Cory Duchesne wrote:Carl G wrote:Why would someone's confession necessarily be random if it were to a known researcher? Would a known researcher in the field really be considered a stranger, the same as any person on the street?
But why would an evil reptilian confess? These are the blood drinking ceremonies of the illuminati, remember.
What if there are various levels within the hypothetical evil reptilian illuminati organization, and someone on a lower rung so far as pedigree and position decides he doesn't dig the scene? What if he finds a bone to pick with a higher up, say within his own family, and wants to bring him down a notch. What if he has a girlfriend on the outside, and the family says you can't marry her, and he goes "fuck you, I'm outta here," and they have her killed, and he says "alright, you're going down." Only of course nobody's going down, but some stuff gets exposed when the disgruntled family member rats to a researcher of this hypothetical group. There are many possible scenarios, that is just one. The point is, why make assumptions when discussing the subject of "evil reptilians"? Why assume what they would or wouldn't do?
They may have had later misgivings about what they had done. They may have a revenge motive.
None of that makes sense because these ceremonies are for illuminati members who are reptilian.
Again, why make assumptions, such as if they are illuminati members then it doesn't make sense that one of them might confess? Wouldn't we need more info as to their true nature, logically speaking?
And if they are unwilling participants [snip]
But hold on. Why would the reptillian illuminati require human participants in their ceremonies?
There could be many reasons. Perhaps it is the emotion of fear that they feed on, and the blood of a terrified young blond virgin female human is the best source for that. Again, why imply that this doesn't make sense, logically speaking, without knowing the actual nature of the beings or group in question. By the same token does it make any sense that certain animals devour their young? But they do, who'd a thunk it?
the police, instead of publishing? Is blood-drinking a crime? Are the police open to investigating reports of such ceremonies? What if the hypothetical ceremony in question involves so-called pillars of the community?
If anyone spied from the outside, they would have taken pictures of these pillars of the community.
Again, not necessarily. They could have been listening instead of viewing. The participants may have altered their appearance via masks, cloaks, or shapeshifting, and their voices. And again, collusion from the power structures -- let's say the commissioner of police is a Masonic initiate, and more than a few have been or are -- well, then, how far would an investigation get? A web of deceit, a web of influence -- can spread far and wide. Who would believe a witness of such a bizarre ceremony? How are those treated who see UFOs? How are those treated in our society who experience ghosts? How are those treated who report that Henry Ford built tanks for the Nazis, and the fact that Prescott Bush, father of President George, helped fund Hitler?
Who cares what most people think? Is that really your litmus test?
If you care about spreading your view, you should make sure that your messenger is not prone to fantasy and delusion
Well, that's just not true. Most views are spread today through messengers and mediums rife with fantasy and delusion. It works well. Besides that it would be hard to find a messenger free of those poor qualities, it works well. It's just buyer beware all the time. If one is interested in truth, one must learn how to sift. Very few pure channels outside the Tao Te Ching.
(Icke used to only wear turquoise and publically made bold and very false predictions)
Because of something he did 18 years ago is no reason to disqualify him as a valid source of information now. It is up to the individual to winnow wheat from chaff, not to seek perfect bread made by others for him. The question with any material is always what is the ratio of wheat to chaff; it needs to be high, otherwise the work of threshing isn't worthwhile.
because such messengers are only listened to by similarly foolish minds.
This sounds like a wise aphorism, but in fact is simplistic generalization. As I said the pure stream is extremely rare, and lesser waters must be panned for gold as well.
Writings aside, life itself is like this. One must winnow from experiences and make choices based on what is potentially good and high and most valuable, gleaning truth and grace from the coarse and superfluous, if one is interested.
