It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Dr. Pete Peterson interviewed by Project Camelot

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 09:53 PM
reply to post by 7redorbs

The other thing that bugged me about him was that he has such a doom and gloom outlook on the future. If the masses visualize a positive future, rather than focusing on the negative it will manifest.

This video seems to fuel negative (emotional) sentiments a bit too much.

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 09:55 PM

Originally posted by antithesis.
reply to post by 7redorbs

The other thing that bugged me about him was that he has such a doom and gloom outlook on the future. If the masses visualize a positive future, rather than focusing on the negative it will manifest.

This video seems to fuel negative (emotional) sentiments a bit too much.

True... I hadn't seen it as that myself though. The technology he is talking about could easily save us if 10% of it was true. no?


posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 10:01 PM

Originally posted by 7redorbs
reply to post by metamagic

I believe that a lot of the stuff emoto is doing, is related to this action at a distance. I believe that with vacuum field technology and quantum nanotechnology the stuff he is talking about could easily be a reality.

There is certainly a lot that might be possible with nanotech, vacuum field and other technologies, and action at a distance is not controversial at this point. Two points though.. speaking about what is possible is different from claiming that you have done it. If Peterson were claiming that he could do it. the I would love to hear all about it, but when you say you have been doing it for decades, I say "Great show me!" It's at that point the con men make up excuses and start spinning tales about why they can't. (Case in point, we had a con man who claimed to have a new fabrication method for making bullet proof glass. When he was finally challenged to show it, he demoed his secret machine. When it was finally opened up by court order, it was found to be empty with a person inside feeling out sheets of the competitor's bulletproof glass though a slot in the front.)

Again my issue is not with what he says is possible but rather with what he claims to have done.

PC claims he shown them a quantum chip with the power of.. how many computers was it? 1600? Massive claims.

And I could make similar kinds of claims for a number of things.. like a secret bullet proof glass making machine.. but these claims have to be tested.

How stupid do you and I think PC is? I know kerry can be emotional, but she is intuitive, the two go. I know Bill is unemotional, which leads to a fairly skeptical approach.

I don't think intelligence has anything to do with it. It is a softball interview, but then again PC does not portray themselves as investigative journalists so that's fine -- but they have a bais to accept and elaborate on what he says unquestioningly. Which, by the way, is a quite valid interviewing technique and is not intended as a criticism of PC. If you conduct any interrogations, you discover that this technique is often much more effective than a confrontational or sceptical approach in getting information.

He is close friends with a lot of people in high places, as is Kerry. I cannot imagine there is not even more reason than what has been stated that they would make such a bold claim. Should we really lead ourselves to believe that they are sensationalists? In my experience, and no offense to the two bless them, there amateurishness and lack of presentation at BEST sort of lends to the fact these are people, not money bandits.

I hope you didn't think I was implying that PC was out to make money off this, I was suggesting that if Peterson is a con man, a reason for that might be for him to make money off of phoney technology, with PC unwittingly being part of his marketing plan.

I have no doubt that PC are sincere in what they do, I enjoy their work and my criticism is about the people they interview rather than them.

That said, there is some REALLY weird # going on right now. Just see what Dan Burisch is saying.. this is a serious W T F for me.

Weirder than anyone knows, but with so many red herrings out there, it is often difficult to find the essential core.

Remember the Gospel of Thomas..Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all.

[edit on 6-9-2009 by metamagic]

[edit on 6-9-2009 by metamagic]

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 10:21 PM
reply to post by metamagic

some very good points. Here is a small counterpoint. Greer et al claim to be responsible for the Phoenix Lights event...

Pretty crazy claim huh, but it happened. They have numerous sightings from independent witnesses to verify that story though, but still.. that sounds crazy, just like some of what Pete Peterson is talking about, but I really relate to it and believe it.

May I be proven wrong

Not that i disagree with your points of course, they will be answered in time by himself I hope


posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 10:57 PM

Originally posted by antithesis.
reply to post by 7redorbs

The other thing that bugged me about him was that he has such a doom and gloom outlook on the future. If the masses visualize a positive future, rather than focusing on the negative it will manifest.

This video seems to fuel negative (emotional) sentiments a bit too much.

I didn't see it as being doom and gloom because he did say that in 2001 he was told the dollar would collapse and it didn't happen; and if I remember correctly, he then said that the same people that said the dollar would collapse in 2001 are saying the same thing now; so i saw that as being hopeful that maybe it might not happen, although we have dug ourselves in a big hole with all the crazy money printing.
Anyway, I'm new to this whole project camelot thing and I found the interview dissapointing given all the hype.

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 11:17 PM
Can we all please donate some more money to project camelot to send kerry to journalist school so she can learn how to interview people

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 02:08 AM
hi there,

just finished watching the videos of Dr Pete Peterson.

I think the guy makes some extrordinary claims and the fact he seems to know so much about many different subject is amazing also.

Its a shame he kept tight lipped about certain things, especially his inventions. at the end of the interview, he says that he is at an age in his life where he just wants to share knowledge, so why not just tell us all the juicy stuff and not tell us that his little Acupuncture Massage tool thing was going to cost $90 and come in a little box.

Certainly an interesting guy none the less, but still no real hard evidence.

He did seem very cold towards David Wilcock for the most part of the interview, wonder why?


posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 02:17 AM
is it just me or is Wilcock totally David Spade?

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 02:19 AM
reply to post by akoola111

I`m really tired of the whining about Kerrys interview skills.
This video is split in parts, and if you can`t stand her you simply don`t have to watch the third part.
They`re giving out all this information for free, so I think they deserve the right to do their interviews however they wanna do it.
You are not under contract to watch.
And btw, I think her part in this interview is one of the best because she asks all the 'wrong' questions he didn`t want to answer (and sometimes really get upset about).

[edit on 7-9-2009 by derpif]

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 02:24 AM
reply to post by grantbeed

Yes, Peterson came of like he doesn`t like D. Wilcock very much. Many posters in other forums recognized that too. But who knows why.

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 02:40 AM
Don't you get it?

It's about money. A last-ditch effort for Project Camelot to raise funds. I suspected this with the drawn-out release of Pete's "testimony".

By delaying Pete Peterson's interview for a couple of months and adding all of this cloak and dagger crap and creating "hype", they bought themselves a little more time, maybe a few more donations, so they can continue flying around the world to these junkets.

This interview is ridiculous, and while listening to Pete ramble on helped put me to sleep last night, little of what he says makes any sense nor is it news to anyone. Seems like a nice guy, that's all. Once he started talking about alternative medicine and his little $99 device nearly all his legitimacy as an "insider" went out the window.


Let's not forget Bill of P.C. was also behind Project Serpo. These people are not beyond sensationalism, even if it is an unconscious effort on their part.

I agree with poster Mike Philbin, however, that the most interesting thing Pete said was about flouridation and ensuring the older populace won't be around to use up non-existent Social Security funds. Interesting thought, anyway.

At this point, they could interview just about anyone, give them a name, call them an "insider", give them a script of conspiracy-sounding b.s., and film it, voila, you have some new buzz and more donations!

Considering the quality of what they are producing, I'd almost prefer to be duped by a hoax at this point -- at least it would be more exciting.

[edit on 7-9-2009 by CUBD1]

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 02:44 AM
He may not be a 'snake oil salesman' but he did appear to be contemplating selling fish oil.
Wonder if ratfish has some miraculous properties?

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 05:55 AM
I could'nt get past the vatican part... once he started talking about having access to it I had to shut off the video. No one except for the upper crust of the church has access to those books.

Is it me or did he look like he was about to bust out laughing or atleast half smiling the whole time he was talking? This seems like a disinformation video meant to confuse people.

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 10:39 AM
I am so glad someone is talking about this interview. I'm a lurker on their sister site - Project Avalon - and find it curious that there is no discussion on this interview. And, as someone pointed out, comments have been disabled on Youtube. Why is that?

I've followed PC from the start and enjoyed their earlier interviews, but I found Mr. Peterson to be not only boring, but not credible. He had an opinion on and experience in every aspect of 'the government conspiracy.' It would seem to me that a true whistleblower would have access to a discrete amount of information, about which they would be well informed. Just a gut feeling, but for someone with the credentials he claims, he seemed more like my local plumberm who is a nice guy, but he ain't no Einstein.

I don't know why he absolutely refused to look at Wilcock, but I also have since lost some respect for Wilcock, who should have been able to sniff out this imposter and steered Bill and Kerry away.

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 11:02 AM
reply to post by gwynned

hey gwynned, you make some legitimate comments
I actually agree re David Wilcock. If you read what Dan Burisch is saying about project camelot on his site eagles disobey (Dan Burisch is Ex-Majestic), then I am left to conclude either PC is the target of a smear campaign or is putting out 'disinfo' as greer once stated.

I've always called myself a PCDC fan, and I always will be.

People who criticize Kerry for being a little hot headed are seeing through a lot of the good whistle-blowing testimony on their site.

You know what I think, a lot of skeptics are upset by the controversial content they are putting on their site, and were looking for a 'mess up' like Greer.

I really do think this tape is important, it basically speaks for 4 hours about most of the things they've ever spoke about - and this guy is saying October meltdown....

I' decided not to criticise something I will be able to prove or disprove in a fairly short time period, next few months to few years, i guess


posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 12:02 PM
I think, when listening to people with claims of insider knowledge, it's important to establish their credentials.

I haven't been able to find anything on this guy, has anyone else ?

Project Camelot say he has high-quality information, that he is a remarkable scientist and is still working on the inside.

I'd like his credentials proven before watching the video.

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 12:07 PM
reply to post by DeepCut

hum you need to check his credentials by watching the video in order to check them? We must do research by ourselves, and not always depend on other people to make the assertions for us


posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 12:25 PM
So just watched it completely, must say it wasn't the most interesting, but it's still credible I THINK. Wonder how long before some people here get so paranoid they start thinking they are part of the problem.

Look, the following is my opinion, kind of a devil's advocate, i try to look at things in the grey scale, not in black an white. He might be sensational in his claims, he might not. Now that it's out there research will commence into the things mentioned.

To me this interview seemed like he was trying to walk across a floor full of broken glass. If what he says is true, and his work is not complete, why the hell would he give anyone reason to go find him and kill him. I think he basically kept it vague in the recorded interview and i wouldn't be surprised if they had a second interview or just tape (with the PC group) disclosing what was said off camera at a later time after he is done work in his lab. He himself said something along the lines that his testicles weren't as big as his friends who are pushing the stuff.

So i keep an open mind about this video. A metaphor I thought of and like to use (mentioned above) is the superimposing of shades in the grey scale. Essentially you find a topic and by researching you find info across the spectrum and where the truth is, is what grey it ends up being. Saying it's Black or White is just continuing the problems we have now.

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 01:36 PM
There's something that bothers me about Project Camelot.

I agree that both interviewers bring great light to a dark corner of our world: I have quite a bit respect for this project and for the both of them.

But they seem to take everything that is told to them with an alarming amount of naivite and very little discretion. With their jaws dropping, they say, "Really? An alien had you in its teeth as you were plunging through the Sherwood Forest?" It seems they feel that their job is to take verbatim everything that is told to them without using any tools of objectivity. I think this greatly diminishes their work.

Most of us armchair UFO-ologists are really searching for a person to believe in----that one whisteblower who checks out---who's credibility seems undisputed. As far as I can tell, there are very few whisteblowers who can fulfill this duty, but plenty who deserve an academy award for their performances.

I completely believe in the UFO phenomenon. I've studied it long enough to not need any more convincing. Both my husband and my daughter have seen a UFO and the evidence certainly points to it. So, I don't need convincing. Thus, I can do without fake whistleblowers, because I'm not looking for evidence. What I'm doing is trying to understand what it all means for humanity at this point in my searching.

In my opinion, some of these people who come forward are just ridiculous and even more so the people who follow them around and worship them. There are some really credible people out there who contribute to this community---and we need to focus on their testimony.

The rest? Don't let them be the squeaky wheel that gets the oil

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 02:29 PM
He really disrespected David Wilcock to the point where it looked like Wilcock's breath was rancid or something. He looked really uncomfortable just being near him.

When Wilcock spoke to Pete Peterson (obvious pseudonym), Pete would only lock eyes with whats-his-name behind the camera. He wouldn't even look at Wilcock. This has to reveal something about Pete. Then at one point Wilcock had asked a question off camera, then kind of struggled a little bit to reiterate his question on camera, and Pete condescended to Wilcock as if he was some kid.

Seeing as how Pete and David aren't exactly holding opposite opinions, don't have any known conflicts of belief or information, etc, then why the disrespect? I guess he just doesn't like Dave's look or something. This seems a bit closed minded for a person who has so much (claimed) awareness, info, and the wisdom that should come with that.

This guy strikes me as less brilliant and more of a story teller. At his age, all the important ppl he has met, all the important places he has been, it seems he would have the wisdom of handshake courtesy and man to man discussion down pat by now.

I feel like his body language was undermining his credibility though maybe that is illogical thinking.

[edit on 7-9-2009 by spec2]

[edit on 7-9-2009 by spec2]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in