Anyone can become angry - that is
easy. But to be angry with the right person, to the right
degree, at the right time, for the right reasons, and in the
right way - that is not easy.
Aristotle
This update is written by myself, Bill
Ryan. I've not consulted my friend and colleague Kerry Cassidy
- you will see why if you read on below. And please, having started, do
read it all.
I'm angry, which doesn't often happen. Last night, this anonymous
article was published by Jeff Rense on his site. We had always
regarded Jeff as an ally, and would like to continue to do so.
Please read it carefully if you have not
already done so.
http://rense.com/general87/camelot.htm
Fitting every description of a smear piece [anonymity, vague
accusations, intention to discredit, no references or valid
informational content, the reader left feeling that something has
happened but is not sure what] ...we were surprised where it came from.
Kerry and I are supporters of Jeff's radio show and website, and have
often referenced him. With a minority of exceptions, we support his
stance on every issue. We've never quarreled with him and he's never
contacted us to clear up any questions about us that he might have. (If
you would like to do so, Jeff, we'll be pleased to reply.)
In the past, when attacked, we've always let the small fire burn out.
It's not our policy to seek or to nourish conflict, and this is not
where this open letter is coming from. But this very silly article is
being copied round the internet and a large number of supporters have
drawn our attention to it, and we need to say something. It's also a
timely opportunity to make some other statements.
First, to substantive issues: there is no connection between our
Project Camelot and
the one from the Kennedy era. We'd
not even heard of that until we Googled ourselves out of curiosity soon
after establishing our site. Clearly we were not the only people who
thought it was a good name.
As we've explained many times, on radio, on video, and in writing, the
idea of Project Camelot came soon after Kerry and I had met when
we were visiting Tintagel, in Cornwall, England, in April 2006. Tintagel
is believed by many to be a strong candidate for King Arthur's
Camelot, and having visited the place we could see why.
Driving back to London, where Kerry was due
to fly home after her four-day visit on the way back from Egypt, we came
to the idea to start what is now Project Camelot - and had the
entire thing visualized between us within minutes.
We have no handlers. We have no paymasters (alas!). No-one tells us what
to do. We report to nobody. Nothing we have ever done has been 'staged'
or in any way duplicitous. There are no 'plots'. There is no 'agenda'.
Very often we have no fixed idea ourselves what we're going to do until
pretty close to any particular event or meeting.
We are exactly who we say we are. If there's something about us you
don't know, then just ask. We're visible, and accessible, and operate
under our real names, with real photographs on real video. We're easy to
find. Come up to us at any conference and ask us any question. Thousands
of people have.
We give people as much time as we can. We do all this deliberately. We
do not write snide articles under the protection of anonymity. We state
our views clearly and openly. We protect OTHERS - but that's what we've
always promised to do. Followers of what we do cannot expect us to
reveal the names and addresses of everyone who reveals sensitive
information to us. To criticize us for protecting whistleblowers is
naive in the extreme.
Anyone who has met us in person knows who we are. It could hardly be
more obvious. We do not try to sell anything, and ALL our work is
available for free.
We have very little money: I live supported by the generosity of
friends, and Kerry usually [quite literally] does not know how she is
going to pay her next month's rent.
All our friends know this. And our enemies should, because it's easy to
check. We decided long ago that we'd not bother to hide anything, as
anyone with real resources would easily be able to find it all out
anyway.
Which is why the
Rense.com piece posted is either:
-
Written by someone who means well but
who has not done their homework (or lacks intel resources to
check who we really are)
-
Written by someone who does not care
what the truth is, but who has an agenda to smear us for reasons
unknown.
Of the latter, there are two
sub-possibilities:
Recently there are four things that have
happened which may have caused us to be attacked - after crossing a
'political' line:
-
Dr. Pete Peterson told us
information that he warned us we could be killed for. (We're
still awaiting his OK for the release of the video. More on this
in a later update.)
-
We publicly stated our opposition to
the prospect of mandatory vaccinations, expressing grave doubts
about the integrity and agenda of the authorities who are
selling the belief that mass vaccination will be 'necessary'.
-
We
publicly challenged the
motivation, information and agenda of Dr.
Steven Greer (who we are
sure has bona fide connections in high places, as he claims).
No-one else has ever dared to do that as we did. (We encourage
others to do so, by the way. Don't be afraid of the fire you may
draw. Something is very wrong with that picture. Most
researchers stay silent. We called him on his false
information.)
-
We have supported
Henry Deacon (Arthur
Neumann) in his recent, tentative, very brave, two-steps-forward
one-step-back efforts to speak out publicly about a tiny amount
of what he knows and has experienced. It seems that some people
really did not like that.
Our friend David Wilcock, a highly
intelligent, intuitive and well-informed researcher, has been -
alongside us - at the heart of supporting Henry/Arthur in speaking out.
Without any obvious reason, David too has
been smeared, in the most offensive and repugnant way, by some of the
same sources who have smeared us. Go figure. (David had the dignity to
remain silent. Kudos to him. He may be a more patient man than I am.)
Besides possibly offending some people in high places, we have been
criticized by some for the Steven Greer video. I need to say a
few things about that. At this point, you will see why I'm writing this
response myself.
We know that some people don't like our camerawork. (Yes, it's amateur:
but many people love it, since everything we do is a kind of home movie
as we invite viewers to share our ongoing experiences.)
We know some people don't like Kerry's interviewing style. That's okay,
too: there are many other videos to watch - too many, in fact - and
no-one is under contract to view or listen to our material.
We understand that many people were uncomfortable with how we (both)
confronted Steven Greer. We appreciated that some people found the video
hard to watch... we did ourselves! But we do not apologize for our
stance, and our substantive questions remain - and they are serious
ones.
And Kerry herself has come under fire. Here's my response. Read this
carefully.
Kerry Cassidy is one of the bravest people I have ever met.
She has more integrity in her little finger
than most people have in their whole being. In all the time I've known
her - and all the time I've spent with her (which is considerable:
despite not being a couple, we always share hotel rooms, and have
traveled for thousands of miles and for months out of every year).
-
I have never, EVER, known her to lie or
deceive in any way. I do not believe the thought ever enters her
head. This is an extraordinarily rare and valuable quality. Name me
another person, man or woman, who meets that test.
-
I've never, ever, known her to
deliberately hurt another person. Rather the opposite: she forgives
and always seeks to understand those who I sometimes myself
privately write off in my own moments of impatience and frustration.
-
She has the kind of courage that any
General would be proud of - and which many men lack. She is fearless
and has no concerns whatsoever for her own safety or about others'
opinions of her.
-
She is ALWAYS trying to do the right
thing. She and I have both made mistakes and errors of judgment -
but her intentions are honorable every time.
She is loyal, and determined, and committed
to the highest good, and I'm proud to work with her. She has explained
her interview style, which is seamless with her personality, and rightly
does not apologize for who she is. (One of our closest friends,
Bob Dean - you may remember that some air-heads
criticized Kerry for giving him a 'hard time' on camera - loves her to
pieces and is one of our staunchest allies. Go figure.)
Between us, we make up an extremely strong team. We complement one
another extraordinarily well. And we are far more than "interviewers" or
"journalists". It's not just our job to ask questions and keep dutifully
quiet.
We've been swimming in this material publicly, 24/7, for over three
years, literally night and day. Before that, we were students and
private researchers for decades, and have both had our own experiences.
(See this
interview of ourselves by Arjan Bos.
You may like it. You'll learn quite a lot about us and what makes us
tick.)
We know a great deal now, and are well-qualified to have our own strong,
well-informed opinions on a range of subjects. We do not apologize for,
or need to justify, the way we present our views - or the fact that we
present them at all.
One part of Jeff's posted article made me smile: the reference to the
"slick, well-funded website". That gives a clue that the authors of the
smear piece may be website amateurs. I do almost all of the web
work myself, and I barely know what I'm doing - I use Dreamweaver
and am always at the limit of my ability. I don't even use CSS, because
I don't know how.
That tells you something about the authors of the smear. Logic suggests
one should maybe look for whoever runs a website less [apparently]
"slick and well-funded" than ours. Someone with a good, professional
website immediately knows that we are challenged.
I am now no longer quite as angry as I was when I started writing this
response. This is a kind of war, in which one loses friends, and in
which one gets wounded, and sometimes wakes up discouraged, and
sometimes becomes enraged, and then often feels re-motivated all over
again.
We will continue to do our job - which we define ourselves. We stand for
humanity and for the potential transcendent magnificence of all people
(here and on other planets). There are forces here and elsewhere which
do not want that magnificence to manifest.
This is a spiritual war - as we have always stated.
Like
David Icke, we are in no doubt that the outcome will
be a good one - but between now and then there may be work for us
all to do.
Bill
