UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Mar > Mar 2

Re: The Illuminati -

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254.nul>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 02:12:13 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 09:09:22 -0500
Subject: Re: The Illuminati - 

>From: Greg Boone <Evolbaby.nul>
>Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 13:34:22 EST
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Subject: Re: The Illuminati

>>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 23:37:22 EST
>>Subject: Re: The Illuminati


>Thank you Robert and of course you too Ms. White!

>Robert glad you saw through all that OK City Bombing charade.


A brief clarification of my OKC paragraph. I should have been
clear that people/persons in the FBI apparently destroyed
evidence, did not provide evidence to those investigating that
hideous crime, and or did not provide documentation as requested
by the courts.

Bottom line on that is can things be covered up in/by people
working for the government. Yes you bet. Imagine the reaction in
1997 if somebody would have stated that the FBI destroyed
evidence or did not provide evidence etc etc. The person making
the accusation would have been denounced as a nut seeking
attention... and we have been told how people who believe in
such conspiracys were nut cases. Yet 7 years later.....

>That's one of the reasons why I brought up the subject of
>illuminati in the first place. I sat here laughing at the first
>volley of negative responses just to see how stimulus-response
>some people can be. Myself included!

In essence its the same response somebody gets by skeptics when
they say they have seen a UFO at close range. Now whats
interesting is if a witness told a story to a skeptic about
seeing a meteor going through the sky etc etc, the skeptics
never quite seem to react the way they do when the person says
"I saw a UFO..."  Hmm, the word two faced and double standard
come to mind.

>I work in animation. We're also in a huge fight handling this
>Disney/Michael Eisner debacle. It took Roy Disney and some of
>our guys to literally fight from the ground floor up but we've
>made waves! Miraculous, but again as soon as the revolt was
>engaged there were those 'naysayers'. We'll see March 3rd on
>that one.

Good luck on that one.

>I brought that up because often we'll hear or read something and
>immediately lip-off that the originator is 'bringing down the
>standards' or 'nuts' or 'seeking attention', etc. Yet here we
>are on a UFO list!

>I have a saying: " Everything is a crazy idea until it makes
>money. "

UFOs were a hot ticket item in the publishing industry going
into 1997 (the 50th anniversary) and now that has passed that
has slowed down...I suspect until 2007 or perhaps 2007 for the
60th anniversary. Same is true on the JFK assassination. You get
alot of books, videos and what nots for the 30 year anniversary
in 1993, then that whole subject matter has slowed back.

When there is money to be made the book publishers were be right
on it.  The same is true of colleges and universitys (you know
where many of the scientists and engineers live :) ) If the
government said they had 100 million dollars in grant money to
study UFOs many colleges/universitys and researchers would be
available to study UFOs and extol how little its been studied in
the past and how it deservers serious consideration now.

A university level individual pointedly said one day that the
reason climate change gets so much attention is because they are
milking various federal cash cows for research/grant money and
the government is willing to give it out. I would suppose that
if the govt stopped funding climate change money, the subject
would get as much attention as say UFOs or other subjects.

>On to these 'illuminati'. I've run into references and
>confessions from reliable people and I had to look further into
>it because it's all under the UFO issue. It's under and all over
>tons of other issues too from health care to pet breeding! What
>I had to come to grips with is there isn't just ONE illuminati
>but numerous illuminati of various sizes and influence. There
>are old timers like the Masons and their branches and religious,
>political groups. Not all in agreement with one another and
>often in opposition. The kicker here is how every branch of not
>only our government but foreign governments and social
>institutions are infiltrated and influenced by these people.

>The dangerous ones are the ones who oppose change for the
>better. As stated there isn't just one overall group but some
>are so interwoven with one another they give off the apparency.
>Some are old. Older than the term illuminati itself.

What people don't comprehend, as they guzzle their beer and
monday night football/baseball or whatever is that powerful
agendas are at work to accomplish certain things... much of the
agenda and the people work right out in the open. For example if
somebody would have said 10 years ago that their is planning
happening to in essence merge Canada/North America/South America
people would have dismissed the person as a kook conspiracy
theorist, yet when the President of Mexico openly admits it in
January people kind of yawn and go back to beer and MNF.

IMO people will do the same thing if the govt admitted that UFOs
exist. For a day or two it would be headline news; the people as
a whole would say something about gee how interesting and words
along the lines of "Well I knew all the time...I just never said
in public. Then the media would move back to the next smoking
dead body story, or the latest from the Michael Jackson trial.

>What we should be on the lookout for are those groups that are
>using religion, politics, to control and arrest the growth of
>creativity and science.

The problem with many of these so called scientists is that they
have a belief system locked on something they read or studied 20
to 80 years ago, rather then admitting that science is a process
of change, that new discoverys will be made down the road that
will put new light and new understanding on science, perhaps
even discrediting so called other scientific discoverys.  Point
blank, much of what is published and touted as revolutionary
science will be yawned at in 30 years with the arrival of new
information, new theories, and new technology.

Same is true of the environment. 50 years from now people will
be blathering about how the people in the year 2000 had no clue
had to bury/package waste and how they have to dig up all of the
landfills, radioactive waste dumps and other sites and re handle
everything because the way people did it in 2000 was just

This has been my point with UFOs over the years. Instead of
wasting time trying to get skeptibunkers to give the evidence a
fair shake; instead of wasting time to get some university on
the band wagon to do some scientific study, we within the UFO
field need to just go out and do it ourselves and not worry
about whether so called "main stream science" will get on board.



[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com