wikileaks

[Ali Quadir]

Ok, I think this is important to be aware of if you were not already.

Wikileaks.org is a site where whistleblowers can upload their data and wikileaks then keeps the information available for download, effectively publishing any company or governments dirty laundry to the world and remaining fairly anonymous..

Recently thousands of documents were released showing that a lot of collateral damage resulting from the war in Afghanistan was not reported to the public. Many more civilians died and this was kept secret.

This isn't really a surprise of course. We know this is what happens from every other war in every other place. At first the involved governments were "deeply hurt" by such irresponsible disclosure of information. They've tried to get at the man with legal means. That failed because basically he didn't actually do anything illegal.

The site owner posted a 1.5 gigabyte encrypted file online a few weeks ago... This has obviously been downloaded by many journalists. And he has called it "insurance policy".

Now two women have crawled out of the woodworks claiming they've been raped by the site's owner, only days apart. It's clear someone wants to lock the man up and probably will try to get to him from there. Fortunately they're acting retardedly obvious. The people who arranged that obviously were not thinking.

It's one of those tip of the iceberg situations. We're seeing a man defend himself against probably every secret service in the world.

I for one hope he makes it through.

[unity100]

This happened right 1 to 2.5 days after julian assange finally found total legal protection under swedish law, leaving out any kind of legal international ways for any outside source to prosecute him for the leaks. not 1 month after, not 1 month earlier. right away.

in addition, it is illegal to accuse someone with rape in sweden just out of the blue. the alleged accusers (which are not around by the way) are said to have approached the police for 'counseling' in regard to such a situation.

TOO big a coincidence, to be a coincidence.

in any case arrest warrant withdrawn, prosecutor general saying that there is no reason to believe that assange did something as such.

[Ali Quadir]

That's new information, thank you for supplying it, I'm glad to hear that they've withdrawn those charges. Now lets hope those guys don't think up something new.

[unity100]

Turns out the charges were laid by a weekend prosecutor. very makeshift, very telling.

[Ali Quadir]

It's clear he's being a pain to someone...

They are sure to try something next. They won't go at him through legal methods because he didn't break the law. He isn't likely to just vanish because he's got that 1.5 gigabyte file that everyone has that only needs a password to decrypt.

If I were in their shoes I'd probably try to reduce his public support by killing some of the people mentioned in the files themselves. And then publicly say "See? Told you this would happen!" And then attempt to change international law.

[Lavazza]

I have been thinking about posting something up about Wikileaks as well. It's an invaluable public service that they offer. I suggest that anyone interested give this video a watch: http://www.ted.com/talks/julian_assange_...leaks.html

I have another observation on Wikileaks. I think we can safely say that this organization is not under the control of any government or organization other than themselves. They are motivated by the pursuit of free information, and of undermining groups that would seek to withhold truth from the public. So where are the game changing disclosures of UFOs? Or is that an issue that even they do not take seriously? It is interesting to ponder.

[Questioner]

Lavazza, I wonder that too. As far as I can tell, Wikileaks does not do investigative reporting, they simply decide to publish some of the information that is anonymously forwarded to them. My guess is that even if Wikileaks has been sent top-secret UFO files, they probably are biased towards finding earthly political/military scandal more credible or more important for them to expose.

[Ali Quadir]

I doubt they would be biased towards certain types of information. What would be the point of being selective towards topic? Selective towards credibility I could imagine. Maybe that's the reason. Or possibly that there are many other places where you could leak ufo material.

I too am surprised by it though, now that you mention it.

[Questioner]

I can think of two reasons. There may be others.

It is more widely believed that there are scandalous misdeeds in government, at a human level, then that there are secrets about visiting ET's and higher consciousness. Yes, shows like Coast to Coast are popular, but many people listen just for entertainment without seriously considering the material that is offered.

Therefore, the Wikileaks editor(s) may be personally biased towards finding earhtly government scandals more credible than anything about ET's.

Also, even if the Wikileaks editors personally believe in the esoteric and metaphysical, they may be choosing to release information that they believe will be considered credible by the largest possible audience.

[Ali Quadir]

Apparently polls indicate that up to 80% of people believe in ufo's. And even then, imagine getting a convincing package, including pictures, radar traces the works. Would you just keep it back? From what I've learned of the man, he doesn't see it as a popularity contest.

I find it much easier to believe he never received anything ufo related.

[fairyfarmgirl]

2010 is the year of No More Secrets. There are at least 6 channelers I know who have all said nearly the same message... This is the year for No More Secrets in our lives, public lives, the government etc. The Midwayers call this year "The Great Correcting" year. So, expect more dirty laundry in the future... and it will likely continue into 2011 and beyond... the Laundry pile is tall and deep and full of moldy clothes... some will have to be thrown out...

Transparency is the best protection in cases of showing the dirty laundry.

fairyfarmgirl

[Lavazza]

Ali, Questioner,

I think those are good ideas. Credibility is a top priority for an organization like that. Consider that you can buy professional grade software for photo manipulation (photoshop, etc) for a few hundred dollars and professional grade CGI creation software (Maya, 3DStudio Max, etc) for about a thousand dollars. This means that with the right level of skill and motivation, you could create very convincing UFO or alien photos. I.e. a group seeking to diminish the power Wikileaks now has could easily do such a thing, and then "debunk" them the next day.

But, just as likely, the editors themselves may not believe in UFOs. I don't blame them if that's the case, nor do I blame anyone for not believing. It seems to me most people don't, but maybe that's wrong. The 80% figure is encouraging, Ali, although I wonder how accurate it is. Skeptics have had a field day on the subject of UFOlogy (among other subjects) for decades, and of course we live in a society that does not overly encourage individuals' critical thinking. Rather most people feel more comfortable appealing to authority. That's not always a bad thing of course, but you know what I mean.

Of course it's also possible they have never been given UFO related material. We simply don't know. Or if they have, they may have felt it wasn't as relevant or helpful to release as war related material was.

L&L, ~L

[Questioner]

Ali and ffg, I would love to see you both be right.

Lavazza, my experiences lead me to share your skepticism. I wonder, for instance, how people might have interpreted the UFO question in the poll. If it as simply that there is something other than weather and known airplanes that's sometimes observed moving in the sky, I think that could easily be 80% of the population.

If it's a sincere belief that we are visited by superhuman intelligences from outer/inner space, the future, or other dimensions/densities, I am skeptical about how many sincere believers there are. I would guess 80% may well enjoy movies, TV, and Coast to Coast radio as entertainment, but don't seriously consider the literal reality of these possibilities.

Again, I'd love to discover that I'm wrong: that 80% of the population seriously thinks about what we talk about here, and that every level of evil will be disclosed and brought into the Light of truth and love as soon as this year. Those would be totally awesome!

[Ali Quadir]

Indeed it really depends on how we ask the questions.

If you ask "do you think in the infinite depths of space there is other life like us?" The count would be 80% If you ask more specific do you believe aliens are visiting us, the count drops to about 50%... These were measured in the united states.

But this Assange guy knows in advance he's going to get attacked and debunked if they can. He knows he cannot reveal his sources. I think you guys are too eager to conclude he would censor himself in this way. What if those who would release ufo information right now release it to the usual pundits? The camelot guys, Wilcock, Icke. Or the ATS forum.. You know the places that pop up first when you start looking for these subjects on the internet. They're all claiming to have boatloads of insiders. Assange just apparently has none.

How true that is remains debatable of course. But if they're in any way close to the truth they will attract whistleblower with extra terrestrial specific information.

[fairyfarmgirl]

With all things of this nature... wait and see what the outcome is... as we are all creating (humanity) the outcome.

fairyfarmgirl