I would need to read every paragraph of this updated version of this article.
1. I have met (3-4 times at as many conferences) and talked with him probably 10-15 different times more or less 1:1, face to face.
2. I believe he is exceedingly authentic in terms of his presentation of himself as a quality physicist; more or less fun and extremely knowledgeable curmudgeonly UFO expert; character who enjoys public speaking; quality researcher in the field etc.
3. I believe essentially all the stuff he says as a physicist. I don’t detect any falsehood etc. in any of that stuff.
4. I believe all the stuff he says about debunkers and his vs their research methods and weaknesses.
5. He tends to be very conservative in terms of what he says IS. He’s very cautious in terms of his speculations—wording them carefully as such etc. He doesn’t go out on a limb and speculate very often.
6. He prefers to talk about only those things he’s pretty sure of from his own professional experience or personal research in dozens of archives.
7. He loves to shred debunkers on their own statements and is excellent at it. Easily shows the lot of them and several specific individuals up as clueless, disingenuous if not outright lying idiots.
8. My main concern about him is that he seems to have swallowed the party line about the critters are likely here to save us from ourselves or to protect The Federation from our warlike dangerousness.
9. Therefore, he’s quite probably wittingly or unwittingly some degree of a tool for the globalists. That’s very sad, to me. I’d suspected it but until a couple of conferences ago, had not heard him say anything directly implicating in such directions. Then I did. I felt very sad after that about his perspective and possible allegiances.
10. He’s Jewish. He’s probably more of an agnostic Jew than even a religious Jew, much less an earnest spiritual Jew but we haven’t really talked about that much and he’s not made elaborate comments on it, to my knowledge.
11. I still like him. I didn’t earnestly try and pull extra things out of him this conference in March. He’s very well experienced at handling the public and getting him to answer something with new information is extremely difficult. He is rather dismissive of run-of-the mill questions—giving the better ones stock answers and the poorer ones a humorous dismissive brush-off.
12. I’ve occasionally gotten him to be a little thoughtful in reply and offer what may have been a fresh answer to a carefully structured question on my part. It is NOT easy to do. And even then, his replies tend to be very short.
13. This last conference he was an also came and because of his stature was featured and spoke extra at least once. He happened to be in the NM and came on up for the local conference after his stint in Roswell or wherever just a bit earlier. I had been busy and had not spent any time thinking of good questions for him.
14. And for some reason, I didn’t feel like bothering this conference. It’s just a lot of mental work filtering through possible questions and wording for usually little return. All the good usual questions have been asked 100’s of times of him and he has stock brief answers all ready to play in a flash. That’s not greatly interesting to me.
15. Sometimes, it has SUBJECTIVVELY FELT LIKE his replies and stance are very, very polished, experienced . . . possibly trained for the role? I don’t know. After 700 different speeches and question and answer sessions, that alone would be quite a training.
16. The short answer after all the above is . . . yes I believe him. He’s basically an above average honest fellow who prefers to deal in well researched facts and to speak forthrightly, candidly, clearly. He has a good sense of humor and is rather likeable, sensible, logical, brilliant.
If you have further question, please feel free to ask. I’ll try and respond.
bttt