First off, let me introduce myself. I’m QueasyTangelo, I met some of you at the Sol Foundation’s inaugural symposium… I love these boards, conversations, and energy behind disclosure. I think AARO is a sham and their reports are extremely disingenuous. I spend lots of my free time/energy analyzing all the bits and pieces of every player’s words and I love it all.
But, I’ve spotted something on our side that has me wondering. I’m posting my logic here for the better minds of group-consciousness to help me sort it out.
Ross Coulthart, a man I’ve viewed as a linchpin in this recent push for disclosure, seems to have talked himself into a corner. For the second time in a recent interview, he says he won’t disclose the location of the large craft with a building built on top of it… for the sake of his source and for the safety of good men and women who work there.
Let’s play with his logic here, it’s pretty straightforward:
Protecting a source: He’s already spoken enough words for any gatekeeper to discern the data source. In fact, he gave even MORE exposing information in the most recent interview by saying “in the service of their country.” The actual location is now moot for protecting a source. He’s already blown that source’s cover… rendering this excuse invalid.
Protecting “the great men and women” was his other reason. Beyond being an invalid excuse, is extremely disrespectful to this community. Let me explain. For Ross to believe he’s protecting people he must think that they’re in some sort of danger from his audience, essentially that we’d threaten the safety/lives of people in this location. And, if anyone involved had a half-a-brain, all the “great men and women” would be evacuated the moment he drops the info. Hell, if he planned to share the most earth-shattering information in an interview, maybe plan it for when you know they’re safe. Or give them a heads-up to ensure their safety. So, not only does he believe we’re unstable enough to attack innocent people, but he believes we’re dumb enough to accept this excuse.
Are those two excuses strong enough to bear the weight of humanity’s most important revelation, ever? They wouldn’t even hold in a 3 minute argument with my wife!
Now, let’s look at the flipside. If Coulthart speaks the name of this building on live TV one day, all eyes will be on it. People will travel there, ultimately determining the truth. Deep, deep analysis like we have never seen before will take place almost instantaneously. It’ll crack so wide open in a matter of a day, it won’t matter who leaked it, how, or why. The world will change forever and he will be knighted Sir Ross Coulthart within the week. Floodgates open on all kinds of fronts: science, health, and likely many others we can’t yet fathom. A newly minted (and capitalized) Era would literally be marked in human history.
I am convinced Ross is lying about his reasoning to not divulge its location. That bothers me, a lot. It makes me wonder what/who else I should distrust in his far-reaching circle. But it also makes me analyze the possible reasons why he’d lie.
1) Does Ross have his own personal reasons to lie? He could be receiving death threats from gatekeepers… that would quickly quiet someone. Or maybe this is actually/secretly his job/role (and therefore takes income from undisclosed sources to be the Ross we see/hear daily). In could actually understand some personal reasons that would push someone in this position to lie, but some of those might be a betrayal to this community/effort.
2) He knows divulging it is a complete betrayal of a larger plan set in motion by many many (possibly good, possibly bad) people (or NHI?). He doesn’t want to bear the burden of sourcing humanity’s ontological shock.
3) He’s lying 🙁
I am no Greenstreet, I am no West, but I am analytical to a fault… and I don’t like being lied to…. and this has all the hallmarks of a lie, however white it may be. Ross could have easily said “my life is being threatened by gatekeepers” or “i dont feel comfortable undermining the plan of easing you monkeys into ontological shock”…. and we all would back him up (to varying degrees). But he’s now doubled-down on this questionable reasoning and it doesn’t stand up to pretty basic analysis… why obfuscate/lie?
So, I leave this puzzle here for you, my fellow analysts, to dissect.
submitted by /u/QueasyTangelo8863
[link] [comments]