STILLNESS IN THE STORM

Thanks Nancy!
by Justin Deschamps

Bill Ryan wrote an article last week entitled, The Truth About Corey Goode, wherein he asserted that the Secret Space Program whistleblower was compromised and inauthentic. Days later, Stillness in the Storm produced an analysis of that article, concluding that what Ryan asserted and presented as evidence was not conclusive and the claims were unsupportable. Goode contacted me and offered to respond to the claims made by Ryan, in an effort to clear the air.

In law, the accused always has the right to respond to their accuser’s because it provides onlookers, usually a jury of peers, the ability to have at least two points of view on the facts at hand. This is important because if one doesn’t respond, only the accuser’s version of events are heard.

We’re living in a reality based on information and knowledge. To manipulate common knowledge—what a person thinks everyone else believes—is to control the masses; this is primarily what propaganda and social engineering is designed to do. This is how the powers that be so skillfully manipulate the unthinking masses, by appealing to their desire to fit in and feel accepted.

A person’s reputation or social image is very important in a world where most people can’t tell image from substance. If people were highly discerning and thought critically, rumors and slander (unsupportable claims stated as fact) wouldn’t be a problem. But in our world, such things can mean the difference between life and death. Most people won’t even entertain an idea if they question the character of the person sharing it—which in and of it self is a problem.

Related As Corey Goode Secret Space Program Claims go Viral Critics Step up Attacks

By responding to these claims, Goode has an opportunity to clear the air, and restore his reputation and continue to do the work he came here to do.

Goode Responds to Ryan 

What follows are Ryan’s claims presented to Goode as series of questions. Additionally, Goode has some closing commentary.

If you look at my LinkedIn profile you will see that I received FEMA certifications when in the Texas State Guard. 

Image Source.

While in those training sessions we rubbed shoulders with FEMA, FBI and other federal and local law enforcement and disaster response agencies. I was also a member of the FBI’s “Infraguard” program. People should join and see what that is for themselves. I actually believed I was getting much more access than was available. It is a place to report cyber crimes and monitor them in real time. This tool is used for corporations to report or review reports of real-time hacking attacks and how to mitigate them.  

I was not given access to any database other than the real-time hacking and malware data coming from the Infraguard website. I was provided pieces of files and a couple redacted files on certain individuals that were coming together to attack me. There were a number of people from this forum that were pointed out to me as being extremely compromised. I have received files and data from contacts I made. 

8. Ryan claims that an unnamed intelligence agent contacted him saying that he has video footage of a conversation between you and your wife Stacey, wherein you were formulating the plan to deceive David Wilcock, captured via webcam activation. Ryan did not supply this footage. How do you respond? 

Goode: Un-named intelligence agent = Shane Bales AKA “The Ruiner” who was exposed as a pathological liar and caught on many occasionsmaking things up about myself and David Wilcock. He is not an intel agent by any stretch of the imagination. BR avoided using this “agents” name for a reason. The screen shot of a skype conversation, clearly edited, was from Shane. BR himself (along w/his forum) came out against this person as being untrustworthy. This usually happens with anyone that falls out of BR’s good graces, but he was correct on this occasion. If this guy is a super hacker that infiltrated my network and turned on my laptop mic and video camera, then why trust any of the screen shots or other information that he provided BR and the Forum in question? 

This is one more unfounded accusation (disinformation) and BR knows it. I have never had a conversation remotely like that with Stacy. I say post the video! Show it! Put up or shut up… This is Shane Bales we are talking about. 

Again I say, post that alleged video footage. It doesn’t exist. If this footage was lied about, how can anyone trust any of BR’s other accusations against me? Or others for that matter. Think about it. 

[You can review Kerry Cassidy’s opinion on this matter here, where she disagree’s with some of Ryan’s claims about whistle blowers.]  

9. Ryan further claims that the same intelligence agent contact sent a screenshot of a skype conversation between the agent and yourself, wherein you said “you are now on the payroll… so am I.. it is what it is.” Since the original release of Ryan’s article, some have come forward refuting the screenshot as a forgery, saying your chat messages were altered. Did you actually send this message and is what appears the image your words? If so, how do you explain what these mean? How do you respond?

Goode: I did speak w/Shane in skype until DW and I caught him in a number of fabrications. The conversation in question was edited somehow, but some of the terms were used. We were talking about how we thought we [sic] were done with all of these programs. Being forced “back on the payroll” is a way of saying that I was being forced back into working with these groups again in an [sic] professional like status. This was taken and made to look like I was being paid by the powers that be. I have never been paid to be in the SSP “Programs,” nor am I now. I have never received any payments from the powers that be. This statement was taken out of context to purposely make me look like an agent by either Shane or BR.

It was reported to me that BR has also told people that he had an investigator look into me and found that I was receiving payments from “government sources”. BR cannot back up any of his accusations with evidence that stands up.

10. Ryan claims that the bulk of your testimony is a “carbon copy” of other whistle blowers, and that your claims are just too wild to believe, thus, in his mind, you can’t be authentic. How do you respond?

Goode: Once my information violated BR’s UFO religion, things went south very quickly. This is easy to verify by looking at Forum records (unless deleted or edited once more) his forum is controlled like a small totalitarian country. You either tow the line or you [sic] are either pushed out by other loyal forum members or are “un-subscribed” from the forum. If you do not believe me, open up an account there and speak your mind for a few weeks. You will wish you hadn’t. This is what occurred in 2015. 

He and others in that Forum have claimed I data mine and steal other people’s testimony. This was claimed about William Tompkins as well. Even though my info came out prior. You really have to look into these people and see their venomous attacks on a number of people other than myself. If you do the research you will see a clear pattern of behavior and accusations. This group seems to follow this pattern in an unbroken cycle. That is one reason I have warned people about hanging out in forums.

11. Ryan claims that if you were an authentic whistle blower, you would have never been allowed to continue talking. He seems to imply that you have had no problems with various authorities in sharing your testimony, that it has been 100% “approved” by high-level players in the programs. Is this implication true? How do you respond?

Goode: By Bill’s logic, William Tompkins, Clifford Stone, Pete Peterson, etc, are all liars or agents since they are still alive after coming forward. Does Bill believe that Steven Greer and his list of whistleblowers who testified in 2001 are also liars or agents since they are all alive? What about all of the people they interviewed on Project Camelot? They would all be liars or agents according to this logic. 

As William Tompkins has testified a faction of the US Navy is now wanting all of this disclosed. They gave him the green light to report on the same programs I was involved in. He had direct approval to release his information. Being that I was in these programs, I was given more protection when it came to being a whistle-blower. 

I have had an attempt to poison me at the airport, have had Chinooks flying over my house (I’m nowhere near an airbase) and have had multiple targeting lasers from sniper rifles appear on my chest while outside with my children. Most recently I ended up in the emergency room from an attack. 

Sadly, most of the most threatening attacks occurred when some of these forum members began to find out where I lived. I had a number of these forum members stalking me online. The line was drawn for me when some of them began to show up around my home and began to harass my family. We moved and took security precautions very quickly after a few incidents around my house.

BR himself had told me that I needed to come out in a big way to ensure the safety of my family. He asserted that if I was public, if the powers that be killed me it would just validate my testimony. This is also what Gaia told me and what made me to agree to Cosmic Disclosure.

I have not recycled anyone’s information.

12. Ryan claims that you are a conscious deceiver, that you know your story is untrue and are promoting it anyway. How do you respond?

Goode: He claims that I’m not really an IT professional as well. I invite people to check my references from my Linkedin Profile as well as verify my MCSE and A+ Certifications. I was in the IT Field for over 20 years and this is easily provable.

[An article written by Corey Goode from 2003, protesting IT jobs moving to India, suggesting he did work as an IT professional: Outsourcing to India: Offshore Debate Rages.]

As far as being a conscious deceiver. What is he basing this on? His opinion? The collective opinion of his forum? He certainly isn’t basing this accusation off of the reverse speech analysis that showed no deception. Or the recent video of people studying my body language where they also concluded “Corey believes what he is saying”?

Closing Remarks

I reached out to Bill Ryan and asked if he would like to respond, with the goal of settling the controversy so we can get back to fixing the planet. He has yet to reply, but should he, I will produce an update accordingly.

One last point I want to raise, with respect to discernment, is that in order to determine if a claim is true, it must be judged on its merits—it must be compared to reality to see if it matches. If this comparison cannot take place, then we can’t definitively discern what’s going on, we can only guess and wait for more information. And most importantly, avoid resting our beliefs only on our guesses.

Sometimes verifying a claim is easy, like looking outside can confirm or deny a prediction about the weather. But in other cases, discernment is not so simple. When we can’t access evidence ourselves, first hand, then we need to learn how navigate uncertainty.

For example, Ryan’s claim that Goode deceived David Wilcock was based on another claim by someone who said they had footage of the event in question. In discerning this claim, first we need to properly understand what is being said and what is cited as evidence in support. In this case, the claim of Goode’s deceptiveness with respect to Wilcock rests on another claim that footage of the event exists. The footage itself would need to be produced so that the all claims can be verified. But since we have no such evidence, then the claim cannot be verified and it remains unconfirmed.

At this point, no definitive judgement or discernment can take place; the only thing that can be done is to speculate on what might have happened based on the evidence one does have available. What tends to happen in this situation is people assume that lack the of evidence is evidence of something else—however this is a logical fallacy. Claims require positive evidence to confirm. In such cases when there is no evidence, a credibility assessment can give us a guess, but that’s all it is.

Credibility tells us how likely a person’s future statements are to be true based on how truthful they were in the past. But contrary to popular belief, if a person is deemed to be “credible,” it doesn’t mean they can be believed without question. In other words, while credibility can be a useful guide, it cannot verify a claim’s veracity—at all. Credible people can say untrue things; and incredible people can say true things. But as was just described, personal verification trumps credibility because we who are discerning gain a detailed comprehension of what happened, which cuts through any attempts at deception.

In this case, we don’t really know if the footage exists or not. But based on the credibility of Ryan with respect to the evidence used to support his claims about Goode, or lack there of, it can be asserted that Goode has more credibility than Ryan. Goode is more objective while Ryan is unobjective with respect to his stated beliefs. And therefore, Ryan’s claim that Goode and his wife Stacey deceived Wilcock is likely untrue. But again, this is just a argument based on credibility and has little weight to it. Such an exercise is valuable for its ability to guide our consciousness through an exploration, providing new insights along the way.

While it can feel unsettling not to have definitive answers, learning to navigate uncertainty is very useful. Especially since the vast majority of our beliefs and assumptions we use to navigate the world were likely never verified with evidence—or may not even be our own beliefs. This means if we’re not careful, we’ll fall into the trap of assuming our beliefs can’t be questioned, and we won’t bother re-evaluating them.

This episode between Ryan and Goode presented us, the outsiders, with a good opportunity to test our discernment skills, and learn how to evaluate claims objectively. And it’s helping to ferret out any potential disagreements as the need for unity increases with each passing day.

Although discussions like this can take on an air of unpleasantness, we need to be able to talk about things freely and openly—especially those things that are hard to deal with. For the truth must shine brightly in order for it to set the mind free.

The preceding text is a Stillness in the Storm original creation. Please share freely.