CIA's StarGate Files
Archived from the former firedocs blog. 21 August 2005.
Who'd be stupid enough to trust the CIA? I'm a conservative patriot and even I'm not that dense. The release of nearly 100,000 pages of "STAR GATE" program files is just another example of why. (They'll all be available soon at www.dojopsi.info.) The joke's on us, as usual.
This is the unimportant dregs of nearly 20 years, of a selected (read: "already known, so why not admit to them") number of projects, which the CIA compiled under one umbrella they call The STAR GATE program. This so anybody looking for stuff under any project name will find only "stargate" stuff and not stuff that might have been in other projects we don't know about and they aren't admitting to if they exist. The records are the equivalent of all the crap you would throw away if you were condensing your files into what mattered. I can't count how many are literally blank. Or have nothing worth seeing. Sessions with no feedback. Stuff that actually will mislead people clueless about who was involved in the viewing in the program, when, and what really went on, and more.
So, Daz has been the diehard going through all this stuff looking for things of interest. There is not a helluva lot. Ironically one of the most interesting things was a session McMoneagle did at TMI, on some Mars Anomalies RV'd--it wasn't even done in the unit, someone essentially had to steal it and put it IN the unit records in order for it to be there. (Well that's ok really given the sessions didn't belong to Skip Atwater either, but he put them on his website and in his book.) And let's not start on all the BS that went on while the unit was in progress anyway; but certainly, 20 years after the fact, releasing a very creative compilation of unimportant crap that accounts for perhaps 5%, and making it seem like you did the world a big favor -- what nonsense.
It's sad people were naive enough to think the CIA would do anything to clarify rather than to obscurate (my word. Obscurify, maybe?) the situation. It's sad to see them disappointed but worse when they think they can actually conclude anything based on this stuff.
Posts
2 comments:
Wow - I like what you had to say about "church". It would seem that if the extant church had any concern about people leaving their spirituality, they would make a point of stressing that people needed to learn to separate the church from god. I didn't find peace in myself until I learned to do that, and when I meet people who are similarly conflicted I remind them that that's what they need to do - you can see the relief spread across their faces when they hear that.
In making your statement about "women hating men" you made one big mistake - you generalized. It is never that simple. Sometimes it takes a lifetime for a woman to realize that she has been dealing with a patriarchy that has undermined her from day one; what she could have been if she had not had that working against her! You take that and throw in a nasty divorce and sure she is going to be a little "antsy". Wouldn't you be? My god, between my brainwashing father and my school that did not and would not promote the intelligent females in the classroom to the jobs I held where I made 3 dollars less an hour than the person who had a penis dangling between his legs, to not being able to make a decision about what I was going to do with my womb because some jerk of a congressman sold out to a special interest group, well sure I'm angry, as any half aware human being would be! Things are better than they used to be, but this is still a patriarchy, my friend - we are still making something like 25 - 27 cents less than a dollar earned by a man. This needs to be noted, and this needs to be corrected!
But I don't hate men, and I'm betting the majority of us don't. We are just very very cautious. They tend to kill us when we don't "act right", you know, not the other way around. And that is a documented fact.
the word is obfuscate
Post a Comment