Bill
Ryan:
An Open Letter to Jeff Rense
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
_____________________________
An Open Letter to Jeff Rense
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]
28 August 2009
• 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.
https://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:
---- We may have upset someone personally.
---- We may have upset someone politically.
Recently there are four things that have happened which may have caused us to be attacked - after crossing a 'political' line:
1) 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.)
2) 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'.
3) 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.)
4) 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
__________________________
|
|
|
 |
