Yeah, mediation with mental masters and screen artists who lack our concept of truth and pervarication, coupled with they don't need us(maybe) and we are in need of their aid.
Sounds like a loaded situation for sure. Chamberlain and Deladier mediated Czechoslovakia with Herr Hitler and Ribbontrop in a sweaty situation like that. They weren't up against shapeshifting, screen implementing, mind controllers so they thought they got a break.
Chamberlain came home a hero with a piece of paper that saved peace. Six months later he was busted and a year later he was a goat and soon out on his ear, as war raged.
The settlement gave Germany the Sudetenland starting 10 October, and de facto control over the rest of Czechoslovakia as long as Hitler promised to go no further.
Some people mistake compassion for weakness or think of it as giving in. It is neither. It takes a much stronger person to show that compassion while at the same time, doing their job.
fore Global Moderator Golden Halo AwardGOLDSTAR Contributer Award member is offline
Alien CoIntel
Joined: Jan 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 7,622 Location: Blind Spot Karma: 164
Re: UN / Source "A" - Discussion & Follow Up III « Reply #1741 on Jun 7, 2009, 5:54am »
Some people mistake compassion for weakness or think of it as giving in. It is neither. It takes a much stronger person to show that compassion while at the same time, doing their job.
Cyrellys Award for exceptional contribution member is online
This sounds like Steering.....I thought mediators were supposed to be impartial?
Mediators should be impartial.
That specific paragraph is more of a "proponent" than a "mediator".
It needs to be tweaked a bit. The wording has to be a bit more impartial and you can't implement "information and perception shaping" or psychological sleights of hand in the course of an impartial mediation.
It improperly affects the way people perceive the situation. Which is basically bad in itself.
I understand the underlying sentiment that Cy had intended. But her personal sentiments are likely clouding her judgment. Since this only gets done once in humanities lifetime. A mediator's role cannot and should not turn into a "proponents" role.
It's bad for business. A mediator is not a "front man", they are an in-between man.
The goal is to introduce the facts and work out a solution within those facts. It is not the job of a mediator to "spin" for acceptance on behalf of one party.
Hey Fore some of this above isn't correct. You are misinterpreting what I said and perhaps to some extent also the differences inherent in exopolitical mediation vs traditional mediation.
In exopolitical mediation the first or primary purpose occuring is the facilitation or enablement of communications between participants. Using this here as an example the Pickerings are mediators between Source A & Co one hand, the OMF UN Meeting Thread Exopolitical Research Participants, The Unspecified Government officials who visit here to investigate this release, & the open public who enters without the exopolitical or ufology background to the paradigm.
In this type of Mediation the Mediators themselves waive their degree of skepticism due to the nature of the information and the proximity to 'proof'. While the ideal is to remain entirely neutral or impartial that is not always realistic. This paradigm comes equipped with skepticism beyond all norms in comparison to traditional mediation. In order to navigate that and keep the ability to communicate open sometimes lines are crossed. That is the perogative retained by the Mediators. They must use their best judgement per the circumstances.
That is not psychological slight of hand or any other such label. That is the difference between understanding and working off what the purpose of the mediation involved is intended to be vs being trapped in strict processes and being unable to see the world for the walls built around oneself.
Exopolitical Mediation is not a once in a lifetime behavior with only one opportunity to define the operation. This has been going on both publicly and privately for the entire length of this paradigm. The only thing I have done is define what it is, how it operates, and what the ideals are. As we all know ideals are like wishes, we don't always get to have what we want.
Exopolitical Mediators are not a business. They've never been paid for their efforts. And there is no intention to start. It is the nature of the needs demanded of such individuals that the highest level of ethics and honor are embodied in both the person and their actions. Are they beyond reproach? not likely but they are far closer than most in order to be entrusted with the lives of participants and information which can radically change or super-charge broad, long-reaching aspects of our reality in the way in which they are.
At first I thought Cy was talking about mediating "first public contact" of sorts with the "ET's" (If that is what they are)
Clearly I have trouble understanding Cy.
I apologize
I have a tendency to be critical of opinions I don't agree with.
It is not personal.
It just a debate.
I think maybe Cy is referring to some sort of mediation where as the supposed "insiders" can come clean with all they know about what the phenomena is.....without the fear of retaliation.
If this is the case (and I am really not sure) then I can support this noble effort.
I don't think it will work for a multitude of various reasons.
I've listed these reasons repeatedly
BINGO
The goal is a reunification of humanity. A healing of the rift whose consequences have reached outside of the paradigm and caused great damage. A course change. To be once again: One world, one people beautiful in its diversity of natures.
lol, I just about fell out of my chair....Mur nailed it!
And again correct that it has many hurdles to traverse to actually reach achievement. But humanity has a funny history of achieving the impossible in record time....so who knows....as long as the door remains open then there is no such thing as can't.
At first I thought Cy was talking about mediating "first public contact" of sorts with the "ET's" (If that is what they are)
Clearly I have trouble understanding Cy.
I apologize
I have a tendency to be critical of opinions I don't agree with.
It is not personal.
It just a debate.
I think maybe Cy is referring to some sort of mediation where as the supposed "insiders" can come clean with all they know about what the phenomena is.....without the fear of retaliation.
If this is the case (and I am really not sure) then I can support this noble effort.
I don't think it will work for a multitude of various reasons.
I've listed these reasons repeatedly
Cutting deals with "insiders"? Nah...
If they fear prosecution it is because they stopped obeying the law. Off to prison they go. Their free ride is over.
Why try to reason with "criminals"? Especially with the truth as random?
--------------------
Makes no sense honestly.... (IMO)
Fore, those are words spoken from the Information Void.
Mediators allow participants to 'speak from the heart' whether that is specific or proverbial. It assists participants to maintain their dignity and autonomy. The potential for mending any rift in relationships between groups or individuals starts with that ability to articulate. Because that is a part of communication which must occur for understanding and recognition of the needs of each participant to occur. That doesn't mean agreement is necessary for people to mend their difficulties with each other, it's not. Just recognition and understanding. These two things allow for empathy and respect. Not everyone achieves all this but they are reasonable first goals to replace the trauma caused where pain and despair would dictate the lives of those involved whether they realize it or not. With the self-allowed freedom to speak from the heart comes a justified hope.
Hey Fore some of this above isn't correct. You are misinterpreting what I said and perhaps to some extent also the differences inherent in exopolitical mediation vs traditional mediation.
In exopolitical mediation the first or primary purpose occuring is the facilitation or enablement of communications between participants. Using this here as an example the Pickerings are mediators between Source A & Co one hand, the OMF UN Meeting Thread Exopolitical Research Participants, The Unspecified Government officials who visit here to investigate this release, & the open public who enters without the exopolitical or ufology background to the paradigm.
In this type of Mediation the Mediators themselves waive their degree of skepticism due to the nature of the information and the proximity to 'proof'. While the ideal is to remain entirely neutral or impartial that is not always realistic. This paradigm comes equipped with skepticism beyond all norms in comparison to traditional mediation. In order to navigate that and keep the ability to communicate open sometimes lines are crossed. That is the perogative retained by the Mediators. They must use their best judgement per the circumstances.
If you will allow me to share my reason for caution with you and general disagreement in certain aspects of your approach:
I do not believe "Mediators" (if that is what you wish to continue to call them) should waive their skepticism. I feel and think this strategy is born from an over-optimism of the predicted truthiness of various parties.
Without standard skepticism, or through it's suspension as a critical fact-checking routine, you may unwittingly be leading people into a cliff dive like a lemming leader. I feel you may possibly begin to believe everything that is being sold as solid communication for the other party.
I believe mediators need to be able to read both parties well enough to know what is inherently going on in the minds of two or more parties. If you intentionally "tilt" for the sake of success, then you might one day find yourself to be an overly eager participant in a fraud or scam.
===============================================
In your above example, you named at least 5 or more parties. But if I ask you what is the goal of each party and it's interests would you actually be able to spell it out? Do you know for a certainty what the parties are ultimately after? Does source "A"? How about the inter-service group?
You tend to brush aside "fears" as if they were unfounded. Yet there are plenty of parties being named who are known throughout the UFOlogy crowd. I understand your optimism (to some degree) as being related to your wish that things turn out well and great progress is made. But I caution you, that perhaps your desire may be affecting your clear mind objectivity in a mediation process.
In fact, I think you may not be objective to a degree I am comfortable with. I understand (I think) but I don't agree with key aspects of your method.
---------------------------------------
Let me bring up an example of the loss of objectivity so that you can hopefully fully grasp where I am coming from in this warning.
You have experiencers and researchers of different degrees who are making lots of conjecture. Some of it is based on well known cases and some of it is personal experiences.
I understand that this is a tempest in a tea cup for some. But the implications and possibilities are something to be mindful of.
When you come in and brush away these issues and call them sincerely to simply be "fears" and of letting conjecture run wild and to "trap us" as if they were walls and not "mindful observations". I would say you do have a point to some degree. But I would also say you missed the point, or you prefer not to find much meaning in the points, that are being made.
We spoke about cases and long running themes in these last few pages. To have someone brush them away so easily....it seriously makes me question whether you are actually being objective. Further when I saw you post this idea of a mediator should be goal orientated rather than process orientated. It really bothers me Cy.
(no I am not angry, I am just speaking to you as someone who can get the gist of what I am saying)
I don't believe you understand the parties enough, nor their intentions. That goes for the public, insider and ET parties. I am not going to say you are clueless cause that isn't true. Your very smart.
I just don't understand why you are going that far in skewing your own perception of reality, intentionally no less.
Even if you believe there should be unity among peoples, that should not taint your concept of mediation.
I feel you should get to intimately know both insiders (if it were possible) and the ET side of the party. Right now, I feel you are setting yourself up for a fall by what I see as setting the goal far higher than the means.
I see it as borderline unethical. Sticking to the facts and reading the subtexts of each party and doing your best to mediate the process is what it should be.
I am biased, that definitely is no secret.
It's not based on ideals or any such imaginary thing. It' comes from experiences with at least one party of which you may someday hope to assist in a mediation. There is a reason for all of my stances.
But if asked to, I can be coldly objective and perform mediation tasks without implementing any form of bias....if I were asked to. I know enough to perform that task. I know how to separate myself from the task at hand. I am lucky in that I have never had anyone ask me to do such a thing. (in recent memory)
But even so, I would not cast away my skepticism about the facts that both parties are portraying to one another.
You seem to understand the "merging" between minds when they communicate with one another. So I am sure you would make a great mediator. But please, I ask, don't lose your objectivity for the sake of the goal.
ET or human it doesn't matter, your skepticism and insight are the first lines of defense. Misreporting intentions between parties is the first mistake. (IMO)
sure, it will resolve a "compatibility issues" for the moment and maybe even get someone to the point of an agreement. But later on it will fall apart and distort under two different mindsets.
A mediator is supposed to bring those two mindsets to a level playground so that the two can come to an agreement. It's not the role of the mediator to futz with the mind of one party so that an agreement may occur.
If progress is not being made, and both parties understand one another fairly well, then it has to do with an unresolvable conflict. Inflicting spin to resolve the conflict is a short term solution and a long term time bomb waiting to go off.
-------------------------------
By the way:
You propose a special type of mediation, but do you know what is being mediated?
That is not psychological slight of hand or any other such label. That is the difference between understanding and working off what the purpose of the mediation involved is intended to be vs being trapped in strict processes and being unable to see the world for the walls built around oneself.
Sorry, we must agree to disagree fundamentally about this.
The process is there for a reason. Mediators just bring two or more parties to the table to bounce off each other for a while and making sure everyone understands what is being said.
It is not a mediators job to skew information, or rephrase it until it is palatable to another party through what I think are deceptive tactics.
The process is important. Some mediation will fail for a good reason. It is not a mediators job (nor should it be) to guarantee success at any cost. Setting the "goals" above "the process" is unethical and probably irrational.
Exopolitical Mediation is not a once in a lifetime behavior with only one opportunity to define the operation. This has been going on both publicly and privately for the entire length of this paradigm. The only thing I have done is define what it is, how it operates, and what the ideals are. As we all know ideals are like wishes, we don't always get to have what we want.
Exopolitical Mediators are not a business. They've never been paid for their efforts.
Yeah....
I didn't mean a literal "business". I meant it to mean it is bad for the "end purpose". If a mediator starts futzing around to make the illusory compatibilities where none exist, that is a problem.
As an example, I could make the case (err spin) that the environment is irreparable without a massive die off from humanity and large injections of ET technology. Slowly confusing people into believing it. But unfortunately, in reality that isn't the case and later on, everyone else will begin to figure it out as well.
Like a used car salesmen, I could make it appear as if the conformers were brighter than the smartest genius as I <cough> mediate <cough> the thoughts they expressed and try to sell that wholesale to the public. Along with the idea that we even need advanced ET technology to support a lessor population.
(the illogical statement confounds me even as I write it )
But then I would be unethically setting "the goals" above the "process" of mediating the communication process between at least five parties. If I were so hell bent on getting people to agree... by telling them anything they would like to hear and that is loosely based on what the other party is communicating. Then its great business for one party at the detriment of disinformation to the other party.
================================================
Remaining impartial would require that the pro's and con's are discussed freely in an environment where I make sure all parties are being heard intelligibly.
And there is no intention to start. It is the nature of the needs demanded of such individuals that the highest level of ethics and honor are embodied in both the person and their actions. Are they beyond reproach? not likely but they are far closer than most in order to be entrusted with the lives of participants and information which can radically change or super-charge broad, long-reaching aspects of our reality in the way in which they are.
You and I still don't know what that reality is.
It is evident in the course of our disagreements.
Your a college/university educated woman of high intellect.
And I am a lowly farm boy with an ET contact background.
Yet look at how much we disagree in! Perhaps the mediators need mediators themselves? (kidding)
Some people mistake compassion for weakness or think of it as giving in. It is neither. It takes a much stronger person to show that compassion while at the same time, doing their job.
At first I thought Cy was talking about mediating "first public contact" of sorts with the "ET's" (If that is what they are)
Clearly I have trouble understanding Cy.
I apologize
I have a tendency to be critical of opinions I don't agree with.
It is not personal.
It just a debate.
I think maybe Cy is referring to some sort of mediation where as the supposed "insiders" can come clean with all they know about what the phenomena is.....without the fear of retaliation.
If this is the case (and I am really not sure) then I can support this noble effort.
I don't think it will work for a multitude of various reasons.
I've listed these reasons repeatedly
BINGO
The goal is a reunification of humanity. A healing of the rift whose consequences have reached outside of the paradigm and caused great damage. A course change. To be once again: One world, one people beautiful in its diversity of natures.
lol, I just about fell out of my chair....Mur nailed it!
And again correct that it has many hurdles to traverse to actually reach achievement. But humanity has a funny history of achieving the impossible in record time....so who knows....as long as the door remains open then there is no such thing as can't.
I thought so.
It certainly is a noble cause.
I wish you good luck.
I guess I have many issues in thinking why it can't work( But please do try)
How will you know when an "insider" is telling the truth?
Out of all the insider releases in the past, including "A" there is no proof of anything.
Most of the releases contradict one another.
Lies are being told.
You can spin or steer things however you want....but the little boy has cried wolf so many times now, his credibility is shot.
They would have to lay all of there cards on the table.
This is just not going to happen...just look at the "A" release.
Hypothetically speaking....I believe very little about what "A" is selling.
The attitude seems to be from "A"...take it or leave it.
Go ahead a mediate that Cy.
It is clear which side has to give.
But you are already making excuses.
Your selling something too.
Trouble is, your trying to sell the wrong side.
We don't need the supposed insiders...they need us.
I want a show of good faith, to compensate for the years of lies.
I want photos please.
As a mediator, you should realize this is a fair request.
Joined: Mar 2008 Gender: Female Posts: 3,093 Karma: 169
Re: UN / Source "A" - Discussion & Follow Up III « Reply #1747 on Jun 7, 2009, 4:25pm »
@ Mur, I certainly can understand your request. It is not unreasonable and I don't think that the Pickerings would necessarily disagree there either. But this situation at the moment is still strictly communication and has not yet evolved to the level of that proof. You are experiencing a very slow and cautious process preparing for the eventuality of that level.
And before you mention it, yes there are bannana slugs in Oregon which move faster than this, so I can understand your consternation. It is little consolation to say all things in good time. What you have had here is a unique level of openness in the dialog which has not occured publicly to this extent before. That is what can be described as a good start.
If you look at the process involving insiders in general, it has evolved from obscure comments, to minor dialogs, to a whole event release. It may not be what you expect or hope for but it is advancement in communication. I think it is very important not to allow our personal needs to dictate the expression of so much frustration that they end up regretting having done so. Just a cautionary suggestion to help keep the door open which everyone can participate in during moments of silence.
******************************************
@ Fore.
Again I am spending a post correcting gross misunderstandings...Fore, you yourself have suspended your skepticism about your own experiences for you have been satisfied with the level of proof you've experienced to cause you to believe or be under the understanding that what You are dealing with is a group of intelligent beings. That is a suspension of skepticism. It is all throughout your writings. Mediators, again using the Pickerings for an example, have also been exposed to a level of proof which causes them to suspend their skepticism regarding certain things. They may or may not as mediators be able to express to you that which has caused this. That is the confidential side of mediation and goes with the territory. Remember this is not traditional mediation where a mediator is more akin to a referee in a fight.
What I posted Fore is what has been the case with mediators and some of the difficulties they face. Your post #1765 is a prime example of what causes mediators no end of frustration. What you have expressed is needs which cannot be met at this time because that level of information or proof while it is available to the mediators it is not yet available to everyone here. So in your frustration you attack the process and integrity of the mediators. There is no end or real defense to the inumerable ways one can attack mediators. That is why they have to be stout individuals. A long haul operation like this one will show the best and the worst in the participants.
About goals & process a mediator has to find their own balance because both are potential pit-traps. You are correct in percieving those dangers. That balancing act is what has been the case with other mediators in the past too. In thinking back over the last year & a half, it seems to me that the Pickerings have done a pretty good job so far on maintaining that balance despite what members here have dished out. As far as what I personally know is mediated, I have to say that extends back into my history before OMF and is not somewhere I can go with you. Let's just say that when it comes to things about insiders, those who are involved can recognize certain characteristics which give cause to pay greater attention to certain people or events. I have been satisfied in my own observations that this is what it is purported to be. Am I going to elaborate further than that for you? Certainly not, and that's final.
It might be helpful to remind all of you that this sort of mediation involves humanitarians. They are 'service to other' individuals...meaning it is not an act of pure selfishness. To imply that they are otherwise is grossly incorrect and unfair for the amount of effort which they put out. While you are here as you please, out of personal self interest, they are here because it is necessary for the welfare of all involved. That should elicit a remarkable depth of respect for them on the part of all parties involved in observing and participating.
I have to go for now guys. It has been an interesting tangent to the conversation which gives everyone food for thought. Just remember you are not fully in the Pickerings shoes. You are just peeking through the windows and hearing them yell out to you from the attic. Try not to implode for not having a ladder to use today.
Joined: Feb 2006 Gender: Male Posts: 106 Location: Indianapolis, IN USA Karma: 12
Re: UN / Source "A" - Discussion & Follow Up III « Reply #1748 on Jun 7, 2009, 5:05pm »
1992 Bilderberg Group meeting, Henry Kissinger said:
"Today, Americans would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow, they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all people of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil....individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by their world government."
Pentagon’s Black Budget Grows to More Than $50 Billion (Updated)
* By Noah Shachtman Email Author * May 7, 2009 | * 7:39 pm | * Categories: Paper Pushers, Beltway Bandits, Politicians, Spies, Secrecy and Surveillance
top-secret-movie-posterThe Pentagon wants to spend just over $50 billion on classified programs next year, newly-released Defense Department budget documents reveal. “That’s the largest-ever sum,” according to Aviation Week’s Bill Sweetman, a longtime black-budget seer — a three percent increase over last year’s total.
It makes the Pentagon’s secret operations, including the intelligence budgets nested inside, “roughly equal in magnitude to the entire defense budgets of the UK, France or Japan,” Sweetman adds. All in all, about seven and a half percent of the Defense Department’s total spending is now classified.
Black-world weapons-buying “remains dominated by the single line item,” according to Sweetman. (You can find it under the Air Force’s “other procurement” section, on page F-21 here.) “This year’s number stands just above $16 billion. In inflation-adjusted terms, that’s 240 per cent more than it was ten years ago.”
Many of the secret budgets still remain clandestine, however. In the research budget, the line item for a “Special Program”of the super-secret National Security Agency is a string of zeros. Same goes for an NSA “Cyber Security Initiative” kitty. And don’t even ask about NSA’s “Intelligence Support to Information Operations” account. That’s a blank slate, too.
Some other fun facts, buried in the Pentagon’s just-released budget docs:
* Money for “Directed Energy Technology” — real-life ray gun research — jumps from $62.7 million last year to $105.7 million in 2010. * Cash for “Prompt Global Strike Capability Development” — weapons that can hit anywhere on the planet, in just a few hours — jumps from $74.1 million to $166.9 million. * The high-flying Global Hawk drones get an an extra $486.8 million. * The Office of the Secretary of Defense is pushing $75 million in new alt-fuel and alt-power projects — from “Landfill Gas Energy Capture” to a “Tactical, Deployable Micro-Grid.” * The Maui Space Surveillance System gets a major downgrade, from $36.3 million to a mere $5.8 million. Aloha, space-watchers!
UPDATE:CQ’s Tim Starks reports that “the budget would also allocate an unspecified amount to the new ‘Imagery Satellite Way Ahead‘ program, a joint effort between the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Defense designed to revamp the nation’s constellation of spy satellites.”
The mostly classified plan would include new, redesigned “electro-optical” satellites, which collect data from across the electromagnetic spectrum, as well as the expanded use of commercial satellite imagery. Although the cost is secret, most estimates place it in the multibillion-dollar range.
Joined: Feb 2006 Gender: Male Posts: 106 Location: Indianapolis, IN USA Karma: 12
Re: UN / Source "A" - Discussion & Follow Up III « Reply #1751 on Jun 7, 2009, 5:47pm »
Also is this the same "Navy UFO Study Group" Howard Blum wrote of in the book "Out There" In the late 1980s. If I remember correctly both Richard Doty and John Alexander (members of the infamous Aviary Group) were on that some Study Group.
Howard Blum; as readers may know is an award winning investigative journalist and not a ufologist.
Does Source A belong to same Navy UFO study group?? and thus connected to infamous Aviary?
Just thinking out loud.
Shady
« Last Edit: Jun 7, 2009, 5:49pm by nightshade09 »
Again I am spending a post correcting gross misunderstandings...Fore, you yourself have suspended your skepticism about your own experiences for you have been satisfied with the level of proof you've experienced to cause you to believe or be under the understanding that what You are dealing with is a group of intelligent beings. That is a suspension of skepticism.
Are you kidding?
No I haven't, I tested that to the bone objectively, the results lead to that conclusion. Suspension of skepticism wasn't necessary. It's still alive an healthy and working it's magic to this day.
>> The new issue is UT or ET or something else? <<
I assume ET, since I have seen them in person. My skepticism changes forms but is never suspended. It is my form of keeping sanity around as good company.
It is all throughout your writings. Mediators, again using the Pickerings for an example, have also been exposed to a level of proof which causes them to suspend their skepticism regarding certain things. They may or may not as mediators be able to express to you that which has caused this. That is the confidential side of mediation and goes with the territory. Remember this is not traditional mediation where a mediator is more akin to a referee in a fight.
They have seen a "Conformer"?
I did not know that...
I don't feel the Pickerings are all that different from myself. Their source "A" is akin to my Miss "A" back in the day.
Except, between us both, I don't obey most confidentiality agreements [with the ET's]. I just talk about whatever is "necessary" and tie it into other peoples research so they can gain some insight into my own research and observations. Some form of progress is made in that "mediation" process.
Sometimes I am directed to talk about certain information at their insistence (even if it is not evident as to why in that moment), other times I am confined to a certain level of detail on a given subject...and do it anyway to some extent.
Sure that causes some hand flailing you can't see on this side, but it's about releasing information, not about keeping a status quo.
The only difference between the pickerings and I is that they are two steps removed from the original sources. And that their source is somewhat acknowledged as opposed to mine which may never be.
(I actually have the feeling it very likely will become an acknowledged source, just not yet, to be honest.)
What I posted Fore is what has been the case with mediators and some of the difficulties they face. Your post #1765 is a prime example of what causes mediators no end of frustration. What you have expressed is needs which cannot be met at this time because that level of information or proof while it is available to the mediators it is not yet available to everyone here.
Well now the difference between me, the pickerings, and yourself becomes evident.
They follow the guidelines handed to them, you do the same.
I chose to release information in steady doses to see what happens and retell my tale. Even to my own detriment in my relationship to my own sources. As a result they keep a calculated distance and pretend that they don't exist. I reel them back in by stating times and dates of their comings and goings. They respond by threats and eventually negotiation. I get to see more with which to further my own cause. They get to keep their cover of supposedly "not existing".
The pickerings follow the guidelines they were given for the perceived safety of their source. (that argument about safety has been called into question several times) They play according to the inter-service groups and Source "A"'s rules. They talk when they get the nod and keep quiet when not getting the nod.
You (Cy) get some inside information which you say proves this and that. You suspend your skepticism and keep quiet about certain things. (can't blame you)
I propose, that 1 of the three of us is a faulty valve. The other two are valves work just fine. But if I were to leave OMF then I had some significant impact. If the pickerings leave, their board will likely go untouched and soon be forgotten.
Same for you Cy. If you play by those rules, then you will perpetually be keeping the silence until it becomes convenient to express whatever disclosure is.
I prefer a truth even when it is inconvenient. It's coming with or without the PTB. I don't like their timetables and I don't expect to keep them. Same for the ET's and other insiders.
So in your frustration you attack the process and integrity of the mediators. There is no end or real defense to the inumerable ways one can attack mediators. That is why they have to be stout individuals. A long haul operation like this one will show the best and the worst in the participants.
I believe you fail to see the points I have made. Simple as they are, there seems to be some confusion. They aren't really about the pickerings. They are about this perception that as long as everyone plays ball things will somehow move alot quicker and that we must give in to that pressure in order to know the truth.
Frankly it is laughable. (IMO)
Why should the truth come at the end of a lengthy negotiation with tons of stipulations and a timetable? It's not even guaranteed to be truthful in either case.
Mediators who pander to global interests are hardly mediators. (IMO) The excuses for their behavior don't make sense either. (IMO)
Play by the pipers song and at his beat or no truth will come...?
About goals & process a mediator has to find their own balance because both are potential pit-traps. You are correct in percieving those dangers. That balancing act is what has been the case with other mediators in the past too. In thinking back over the last year & a half, it seems to me that the Pickerings have done a pretty good job so far on maintaining that balance despite what members here have dished out. As far as what I personally know is mediated, I have to say that extends back into my history before OMF and is not somewhere I can go with you. Let's just say that when it comes to things about insiders, those who are involved can recognize certain characteristics which give cause to pay greater attention to certain people or events. I have been satisfied in my own observations that this is what it is purported to be. Am I going to elaborate further than that for you? Certainly not, and that's final.
Fine, I won't ask. But I will say that I do believe the pickerings and Source "A" are the only ones mediating themselves into a corner with big high walls.
I think I understand the sentiments running throughout the pickerings. I can fathom the stress and frustration when people beckon them to walk further out of the shadows and yet their source draws a fine line well within that shadow and far from the limelight.
I get it.
But there needs to be a re-examination of the "likelihood of an achievement" of anything. If you can look back at the last year and a half, and you disappear tomorrow. How much is left behind, even though you have spoken about alot?
You have to logically imagine that if "nothing" is your answer, then something is wrong with this picture.
Of what use are mediators who's sources and information can fade out of existence in a moment?
It might be helpful to remind all of you that this sort of mediation involves humanitarians. They are 'service to other' individuals...meaning it is not an act of pure selfishness. To imply that they are otherwise is grossly incorrect and unfair for the amount of effort which they put out. While you are here as you please, out of personal self interest, they are here because it is necessary for the welfare of all involved. That should elicit a remarkable depth of respect for them on the part of all parties involved in observing and participating.
Good intentions do not equal success.
I am sure you and the pickerings are exceptional people. (I mean that)
But Cy some of your approaches are in my view...rather questionable.
If you really want to cease my criticisms of some of your proposal, then in the capacity of a mediator, look at both sides of the story. Seeing one side is just trapping yourself into another corner.
I have to go for now guys. It has been an interesting tangent to the conversation which gives everyone food for thought. Just remember you are not fully in the Pickerings shoes. You are just peeking through the windows and hearing them yell out to you from the attic. Try not to implode for not having a ladder to use today.
Cy
I thank them for what they do. I just hope they realize what the ultimate effectiveness actually is through the process being employed.
Some people mistake compassion for weakness or think of it as giving in. It is neither. It takes a much stronger person to show that compassion while at the same time, doing their job.
etherian Award for exceptional contribution member is offline
Tall and White
Joined: Jul 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 3,998 Karma: 109
Re: UN / Source "A" - Discussion & Follow Up III « Reply #1753 on Jun 7, 2009, 6:18pm »
Our problem is we are discussing trusting our own human mediators. We know for a fact that all people have an agenda and is not necessarily trustworthy.
These Humans are acting for beings who do not show themselves or present anything that can be interpreted as positive. But humans can falsify, spin, misinterpret to express what they wish for, be it real or imagined.
Getting to the issue of negotiations with these beings.
Once it bacame accepted that negotiations were going on with ET?, the entire world would be caught up in it. Information that most of us know on here, would quite naturally leak out to the masses of the genpop.
Just knowing that the "Conformers" who look nothing like us, but can shapeshift and screen and read our minds; who are knocking shoulders with lizardlike beings who have terrorized people and who look like fearsome creatures we are aware of, i, e, crocodiles and dinosaurs. These have been bad dudes according to all the anecdotal information we have on them.
This alone, would diminish our trust of what their goals were for us.
Another fact would come out, that they are also in the company of the big and little "night doctors" who are the perpretators of terrorizing visits to peoples bedrooms. Also known for abducting little children who are taken by them and even that is not off limits.
A fact, if known would fire up any parent into a frenzy.
We universally do not like those that abduct people, especially children.
This would resonate through humanity on such a scale as to rock the planet.
On the one side there would be a bunch who would fall down and worship these creatures spurred on by their hybrid interlocutors.
On the other extreme there would be those with pitchfork parades similar to Halloween,1938, demanding we blow them back to Mars where they came from.
Along with this, throw in the fact that it will be a one sided negotiation. As we all know here, we haven't much in our favor.
We have already been put against each other and who knows exactly where that comes from? Oh, it will be said by some that we are the problem and that they are the solution. But, is this necessarily true?
Once again, it is necessary to point out as before, by myself and many others that they are coming here to our world. We aren't pouring onto their planet(s) or wherever they come from.
They have studied us for decades, perhaps millenia, we can presume. So, one can conclude that they should know what leads us around by the nose by now.
What do we know about them if you go outside of that territory where they have treated us pretty badly as individuals?
Virtually nothing. Not their home planet, or dimension or Hell itself. Not their hopes, desires, their children, their age, their health, their politics. Oh yes , the politics.
But what we have learned by unfortunate experience, is they are surrepticious, they are bold, they are uncaring or indifferent, they gloss things over to make them look good, they hide, they promise and don't deliver. They seem to care little regarding our feelings or our pain threshold and have no concept of how we view our offspring and what that means to us.
This is a negotiating position? Hello?
Speaking of being smart. Sometimes the smartest people have screwed things up the worse for humanity throughout our experience with history.
We got a couple of gems going on right now in this world, that have been orchestrated by so called smart people and it ain't going so well.
OMF Books and DVD's - CLICK HERE
![[Home]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif)
![[Help]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif)
![[Search]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif)
![[Login]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif)
![[Register]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif)
![[Search This Thread]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/search2.gif)
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/sendtopic.gif)
![[Print]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif)
Author
![[avatar]](http://i40.tinypic.com/107qvkn.gif)
![[homepage]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif)
Logged![[image]](http://i43.tinypic.com/winh3s.png)
![[avatar]](http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll72/Cyrellys/Artistic-Other-25061.jpg)
)
![[avatar]](http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii218/murnut/surfround.jpg)
![[avatar]](http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/3663/avatar11592ee.gif){kind=avatar}
![[avatar]](http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z268/humanoider/AvatarNine.jpg){kind=avatar}
