ET's to arrive in 2017; referred to as 'The Controllers'

[Joe Hillshoist]

Hugh thanks for the link to Paul Robeson's testimony to HUAC.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Hugh thanks for the link to Paul Robeson's testimony to HUAC.

Glad to share.

Recently Pacifica Radio played the tape of this historical 1956 encounter during fund raising week.

It was so stunning to hear that I wondered if it was theatrical re-enactment.
But it wasn't.

The fascist Senators kept interrupting and harangueing Robeson until he used his BIG righteous lawyer voice (he was a lawyer) to cut through the nonsense.
"LISTEN...TO ME." As though he'd caught kids abusing an animal. Or a country.

That's when I realized this was the hijacked history for that decoy movie's title.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Timing.

Clay Shaw's trial lasted from February 6-28, 1969.
That matches "Clay and Shawn's big 2008 UN-UFO Adventure."

Clay Shaw Trial 40th and 38th anniversaries TODAY.

Clay Shaw arrested..........3/1/67
Trial goes to jury............ 2/28/69.
Acquitted .......................3/1/69.


http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/garr/trial/contents.htm

Clay Shaw Trial Transcripts

On March 1, 1967, New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw was arrested for conspiracy in the murder of President John F. Kennedy. The arrest followed an investigation by the office of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, and the murder of prime suspect David Ferrie. Nearly two years later, the case went to trial (see the Orleans Parish Grand Jury transcripts for grand jury testimony during the intervening period).

The trial opened with witnesses from Clinton, Louisiana, who described an event wherein they witnessed Shaw and Oswald together. There was also testimony on the question of whether Clay Shaw was Clay Bertrand, an alias for the man Dean Andrews told the Warren Commission tried to hire him to defend Oswald after the assassination. Ultimately, the case for a murder conspiracy hung on the testimony of Perry Russo, who described being at a party with Shaw, Ferrie, and Oswald, in which a murder plot involving triangulation of gunfire was discussed.

The trial lasted about three weeks, and went to the jury on the evening of February 28, 1969. In the wee hours of March 1, almost exactly two years after his arrest, Clay Shaw was acquitted.

[Penguin]

Thanks Hugh for your analysis. Makes sense to me.

[redsock]

9) Source said the 2013 date of official contact is wrong. That is the date when things heat up. The real date of contact is 2017. It is on this date when very large craft will appear above cities and sit. There will be NO use of force; they will just sit there.

Well, I'm still marking my calendar.

P.S. 2017 is not a "date", it is a "year".

[sandymac]

Wow. For the first time I watched the movie JFK by Oliver Stone this past Thursday, February 28. Today is March 1 and I’m reading this thread. Below is an interesting encapsulation of Jim Garrison and his legacy. Tommy Lee Jones played Clay Shaw in the movie. Joe Pesci played David Ferrie. I gained new admiration for Oliver Stone and Kevin Costner. Incredibly well done movie. The closing statement made by Garrison during the trial was fantastic. He was able to get the Zapruder film and show it for the first time and described how ridiculous the “magic bullet theory” was – twisting and turning and entering and re-entering bodies, etc.

http://www.francesfarmersrevenge.com/stuff/archive/oldnews6/power.htm

[brainpanhandler]

Not surprised they're real humans at all. Love to know how they got those names-
drivers license, birth certificate, parents' intent. No matter.

The above was your first response at 9:07 pm to Jackriddler's 8:35 post where he pointed out that Clay and Shawn Pickering are real people he has met. Typical Hugh... dig your heels in, don't concede any ground whatsoever, not an inch. Knee jerk reaction... convenient argument... of course, they were given those names when they were taken into the employ of the cia. Could be... but, "no matter", a trifling point...

The following is another response from 11:31 to the same post by JR.

Watching a few YouTube minutes of these alleged 'Pickering brothers.' HAW HAW.

If the CIA isn't paying them, I'd be very surprised. What a sewer doth flow from their lips.

FIRST thing they mention is true, intelligence running drugs. But in a distorted way.
"The biggest drug dealers ever, George Bush and Bill Clinton."

Then it's off to the deep deep sewer to discredit this intel-drug connection.
IT'S LIKE SATIRE.

Or a repeat of Mel Gibson's 1997 movie, 'Conspiracy Theory.'

In less than 10 minutes they told us-
-Bill Clinton was Winton Rockefeller's son.
-William Cooper's 'Behold a Pale Horse' was real information.
-All the secret committee hearings of the 50s were about that darn UFO cover-up to protect the oil economy.
-There are alien ships that are alive and part of the alien piloting them.
-Bob Lazaz, David Adair, John Lear more good sources.
-Don't forget panspermia.
-Don't forget remote viewing.
-Don't forget ET's on the moon.
-And the slave base on the far side of the moon.

....I can't even keep up with the crap these guys are slinging. I can't watch a whole hour.

And they look like stoned FBI agents on the video.
Huge eyelids and straight out of the police academy appearances.

How do they keep straight faces? Probably the paychecks.

Now I doubt that "Clay and Shawn" are their names. No way.

"No way", nope. Now there is certainty, 100% certainty. Cannot be any other way. Yup, that's a wrap on that issue. No doubt. After all, they say such outrageous things and they look stoned.



Why does it seem like your second response suggests you were not satisfied with your first response. Maybe it's not such a trifling point. Maybe it does matter. But really, even if Clay and Shawn are their birth names why is it such a stretch to figure that they were chosen because their names served as convenient KWHings? That's too much of a stretch for you?

I believe the whole thing is bogus mainly because the odds are, it is. I've not watched the video of the Pickerings, but from Hugh's description I will have a similar reaction although that will be a little less ironic.

It seems there is a consensus that the business about the hindus having the most difficulty with the controllers is the dead give away. If there were no reference to hindus having a hard time with contact would the whole thing then be much more believable? It seems to me that the hoaxsters would likely have known that this would seem at odds with what ufo enthusiasts understand about hindu mythology and vimanas and such. So, why would the hoaxsters deliberately undermine their own hoax in this way? Maybe the author mistakenly believed that an error like this would lead conspiracy theorists to produce a theory which would explain the apparent discrepancy with a more conventional expectation. Conspiracy theorists become accustomed to turning things inside out. I suppose if I thought about it long enough I might find a way to support the argument that hindus would have the most trouble with contact.

BTW Hugh... the NSA/Disney post is truly fantastic.

[orz]

Does anyone else think that the entire thing is made up? I do.

Does anyone have any non-emotional reason to thing otherwise?

[JackRiddler]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_michael__080220_confirmation__26_updat.htm

[.......]

[Report Follows]

[color=darkblue]----- Original Message ----
From: Shawn and Clay
To: drsalla@exopolitics.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 9:21:17 AM
Subject: Follow up of source's UFO meeting at the UN


Dear Michael,

This email is a follow up of the UN meeting which took place Tuesday 12, 2008 at 8;00AM.

[.......]

9) Source said the 2013 date of official contact is wrong. That is the date when things heat up. The real date of contact is 2017. It is on this date when very large craft will appear above cities and sit. There will be NO use of force; they will just sit there. Source stated the "Independence Day" film was close, but their ships are not that big and, again, no use of force will occur. Our source cannot reveal his source for the 2017 date. His source is very high up in the government/military/intelligence structure.

10) Source stated that it is our choice how we embrace this contact.

11) The ET's who will arrive on 2017 are referred to as "The Controllers." They are a "galactic federation" type group; however, "galactic federation" is not the real name for their group--it is hypothetical name used as a reference.

12) The controllers have a keen sense of freedom and free will. They will not intervene and help humanity if humanity does not show them we want their help. If some entropic event happens (nuclear war), the controllers will not make contact. "This is something they will not tolerate," our source stated.

God damn it, what did we do wrong?!

[jingofever]

11) The ET's who will arrive on 2017 are referred to as "The Controllers." They are a "galactic federation" type group; however, "galactic federation" is not the real name for their group--it is hypothetical name used as a reference.

God damn it, what did we do wrong?!

I have it from a good source, an anonymous reddit post about alien abductions, that the true date of revelation is either 8 July 2021 or 18 July 2021. The post is from 2014 and back then it seemed pretty far-fetched, but now I don't totally discount the idea.

[Harvey]

God damn it, what did we do wrong?!

'We' banned Hugh and Mac. Once they're returned to us, the alien visitation will go ahead as planned.

[Wombaticus Rex]

God damn it, what did we do wrong?!

'We' banned Hugh and Mac. Once they're returned to us, the alien visitation will go ahead as planned.

I love to say it every chance I get: "We" is a hell of a drug. And, you're right.

Discussions of cause and effect belong here, especially since they inform all of our other conversations, about everything: we, ourselves are proof that small decisions made in even smaller circles shape communities, and countries, and outcomes. Seldom for the better. Worse yet, large-scale democracy results in results that are little better, and often worse. It makes a man want to swear.

As someone doing his job, je regrette rien when it comes to Hugh, he was over the line every time, for years.

Softened by the distance of years and my respect for Hugh, I can only say today: I took too long and for that I apologize.

It was no different than Mac's recent extended barfight in the lounge: you either expect norms enforced or you watch it slide, and as longtime moderator here, I have done both! Only one of those approaches worked. Looking back now, I only regret the "laziness and inaction" parts. You have to do your job.

As an RI participant, a mere fan, his precise mix of erudite, novel references and W. Cleon Skousen analytic overlay was both essential, and essential chaff to protect other voices here who have since departed. A dick, but I like the dude.

Working in security, I'd keep noticing the same thing: the men I had the biggest problems with, I didn't have that much of a real problem with. They were generally men I could befriend. In the immortal words of noted activist Bill Clinton, I felt their pain -- only with less cynicism and no coke habit. They had reasons for being wound-up and angry, I could enjoy a beer with most of them, and sometimes did.

They also had to be kicked out when they showed up drunk and angry. They did! This is the only way bars can work.

And the failure to set that example, that standard, immediately leads to problems with morale and maintenance. Seent it.

In retrospect, watching things get poisoned here, along with Anon x Occupy circles, was half my education. I hope any of this helps, I've had great success in recent years building other communities based on a lot of prior failures, my time here at RI, and a whole lot of failures after that, too.

I hope to see RI get very weird from here, and I'm neither kidding nor trolling when I say that the "Q Anon Grandpa Discourse" is something I would like to see tolerated here. 2020 marks the end of a 12 year reign, a three-term sprint on the nonsense notion that any living presidential candidate could represent a serious threat, change, or even reform to the system behind the empire that runs the modern world.

To me, this is plain as balls, but I understand that it won't register for most of the remaining registered voters here in these United States where most motherfuckers don't vote at all.

The slime trail of power is guided by unspeakably cynical things and takes advantage of all participants in the spectacle -- especially the critics! -- to prevail.

I love you all but when I start seeing people here sharing John Oliver videos produced for HBO by the team behind The Daily Show, I almost start to wonder. These are the same crack dealers who created the problem. I am concerned about your discernment.

And Vice is Rupert Murdoch. Let all these parasites die for lack of blood. Let's get subversive again.

[PufPuf93]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Do you think the World nears the chaos required for a global nuclear war?

What is more likely to initiate global nuclear war?

Plans to rule the World by an aggressor or a cascading series of converging events.

What is more likely?

ETs arriving or global nuclear war?

I would wager that if ETs should arrive they will be strange and novel beyond human comprehension.

I miss most of the folks that are gone, whether banned or bored. RI could use more weirdness. Wish I had more energy and brain.

[dada]

Space aliens might be present rght now, who would know it. The ships could be parked above the cities, who could see them. But no, let's have faith in our planet's military intelligence. I mean, they must know. With their trillions and their high IQs, how could they not, right?

Strange and novel beyond human comprehension? That's an entirely relative matter, isn't it.

If I were a space alien sent here on some stupid mission or another, I'd probably just beam into a human. Who would know?

[Harvey]

@Wombaticus Rex

Thanks for that. An unexpectedly fullsome response, and informative too. I realise Hugh and mac were banned for 'reasons' and respect your insight into the do's and don'ts of moderating this outpost on the frontier, this liminal lounge, and Jack's too, he's been in touch to fill out the context for me as well. I appreciate the specifics of your interactions with Hugh (and allusions to Jack's interactions with Mac) and I probably wouldn't have done any differently were I in your shoes. But, given that we all sense the importance of the ecosystem here, in a way none of us can define but which we all understand intuitively, can we at least try re-introduce some valuable species back into the wild. See how things go? You want it weird after all (as do I.)

To me, this is plain as balls

Yes it is, and I concur with most of the rest of your take.