I agree with those who say that he/she looks 'cute' and would like to meet to say 'hello' and a diiscussion.

My views on kissing him/her are about the same as kissing anyone else who is not known to me.

My uncertaintly relates to his/her being a Zeta Reticulan. The eyes look wrong. I question whether this is a person whose skull shape would be correct for the StarChild Skull.

http://www.lloydpye.com/starchildskull.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starchild_skull

Oh and as for the film, well the last bit is just bizarre. But the rest of it looks OK. Could be the real deal; could be someone wearing prosthetics on their head and hands.

Simon

Brilliant Simmering Frog, Brilliant!!

Not mine; I don't know who did it.

It sort of sums up everything Bams' producers have done for the past few weeks; clumsy last-ditch propaganda.

*I would expect these laptops are there all the time as terminal's.
*I would also expect that the offical photographer is careful about taking pictures with data on the screen.
*Point number 3 is they were there to watch the large screen killing show not to face book ( except for guy in the center).

Daughter confirms OBL death
http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2 ... 47782.html


MT7

Must say, the pics on Hillary's laptop also look staged. The top one does not look like a BL shot (pardon the pun!) but rather like a GI posing for a catnap on a warm afternoon after a couple of beers...
He has no beard or towel on the head - ?

Actually Dex I don't think I included you in the Reactions listing; from what you're now saying, you're absolutely neutral then as to whether it's legitimate or a hoax? The reality is both half-empty AND half-full for you?

I should remind you that there are allegedly over a hundred species of Zetas. The stylized photo used on the cover of "Catchers of Heaven" is a zeta, as is the logo on the dreaded NL/ZT, and she even makes clear that the zetas she encountered in 3D were somewhat different also. Dr. Michael Wolf does say that Kolta the zeta reticulan, and the others he worked with, wore "silver suits"; some had 6 fingers, some had only 4. Some had larger heads, some smaller but still relatively large compared to the rest of their bodies.

And Simon, with you added in that makes 15 for a "likely to be real" and 6 of those that have a "positive" reaction.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

I've been really disturbed by the decision today NOT to release the photos; not that I'm being a voyeur in this, but for the principle of transparency as JFK articulated it in my signature line. Therefore it was a shock when I discovered this very fascinating and detailed behind-the-scenes look at the entire operation as it unfolded among the cabinet leading up to the raid and killing. The whole article is 4 pages long and reads like a novel, but the snips below tell the story behind that photo you posted, Frog. (er, the original one, that is.) I didn't want to get into a political debate, but we've been presented with a false portrayal of what really happened, and to hear Leon Pannetta tell the public that he thinks at least one photo will eventually be released to the public, we now know that he was actually the one that called the shots and made the 'get' even possible.




Read more: http://socyberty.com/issues/white-house ... z1LQnJiu7S

Deleted...

Nice Find Dex.

White Houses Senior Adviser Jarrett

Probably explains why Panetta will be replaced as Director of the CIA by General David Petraeus.
Interesting that Panetta becomes Secretary of Defense.
MT7

If that is true in any way, shape or form - that is treason.

I find it most curious that a campaign continues to not only discredit this President but to make him appear weak and unfocused on an operation he clearly initiated and was in touch with from the get go.

So, basically, what this article says is that "the white guys" were in charge? Oh and BTW they give a bit of a crumb to a woman?



As Lawrence O'Donnell said the other day on his show:

"The Republicans have for years sold the American people on the fact that only the Republicans could keep America safe.

Barack Obama just put paid to that idea."

I think it's from the upcoming movie 'Super 8'.

http://www.super8-movie.com/editingroom.html

http://www.super8-movie.com/

I think this one is Real



I looked at some of the clips on the "Super 8" site and didn't see any hints of a similar alien, only a big nasty mean one sorta like "Alien" circa Sigourney Weaver, but maybe they put it on the site.

Regarding "Super8" is in part an online game that is related to Portal 2 Game (1)



Notes:
(1)
http://valvearg.com/w/index.php?title=S ... ldid=17910
http://asc8.clip69.super8-movie.com/index.php

On Why Democrats Are Seen As Soft On Defense - And Why We Will Probably Never See Full Disclosure



I watched that show too (The Last Word) and I was glad to see someone state the obvious, but in the euphoria over the Big Kill and even on Lawrence's show, no-one has really analyzed just WHY the Democrats have been seen as "softies" ever since McGovern. Prior to Nixon, Democrats were just as capable - if not more so - in waging war as Republicans, and in fact, were usually seen as being more 'hawkish'. Woodrow Wilson pledged to keep us out of war, but was inevitably drawn into WWI. FDR did the same thing in WWII; both he and Wilson only won their re-election based on those promises, which were soon ditched because of the seriousness of the threats. JFK was able to use diplomacy to avert a 'hot' nuclear war, but no-one would have ever accused him of being 'soft on defense'. LBJ actually reversed JFK's plan to dis-engage from Vietnam, and thereby escalated that conflict into the worst military quagmire this nation had ever seen - prior to Iraq, anyway.

I think it was Jimmy Carter's botched attempt at rescuing the Iranian embassy hostages that put the Democrats on the defensive about defense, even though - ironically - it was Kissinger (the Republican Sec'y. of State under Carter's predecessor and Majestic mastermind) that had urged the US to take the Shah in, an urging accepted not just because Heinz said so, but as a humanitarian gesture towards an ill man and a formerly staunch US ally. By taking the Shah in, instead of insisting he stand trial in his homeland, he virtually guaranteed some sort of reprisal - which he got in spades. So, it was Republican policies that had created the situation in the first place (the US was constantly meddling in mid-east affairs due to its need for 'friendly' regimes in charge of the oil deposits), and it was George H.W. Bush who - in the most treasonous act of all - made a secret deal in Paris with the Ayatollah's henchmen to provide arms to Khomeini's islamic regime if they would only hold onto the hostages until Reagan and he (Bush) would take office. That was the infamous 'October Surprise'. And still, even after the facts dribbled out over the years, nothing was said by the mainstream media. That complicity in itself is far more treasonous than anything going on in today's White House, but that's just my opinion. The bigwigs in the MSM, along with Poppy and his henchmen, should be lined up and horsewhipped in public for that ugly stain on America's reputation. Again, strictly my opinion, but that chapter in history needs to be hauled out and exposed over and over again until it - like JFK's assassination - are finally able to be put to rest.

But to return to the current situation. Yes, it's true that the reader is shown the view behind-the-scenes through the eyes of someone who is - let's admit it - at least slightly contemptuous of the President's seeming weakness. It doesn't change the facts though, if the account is at least factually true. And if you read the whole account at the link, you can see that Hillary gets more than a "few crumbs"; she actually is much more of a team player in all this, and shows a lot more strength and ability to hold her own than many of us would've given her credit for. Ironically, the men involved were Republicans; Panetta was a former Republican congressman, before he was tapped by Clinton to work in that White House, and Gates of course was and still is a Republican, having been appointed by Dubya and before that, he was DCI (Director Central Intelligence) under George H.W. Bush (a/k/a Poppy), not to mention a member of the National Security Council. For the life of me, I can't understand why Obama - and Clinton before him - insisted on naming Republicans to manage the Pentagon. Almost as if they had resigned themselves to forfeiting any claim to Democratic ability to run the Dept'. of Defense. With Panetta taking over from Gates, that's STILL ceding the Pentagon to Republicans, so much of the blame for the stigma of Democrats is self-inflicted to begin with.

What's glaringly obvious in the account at socyberty is that Valerie Jarrett plays much more of a role than is admitted to. From what I was able to glean from my sources on the Hill during the health-care debate was that it was she that caved on the idea of the Public Option early on, reinforcing what Obama was hearing from his buddy Eric Whittaker (head of the Chicago Medical Center, a vested interest AGAINST a public option). And although I give Obama credit for providing the general doctrine that the US would go anywhere in the world, with or without the consent of the host country involved, to seek out and capture or eliminate Bin Laden or any other international terrorist, it's also painfully obvious (if the account is factually true, after the subjective adjectives are stripped away) that Obama has a tendency to let the Lowest Comic Denominator (or the fear of the tiniest minority of squawkers, or the smallest number of potential civilian casualties) drive his policy directives. Even his decision to with-hold ANY picture of the dead Bin Laden was driven by fear - fear that somehow hordes of muslims would take to the streets to squawk and somehow endanger the lives of American soldiers and contractors. To my mind, that's Republican thinking, despite seeming to be driven by loftier goals; that kind of thinking leads to things like the Patriot Act, where people willingly give up their liberties in exchange for more 'security'.

I was saddened to see that despite the overwhelming view of the majority that a photo or photos should be released, a seeming majority of Democrats now support Obama's decision to with-hold any photographic evidence. Though I am normally a stalwart progressive, I see a sheep-like response that argues against transparency - in deference to fear of reaction. I should have seen that when one of the first campaign promises Obama broke was that of holding accountable those in the Bush administration responsible for the illegal eavesdropping on American citizens - as a victim of this, I had a personal interest in seeing some sort of accountability, but it was denied us with the excuse we should "let bygones be bygones". WTF?!? That was my first clue that more campaign promises were soon to be broken, but I continued to delude myself. Then when I discovered the actual, overt lie about the public option being ditched, I lost whatever remaining illusions I had - and so did the vast majority of those who had turned out for Obama in 2008, which is why so many of them stayed home and allowed the energized base of a minority - the so-called 'tea party' - to swarm the polls and put their own people in power.

These days, I try not to let my perspective be clouded by bitterness, and I truly had hopes that at least one photo - one piece of photographic evidence - would be released to the public, because in all the videotape that was recorded from the helmet cams the Navy SEALs were wearing, at least one or 2 stills could have been released that weren't "gruesome"; even one or 2 of the stills taken just prior to the "burial at sea", when the "gruesomeness" wouldn't be so apparent, could have been released, but it's this exceedingly condescending attitude of Obama - and by Valerie Jarrett, apparently - that the People "can't handle the truth" that is sinking his re-election chances before the campaign even gets underway. It's a constant theme, this "we know better than you". Most of the muslims interviewed around the world actually WANT to see the pictures, so I don't buy the excuse that releasing them would cause "riots". And it's not a voyeuristic need to see the ugly body in death; it's the principle of transparency, so when someone starts to voice a similar contempt towards the contempter-in-chief such as we see in this rare behind-the-scenes account, there's a reason it resonates.

Maybe things have changed since the days of FDR's 'fireside chats', when the President spoke to us frankly and with respect. These days, his successors have increasingly spoken to us as little children, who don't know any better and who have to be carefully shielded from certain 'truths', and the intended audience is made to include the rest of the world as if to excuse the condescension. Frankly, it's because of this understanding that I hold no hope out for true Disclosure until the truth becomes self-evident. In the meantime, we'll have the slow dribble of film snips and blurred photos to muse over.

Jest my too sense.

But is another type of Visitor:

Datail of the Hand of the Visitor: 6 fingers @ 0.32 sec on clip

Don, I think the reason why the Dems were reigned in was to create more polarization between the "sides", as it gets closer to the End Game.

6 fingers is not that weird to me, I have a very good friend whose first child had 6 toes on each foot. It was an anomaly that caused many summer double-takes until he had them removed.

Six digits is a characteristic of ancient Mayan royalty.

Recall15 mentioned Portal2. I played that super8 demo last week, had no idea what it was, just wandering around in wreckage for 5 minutes. Portal2 is so good, I finished it, great game.

Footage release in the 90's that allegedly showed a body retreived from the Roswell wreckage ALSO showed 6 fingers; more importantly, the 'navigation panels', by which the pilots 'drove' the craft, showed hand inserts for 6-digit hands. Even the most polarizing 'contactee' of all, none other than Nancy Lieder, has also claimed that one species of Zetas that she knows of has 6 fingers.

The footage you just posted, Lynnwood, may or may not be real, but it's almost a moot point vis-a-vis the first one we were discussing. I say that because even though the footage of the cops and klieg lights, and assorted civilian personnel, is very realistic (and most likely not 'concocted'), the subject of interest is only rarely glimpsed in the footage, and even when it is, the film appears less 3-dimensional and more prone to charges of air-brushing. In other words, it tantalizes and teases, burying the "alien" in what's probably a piece of authentic film footage of the period. And while the "alien" too may be real, its blurred visage is so blurred as to make any fulsome analysis an exercise in futility. The first film, of "Skinny Bob", clearly shows an alien on display, complete with throbbing head, blinking eyes, etc, which would be hard to duplicate in film footage of the period. The trailer at the end, blurred as to be useless really, is inconsequential, but the first minute is remarkable and would mean that either a) an incredible amount of work went into either making a life-like alien out of special effects or a horribly misfigured human was filmed in the primitive film quality of the period, or b) a horribly misfigured human, and or a robotic invention was filmed in the modern period using the film and techniques of the 1940s, or c) it's an accurate representation of what it purports to be. The easiest conclusion is c), as it requires the least amount of work. Simply film the real deal, and the big deal is the release of it now - which would then be the focus of the discussion, as in "why now?". However, a) and b) are still plausible, b) being more plausible than a) simply because it's easier today to mimic early film techniques today, or to have built a robotic figure, than it is to have done so 50-or-60+ years ago. Even if that had been done, what would be the rationale for putting so much effort into it? Helvetic might say "to make a good movie today" [Super 8], but again, why so much effort for what would only play a minimal part in a contemporary movie? (The trailer shows nothing that I saw of the 1940s or 50s). So, perhaps the release of the newer one is indeed part of a metered release, whereas the one you showed is so blurred as to be rendered useless in terms of "public acceptance".

I'll have a few thoughts on the "polarization" you spoke of; that's a good point, and worth discussing.

FEATURE-Scientist seeks to banish evil, boost empathy
http://af.reuters.com/article/southAfri ... 05?sp=true



PSYCHOPATHS HAVE "ZERO DEGREES OF EMPATHY"

A Jewish upbringing peppered with tales about the horrors of the Nazis' treatment of Jews and other minorities was early motivation for Baron-Cohen to seek to deconstruct human cruelty

He cites times when his father told him how the Nazis turned Jews into lampshades, or into bars of soap, and a tale about the mother of a family friend whose hands had been severed by Nazi scientists who switched them around and sewed them back on again so that her thumbs were on the outside.

"Today, almost half a century after my father's revelations...my mind is still exercised by the same single objective: to understand human cruelty," he writes in his book.

In the book, entitled "Zero Degrees of Empathy" in Britain, and "The Science of Evil" in the United States, where it comes out in July, Baron-Cohen seeks to pick apart and define components of empathy -- including hormones, genes, environment, nurture, and early childhood experiences.

Citing decades of scientific research, he says there are at least 10 regions of the brain which make up what he calls the "empathy circuit". When people hurt others, either systematically or fleetingly, parts of that circuit are malfunctioning.

Baron-Cohen also sets out an "empathy spectrum" ranging from zero to six degrees of empathy, and an "empathy quotient" test, whose score puts people on various points along that spectrum.

Continued:
http://af.reuters.com/article/southAfri ... 05?sp=true