The Untold Story of How John Podesta Answered My Question About UFOs

[Quix]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/Podesta-untold-story-wikileaks-UFO-questions-xfiles
.

.
. . .
This may be only the beginning of my appearances in Podesta's email. I pestered him and the Clinton campaign for answers related to a profile I wrote about Stephen Bassett, America's only registered lobbyist on UFO and extraterrestrial issues, with a mission to force the US government to come clean about all the rumors regarding human interactions with extraterrestrials. Key to Bassett's plan is getting Clinton to address why she and her husband engaged with the late Laurance Rockefeller over the course of several years in the mid-1990s, as the philanthropist worked hard to force the US government to disclose "The Truth" about extraterrestrials. At the time, John Podesta was a senior White House staffer and likely had a front-row seat to any Rockefeller-Clinton interaction that might have occurred.
.
Neither Podesta nor the Clinton campaign responded to questions for that story. But both Podesta and Clinton have spoken seriously about UFOs and extraterrestrials at several points during her campaign. In March, Clinton told Jimmy Kimmel that if elected president, she'd double down on her husband's efforts to ferret out the truth about UFOs. That interview was four months after a previous Clinton appearance on Kimmel's show, where she wished the UFO issue had come up, but it didn't, according to a separate Podesta email. "He didn't end up asking her about UFOs!" a campaign communications person emailed Podesta after the interview. "She was very disappointed. She practiced UAPs for 5 minutes beforehand." (UAP stands for "unidentified aerial phenomena," which is the term used by the more scientific wing of UFO buffs and researchers.) Clearly Clinton was ready and willing to talk about UFOs in a serious way. She also told a New Hampshire reporter in December 2015 that she thinks "we may have been (visited already). We don't know for sure." She acknowledged that Podesta had made her pledge to get the information out as president.
.
. . .

.
Not a lot of meat on those bones but still a bit interesting.

And, some folks are unaware of the Rockefeller/Clinton dialogue about the topic after Rockefeller's research effort into it.

ALTERNATE REALITIES PING LIST PING:

@Cyber Liberty
@DCPatriot
@Freya
@Ghost Bear
@GrannyMinimum
@Idaho_Cowboy
@jedidah
@Mom MD
@mrpotatohead
@roamer_1
@Smokin Joe
@the_doc
@WorkingClassFilth

[Quix]

WARNING!
You may well
NOT
want to view
the video.
It is more than a little disturbing
in serious ways.

I'm putting it here because I do NOT want to give it the merit of its own thread. Yet, it is very telling in terms of the hints of the satanic hideousness our 'leaders' have sunk to.

I put it here in the Potesta thread because of the email found talking about whether his brother was going to join them for the "SPIRIT COOKING."

"SPIRIT COOKING"


A la . . . John Podesta . . .


AVOID watching if you are squeemish . . . and/or have a hard time blocking things out of memory that you've seen.


But it does give a shocking amount of insight into the depths of the satanic hideousness our "leaders" have sunk to and typically engage in . . . involving fresh sperm, breast milk, urine and blood.


The snake in the video is toward the end.


The firs 1-3 min may be sufficient to give you more than enough exposure.


It doesn't appear to give a complete depiction of a true ritual--more snippets here and there. That's more than enough, imho.


And remember . . . these are people who believe that doing such things gains them satanic power. And the sad probability is that this is the tip of the iceberg.


If you really want to see it--put


https://www.youtube.com/watch


in front of the below--without a space


?v=3EsJLNGVJ7E

ATS thread it was found on--with a copy of the Podesta email referring to such:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1144932/pg1


This REALLY IS a deliberate leap into an 'alternate' {devilish} 'reality.'

ALTERNATE REALITIES PING LIST PING:

@Cyber Liberty
@DCPatriot
@Freya
@Ghost Bear
@GrannyMinimum
@Idaho_Cowboy
@jedidah
@Mom MD
@mrpotatohead
@roamer_1
@Smokin Joe
@the_doc
@Victoria33
@WorkingClassFilth

[Quix]

Another unsavory sobering video re Shrillery's cohorts . . .

WHO
is Human Abedin?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=10&v=nRu3U-nwyhw

[Frank Cannon]

Not a lot of meat on those bones but still a bit interesting.

Dude. Not only is there no meat on that bone, it isn't even a bone. It's a dried up turd.

First off, Kimmel is a comedy show. They were mocking UFO's in that interchange. Secondly fantasizing that WH officials are seriously discussing these matters because someone responds with a wise assed email response is the definition of insanity. 

[Quix]

Not a lot of meat on those bones but still a bit interesting.

Dude. Not only is there no meat on that bone, it isn't even a bone. It's a dried up turd.

First off, Kimmel is a comedy show. They were mocking UFO's in that interchange. Secondly fantasizing that WH officials are seriously discussing these matters because someone responds with a wise assed email response is the definition of insanity. 

I'm curious . . . how many 10's of thousands of UFO documentation have you read the last 50 years?

BTW, personally, I haven't paid much close attention to some details of some commentaries . . . even satire or jokes.

I've seen interesting factoids leak out into the public realm via a diversity of means . . . just like disinformation etc.

It is possible to have a built-up gestalt of the most likely basic facts . . . and to compare whatever sources and contentions against that . . . to see if there's any new nuance, puzzle pieces, whatever.

And, sometimes a new way of putting things . . . or a new scenario . . . even a new comedy show . . . can highlight something that had been missed or given insufficient attention before.

[Frank Cannon]

I'm curious . . . how many 10's of thousands of UFO documentation have you read the last 50 years?

That's irrelevant. You posted a thread that claimed Podesta answered a question about UFO's in a serious matter. He did not. You posted some guys ramblings that cite a Hitlary appearance on a late night comedy show as evidence to buttress that argument. It is all bullshit. The entire premise is faulty. It's all wishful thinking on the writers, and apparently your part.

[Quix]

That's irrelevant. You posted a thread that claimed Podesta answered a question about UFO's in a serious matter. He did not. You posted some guys ramblings that cite a Hitlary appearance on a late night comedy show as evidence to buttress that argument. It is all bullshit. The entire premise is faulty. It's all wishful thinking on the writers, and apparently your part.

Podesta has been sourced multiple times by multiple media orgs and others saying serious things about UFO's.

If your faulting this example helps you sleep better, be my guest.

= = =

I have an engineer friend . . . a very sharp Christian bloke. Has earned a very high income most of his adult life.

He's terrible at details. He won't remember much detail at all. He remembers feelings. How did the event, narrative, statement, incident, people leave him feeling. That's just about all he will typically remember. He has to refer to notes or transcripts etc. for the details.

I'm a bit different. One of my friends told another friend that I had a mind like a steel trap for incredible detail--particularly details of conversations. That's helpful for a psychologist, BTW.

I don't give much priority to checking sources out much at all. I'm interested in the content and how it compares or doesn't compare with what I already know of the topic.

To state again what my boss said--who had the world's best private collection of pre-Hitler materials--it was the flakiest groups, the most fringe groups who most accurately and earliest declared who Hitler was and what he would do.

I realize you are highly likely to continue to maintain your death grip on a kind of fierce automatic skepticism--virtually regardless. At some not toooo distant point, that will no longer be functional. To see the look on your face then, could be interesting.

It may be that I'm more chronically open to flaky inputs because I've learned that I can learn something from virtually anyone. I discovered fairly early in life that a stance and attitude of my knowing it all was not very functional, practical or true--and it was hazardous.

[Quix]

That's irrelevant. [snip]

I am curious . . . given your rabid hostility to the topic . . . and perhaps to me . . .

why do you bother?

Why not walk on by on the other side of the street and diminish the risk of getting any

"UFO-looney-toons-kook cooties?"

[Quix]

That's irrelevant. You posted a thread that claimed Podesta answered a question about UFO's in a serious matter. He did not. You posted some guys ramblings that cite a Hitlary appearance on a late night comedy show as evidence to buttress that argument. It is all bullshit. The entire premise is faulty. It's all wishful thinking on the writers, and apparently your part.

I re-read the OP.

It appears that your filters are flawed.

Which part of the following do you consider a joke or BS?

Clearly Clinton was ready and willing to talk about UFOs in a serious way. She also told a New Hampshire reporter in December 2015 that she thinks "we may have been (visited already). We don't know for sure." She acknowledged that Podesta had made her pledge to get the information out as president.

And . . . are you truly . . . uhhh . . . unaware . . .

That officialdom has, for many decades--particularly with this topic,

used curious to funny to off the wall venues, media personalities, contexts etc. to seed bits of truth as well as disinformation into the public discussion?

You, too often, seem to sound like you are utterly convinced that unless you thought of it,

it is automatically BS, flaky, idiotic, worthless etc.

Some of us are not at all convinced of that perspective.