1) It's good to be skeptical. It's great to ask questions. Discernment is our personal goal. All of us.
2) There's much that has been said this time. Much to look into, or at least investigate further.
3) This site is about investigations. Finding The Truth. Negative comments about the fidelity of OP's comments perhaps may be appropriate someday.
However, they are not appropriate now.
Ask more thoughtful and concise QUESTIONS. Allow OP to answer to his fullest. As much, and as many times as he can. The more OP talks the more Truth
we'll all find -- but we won't know if we subject OP to comments which don't provide the environment for him to feel it's beneficial to share the
information, even if it is "wrong" (in the end).
If he is telling the whole truth, we all would be great skeptical instruments, but we may drive away the truth and therefore would still be searching
for Truth, and having these same comments posted over and over again. So let's just ask questions at this point.
4) It is important to call out the OP created this thread yesterday and has responded many times, with what could be perceived to be quick responses,
and he's been answering direct questions, not just skirting the issues that are asked, at least not all the time. It seems that if fabrication of the
material was required, it would have taken longer to create the responses that were provided in response by the OP to direct ATS questions.
I do agree that the information presented in response could have been researched and there is a hint of GoogleJitsu in play, but some of the topics
are highly complex, and there is a line of acceptable potentiality in his thought and event lines if you remain agnostic to how this information is
So again at this point, let's ask as many questions as we can. Let's tone done the negative, "You're a liar" comments, and just let our questions and
his responses decide the Truth.
Just as OP needs to provide evidence of his claims in the Truth, there is no way that we'll get this information unless we analyze more data, which is
directly proportionate to our cultivation of this whole website as a place where ideas can be shared without initial, invalidated and unauthenticated
negative skepticism. Let's give that skepticism some time to be validated.
You want a radio show? How about you get all these expected high government operatives and interview them one by one, ask them all the same questions
(separately). Analyze the differences and then have another interview with all X # of them together in the same interview and ask to explain their
In this current example, NeoNemo could be paired with "Corey Goode" (www.spherebeingalliance.com...
), who already does tons of shows apparently.
This process should better filter Truth. If they are unwilling to participate in such a direct rendition of truth telling and auditing, that should be
a red flag.
edit on 11-2-2016 by Curious8Me because: Typo