem with people spouting dangerous nonsense and will always take steps to point out that it is dangerous nonsense.

And what is she so frightened about? Actually if this is a controlled or piloted craft it has a lot more to do with who is doing the piloting rather than a "doomsday scenario".

Is Kerry REALLY this ignorant? Is she really honestly just missing the point here? Laura was not referring to a "doomsday scenario" (she and we have made that point clear over and over, that Elenin is not going to obliterate life on earth), the scenario is idiots like Hoagland being given a stage to spout dangerous nonsense about Elenin being a "piloted craft". The last time someone made such a claim 39 people committed suicide in order to join a craft that was supposedly hidden behind comet Hale Bopp!

Does Kerry have the common sense to make this simple connection? Apparently not.

 

[Joe]

Well, that might mean something or it might not. I don't think we can read too much into it. What if Kerry was used to driving an automatic car and this rental van was manual? I know all sorts of people who would have difficulties reversing a rental van down unfamiliar terrain!

I agree, but her issues with the car were a bit more than what would normally be expected of someone even in an unfamiliar vehicle. It needed to be seen. The terrain was perfectly flat and straight.

I've met Kerry, and I'm not into commenting on intellectual abilities in order to make a point, but in Kerry's case I think I have enough evidence to conclude that she is 'intellectually challenged' or 'not the full shilling' as they say in Ireland. She has drive and charisma, but that's dangerous when mixed with an inability to grasp the subtleties of a situation.

 

[Oxajil]

Re: "Awake and Aware" Conference 2011 (Project Camelot)

For the record I don't agree with him about that part of his analysis but he has a right to voice his opinion in the Camelot Roundtable discussion format that we are pioneering on the web at this time.

[...]

I replied that the last time I looked free speech was alive and well on the net.

I don't really get that. She doesn't agree, yet she gives him the opportunity to speak up in her own organized Roundtable?? If I had a Roundtable on any kind of subject, should I just invite every person who has done some ''research'' and has formed an ''opinion''? Or should I invite people who's work I have triple-checked, and atleast has been proven to be objectively true? It has nothing to do with ''free speech''...

One could say that people should be allowed to decide for themselves what is the truth, after seeing ''all'' on the subject (so they should be shown ''all'' opinions f.e. on the subject. Opinions which all supposedly could be true). But you surely won't see me inviting any pro-abusers explaining why abuse is a good thing on a topic of abusement, this would basically be me giving them a shot at getting supporters. If I would do so, out of ''free speech'' or maybe so that the viewer can see all ''opinions'' on this subject and make up their own mind, I'm still supporting the pro-abusers this way. Just like she is supporting Hoagland by giving him a chance of his disinfo being reached by more people, even if she doesn't agree with him.

People will follow what they like, so there is no point in worrying about free speech or about representing all kinds of opinions. But of course, a wider range of subjects and opinions (no matter how silly) means a larger audience, which means more $$.

It's not about showing the viewer the whole menu of all kinds of things they can pick from, rather they should be shown a fine quality of carefully prepared and examined foods to pick from, information in this case, ....that is what a viewer should be worth of. Not some opinions based on air by so-called researchers. That's not being respectable to oneself, and to the viewer.

Whether she's doing all of this unconciously or conciously, she's surely playing with fire.... Just some thoughts.

 

[mcb]

I agree, but her issues with the car were a bit more than what would normally be expected of someone even in an unfamiliar vehicle. It needed to be seen. The terrain was perfectly flat and straight.

Well then I wouldn't want you to observe me backing into my own garage in my own car. I never know where it is going to end up, although at least I haven't hit anything in quite a few months now.

In both cases there might be something unusual going on but without knowing more, how could you draw conclusions from that particular behavior?

You have plenty of other things to go on, though. I tried not too successfully to follow Hoagland's reasoning for a while, years ago. It's the sort of thing you can end up doing when you don't know where to look next. When I see what he is saying now, I just want to get away. I am not impressed with any of these folks. But I don't think that difficulty driving backwards has much to do with it.

 

[LMJ]

"it's a goat, even if it flies!" that's the essence of the spaceship or planet-X nonsense: "if it looks like a comet, if it behaves like a comet, if it moves like a comet, then it is a.... spaceship!". The level of disinformation is deteriorating, seriously!

Very good! :D

 

[RyanX]

Well, here is Kerry's reply to Ryan X's article posted on July 11th:

Hi all,

It has been brought to my attention that Laura Knight-Jadczyk and company are making claims in regard to Richard C. Hoagland's statements during our Elenin conference... without having watched it and checking their facts or context of statements being made. Not the sign of good research.

Ryan X of SOTT.NET wrote the following..."What Cassidy, Hoagland and others have started here is most shameful. Presenting Comet Elenin as a spacecraft sent to "usher in a New Age" is just plain irresponsible considering the recent history of such claims. The UFO and contactee community tends to house some of the more mentally unstable individuals. These claims by Hoagland as promoted by Cassidy seemingly amount to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater."

Wow. Let's take a look at this. First of all, our conference if you have bothered to listen is a rather sober affair and costs money to view.... so whoever does so is not in a crowded theater but at home presumably watching on their computer screen. It's a calm and scientific discussion with many points of view about Elenin and other incoming bodies... And Hoagland's claim that Elenin may be a controlled body/comet sent to "usher in a new age" is simply his current hypothesis based on his current research.

For the record I don't agree with him about that part of his analysis but he has a right to voice his opinion in the Camelot Roundtable discussion format that we are pioneering on the web at this time.

What seems to be the problem with having serious researchers get together and exchange their views with whatever supporting evidence and logic they have to bring forward? Does Laura and team have a problem with open discussion in a public forum? It would seem so.

And what is she so frightened about? Actually if this is a controlled or piloted craft it has a lot more to do with who is doing the piloting rather than a "doomsday scenario". In fact, what was stressed by several of the speakers in our conference is that this is not, Nibiru or Planet X and that there is no catastrophic scenario associated with it according to our evidence.

And yes, whistleblower testimony... Way back when I interviewed her, Laura could be classified as one herself as I recall. Don't knock it. You may find yourself in that role sometime in the future...

Take it for what you will... We put out our views and information.. how it all works together is still to be determined. The primary conclusion of our conference, if you want to call it that is that we need more information.

What people won't be aware of is I asked Laura if she wanted to join us on the discussion because she wrote to me before it happened saying we would have "blood on our hands".. obviously making an assumption about conclusions she expected us to reach before we had even had the discussion!

I replied that the last time I looked free speech was alive and well on the net.

Let's hope it stays that way.

Kerry Cassidy
Project Camelot

I find it interesting that Kerry is going so far out of her way to defend Hoagland even though she claims to not share his views. If that really is the case, why then even air Hoagland's drivel? I mean, yeah, her excuse is that she's for 'free speech' and all that, but given the historical context of such claims (Heavan's Gate mass suicide) can this really be a valid excuse for giving Hoagland a platform? (Hence my fire in a crowded theater analogy.) I guess when it comes to entertainment - which is what this video conference is - there are no limits to 'free speech'. It's whatever sells... even if the message has the potential to harm others.

Now if Hoagland's statements were taken out of context, then what was that context we're missing? She doesn't specify here. I've listened to the excerpts of Hoagland at the conference on YouTube. It sounded like the same word-salad nonsense we've been picking apart for years on this forum. There's no evidence and no proof of anything he claims. It's a straight disinfo job. In fact, there's a lot more I could have said about it but didn't because my focus was on his claims about Comet Elenin.

This is what I watched: _http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5s9NVzEo3c Check it out for yourself if you like headaches.

And no, I did not listen to the whole conference. My time is valuable and a 5 hour conference on a topic ripe with disinformation sounds like a big waste of time. Not to mention $33 seems a bit pricey to me. If they can't catch my eye in a few short paragraphs, then I'm not going to give them my audience for 5 full hours. I felt that I had sifted through enough BS YouTube videos and blogs when writing that article. By that point I thought I had a pretty good track on the line of force for all this Elenin business. Also, my article wasn't exclusively about the Cassidy/Hoagland disinfo trap; there's a lot more to it than that.

Ultimately, I have nothing personal against Kerry Cassidy; she comes off as sounding like a very nice lady. A bit naive perhaps, but not much different than a lot of folks I've met. She's trying to earn her living just like the rest of us living in a world of lies.

But as far as what she presents as being any sort of beacon of truth, well... it is far from it, I'm sorry to say.

 

[vinny]

I find it interesting that Kerry is going so far out of her way to defend Hoagland even though she claims to not share his views. If that really is the case, why then even air Hoagland's drivel? I mean, yeah, her excuse is that she's for 'free speech' and all that, but given the historical context of such claims (Heavan's Gate mass suicide) can this really be a valid excuse for giving Hoagland a platform? (Hence my fire in a crowded theater analogy.) I guess when it comes to entertainment - which is what this video conference is - there are no limits to 'free speech'. It's whatever sells... even if the message has the potential to harm others.

[...]

Ultimately, I have nothing personal against Kerry Cassidy; she comes off as sounding like a very nice lady. A bit naive perhaps, but not much different than a lot of folks I've met. She's trying to earn her living just like the rest of us living in a world of lies.

My reading of the situation (and I could be mistaken) is that Kerry is identified with the idea of 'free speech' but in a somewhat naive way - ie: she is missing the realisation of how that concept can be abused. So she does not see that enabling/encouraging people to spout drivel is contrary to true freedom. For people to have real freedom of thought, invalid ideas, faulty reasoning, incorrect data etc all have to be dissected and pointed out, and personal identification with particular ideas has to be overcome, otherwise freedom of speech morphs into 'freedom to mislead'. (Much like the way the concept of 'freedom to trade' has been ponerised into the modern free-market 'freedom to rip people off'.)

An inability to grasp this subtlety is rather dangerous, especially if one is in the public eye as a commentator on important issues.

Either that, or she's doing it on purpose, which I have no way to know but it sounds somewhat unlikely in this case.

 

[Rabelais]

I agree, but her issues with the car were a bit more than what would normally be expected of someone even in an unfamiliar vehicle. It needed to be seen. The terrain was perfectly flat and straight.

Well then I wouldn't want you to observe me backing into my own garage in my own car. I never know where it is going to end up, although at least I haven't hit anything in quite a few months now.

In both cases there might be something unusual going on but without knowing more, how could you draw conclusions from that particular behavior?

You have plenty of other things to go on, though. I tried not too successfully to follow Hoagland's reasoning for a while, years ago. It's the sort of thing you can end up doing when you don't know where to look next. When I see what he is saying now, I just want to get away. I am not impressed with any of these folks. But I don't think that difficulty driving backwards has much to do with it.

I have been following the Bill Ryan show for longer than it has been a topic on this forum. I have watched Project Camelot evolve into it's present state from the notoriety that Ryan stumbled into by being the one tasked with spreading the Serpo tale. I suspect that neither Bill or Kerry consciously planned this level of exposure. Were they just useful idiots who happened to be at the right place at the right time?

The driving incident was not a defining act, in and of itself. It was simply one more confirmation in a long string of observations, over a reasonably long period of time, pointing to the symptoms of cognitive dissonance in both of the principal participants of Project Camelot. I think that this is obviously born out in their productions. That was why I mentioned it in this thread. I seriously doubt that your difficulties in getting the car out of your garage match the manic driving demonstration that I witnessed.

 

[anart]

I have been following the Bill Ryan show for longer than it has been a topic on this forum. I have watched Project Camelot evolve into it's present state from the notoriety that Ryan stumbled into by being the one tasked with spreading the Serpo tale. I suspect that neither Bill or Kerry consciously planned this level of exposure. Were they just useful idiots who happened to be at the right place at the right time?

The driving incident was not a defining act, in and of itself. It was simply one more confirmation in a long string of observations, over a reasonably long period of time, pointing to the symptoms of cognitive dissonance in both of the principal participants of Project Camelot. I think that this is obviously born out in their productions. That was why I mentioned it in this thread. I seriously doubt that your difficulties in getting the car out of your garage match the manic driving demonstration that I witnessed.

Considering it was most certainly a rented car, I think you're making too much out of it and it's actually rather off topic. I think it would be beneficial to actually focus on the topic at hand - the conference, the disinformation, the handling of lies. Your having followed them for so long is on topic and worthy of discussion, but their, or anyone's, driving really appears to be a personal attack and we try to avoid that, since it usually does little good, is subjective, and actually detracts from following the line of force of the discussion. fwiw.

 

[Jefferson]

I could have summed it up by saying that this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BrSVOOK610

should be the conference theme song

Thanks for link Joe, perfect theme for the conference!
Let's all just "close our eyes and concentrate", everybody all togetha now :)

Oh I had a great chuckle especially the emphasized line "we are your friends" - oh yeah! (somethings make you laugh even though they really aren't that humourous when you think about them, for example, real research on alien phenomenon)

Jefferson