Dark Journalist Daniel Liszt and Bill Ryan dissect Corey Goode's credibility, exposing financial inconsistencies like his sudden shift from disability to a $10,000 donation and TV contract. They detail how editors spent 12 to 15 hours polishing Goode's raw audio, contrasting his rewards with whistleblowers like Henry Deacon who faced coercion or death. Ryan critiques Goode's claims of Jupiter-sized spheres and FBI access as pathological lies, arguing that "UFO disease" drives embellishment for profit rather than truth. Ultimately, the episode suggests Goode is a manufactured celebrity whose fabricated narratives undermine genuine insider testimony. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
Time
Text
Investigating the Secret Space Program00:04:29
Hi, this is Dark Journalist.
Today I'm excited to welcome Project Avalon's Bill Ryan to the show.
Now, Ryan's many years of seeking out whistleblowers involved in deep black projects relating to advanced UFO technology and the secret space program have given us a much better picture of what may be lurking behind the wall of secrecy maintained by the national security state.
Now, today Ryan will discuss an article he wrote called The Truth About Corey Goode that's been lighting up the blogosphere with his in depth analysis of the elaborate claims made by Goode.
Of being an insider for military programs dealing with Interdimensional and extraterrestrial beings.
Ryan has found many discrepancies in Good's account and suggests he may be unreliable as a whistleblower.
Is the story real?
A sci fi fantasy delusion?
Or a clever piece of misinformation developed by the CIA, including exotic blue avian aliens?
Let's go ask Project Avalon's Bill Ryan.
It's almost like there's an attempt being made by somebody to lay waste to good research.
I and many people believe this.
He's simply a pathological liar.
The Dark Journalist Special Report.
Secret Space Spooks Whistleblower Fail.
Featuring an in depth two part interview with Project Avalon's Bill Ryan.
Now, let's join Dark Journalist Daniel List.
Bill, it's great to have you with us.
And of course, I've been watching your videos and investigations for many years.
And I was always struck by the quality, the depth, and the candor of the conversations that you'd have with various whistleblowers.
And I think it really showed the kind of empathy that you had for the position that they were in coming forward and revealing these things to you and your former investigative partner.
Well, thank you.
It's very generous of you to say that.
And of course, although we never set out to do anything, I mean, the whole thing was just not project planned in any way at all.
We were really word as bumbling amateurs right at the start.
But after a while, we realized that what we were doing had a certain kind of appeal because we were sort of like, you know, Mr. and Ms. Everyman representing the audience, just going on this sort of road trip and inviting our audience to come with us, you know, just sort of looking over our shoulder.
And here we are in this room talking to this interesting guy, and you just listen along with us, and we'll ask you all the questions that we think you'd like us to ask.
And it sort of worked.
And of course, you know, at the beginning, this is something that may make you laugh.
It's absolutely true.
I had somebody come up to me once at a conference and said, You know what?
I was absolutely certain that you had to be CIA sponsored because you had access to all these people and you suddenly shot to prominence, and we knew that there had to be some kind of intelligence agency that was sponsoring you.
And then he said, But then we realized that your production values were so bad that you couldn't possibly produce.
Be professionally sponsored.
I realize you must be exactly who you say you were because some of your videos are so terrible.
And he said this with his big smile on his face.
I mean, he's not talking about the content, he's just talking about all the little glitches and the color and the sound and the editing problems and all this kind of stuff.
And so sometimes there's this kind of twist that it may be sort of advantageous to come over looking like a genuine amateur rather than somebody who's slickly professional.
Oh, yeah.
Look as if they've got millions of dollars behind them.
Exactly.
So funny.
Well, what I was sensing when I read your article, which was excellent, by the way, was that you'd been keeping an eye on the good story and these various detours that were happening for a major investigative area like the Secret Space Program, along with some disinformation memes that were floating around, and that you had a real concern that alternative research and the UFO field were being tampered with.
Now, we're going to get to the article and its implications in full, and your own history with Good and the inconsistencies that you see in his story, and also the larger picture of what is research?
The Machinery of Disinformation00:11:14
You know, what is a real whistleblower?
These are very important questions.
But first, before we get into the whole thing, I'd like you to tell us what you're up to now, because the first reaction that I was getting, and I can tell you, even people who I know that loved your article, They were shocked because they've been really curious about what you've been up to.
Yes, I take that point, and it's not something I often think about, but I do get emails every now and then from somebody who says, Oh my God, I never knew you were still alive.
You know, it's like you've been doing all this stuff and you haven't really been blowing your own horn about it.
And oh my God, there's such a lot to read here.
And on the other hand, I get people who I've never heard of before.
And I'm sure you get the same thing people who I've never, ever, ever heard of.
And they say, you know what?
I've been reading every word you've ever written or ever spoken for years, you know, and I follow you all the time.
And they're all these invisible people, you know.
Right, right.
And of course, we don't know what impact we're having out there.
Oh, there's no question about it.
And that's a show in itself for sure.
I suppose to satisfy some curiosity here, where are you now and what special projects have you been up to?
And take us since you split from Project Camelot to doing Project Avalon.
Okay, right.
We can go to that.
I'm living on a farm in Ecuador at 9,000 feet up in the mountains and I love where I'm at.
Nice.
And there are reasons why.
Kerry Casty and I parted ways, which itself is quite an interesting story.
You feel that it was engineered.
Oh, yes, of course it was.
Oh, yes, absolutely.
Yeah, sure.
We were taken down by a number, sorry, or one or more of the whole different laundry list of different factions that all kind of pretty much happened at the same time.
And That's not just a five minute story.
That's actually a little bit of a longer story, and it's a very, very interesting one.
Yeah.
Well, your life has been very intertwined with your research.
So all of this will come into play.
It's intertwined in our discussion of these issues.
So we'll circle around back to that again.
But just looking back on your early efforts with Project Camelot, bringing whistleblowers to the public, how does it feel now when you think of it?
I have an enormous respect for Carrie.
She has.
A vast amount of courage that is greater than that of most people who I've ever met.
And she has total, total integrity.
Right.
Now, I have had my differences with her about what constitutes valid information and what doesn't.
But having said that, I don't know any random pair of researchers you could put together for whom you couldn't actually say the same thing.
You know, and This is one of the problems as we may get into exploring that it's such a complex field with so much interference in it, some of it which is subtle and some of which is not, that it's extremely difficult for people with the highest intentions to find themselves totally agreeing about everything.
And of course, those disagreements which Often happen are, in my opinion, very deliberately engineered in many cases.
And of course, we can talk about this and the sort of interference that happens in this whole area just to kind of split the bonds of trust and cooperation that researchers really should have with each other if we're going to be any kind of a cohesive phalanx, you know?
And so, when I say that Kerry and I didn't always agree about the veracity of some of the information, it's possible that some of that was injected in there to cause problems.
And I think it really is massively injected in some other areas, which again, we'll go on and talk about.
Yes, and that is the machinery of disinformation that comes into play, especially when you're getting near to the truth.
But the most important thing.
Is that I have the highest respect for Kerry.
And if she were suddenly to appear at my door right now and say, hey, I'm passing by, can I have a cup of coffee?
I would be so overwhelmingly delighted to see her.
I hold her in the very highest regard, and I'm very, very happy for that to be on record.
Well, I can appreciate that.
And I know that those of us who like to go deep into this kind of research are grateful for all the painstaking work that you both have done.
And this all ties together for me because the way I saw your article on Corey Good, and we're going to go deep into every aspect of it here.
But there was a kind of subtext about just what is happening now in the space.
How the secret space research idea has really been co opted to be about something totally different.
Now, I recall hosting the 2015 Secret Space Program Conference, and we made the show really about a hidden space program that was being built for private interests with public money.
And there were references to information coming forward on that, you know, the black budget space enterprise, if you will.
And then we started getting people after that making claims of being a part.
Of that program, but with no real trail of evidence.
And then finally, Good's story of being a kind of chosen ambassador for these beings, blue avians and slave colonies, and all of this.
Really very sci fi stuff that had nothing to do with, say, scientist John Brandenburg telling us about evidence for a nuclear explosion on Mars, you know, or a former assistant HUD secretary Catherine Austin Fitz explaining how missing government trillions were financing a covert civilization.
Now, that's two very different streams of information.
Yes.
But what it brings me to is this idea of whistleblowers.
And you've spoken to the best.
And when you spoke to them, they had a lot to risk to go on the record with you, the dangers that were involved.
And I know you've pointed out for some of these whistleblowers, things didn't go so well.
Yes, right.
Absolutely right.
And it's interesting to use that as a comparison about what does happen to some people and what doesn't happen to other people.
And that's something that maybe we can go into later because I can tell a couple of stories.
Oh, that would be great.
Yeah.
But please continue.
Well, it just goes back to something you said in the article, which is that when we think of real whistleblowers and the challenges they face, we have to understand that kind of environment, that kind of pressure.
And you asked if we could imagine someone like Edward Snowden showing up at the TV studio for his latest installment of his wild adventures.
No, he'd be dragged away in handcuffs, and his whole crew there working on the TV set would be interrogated by Homeland Security.
Well, yes.
I mean, and as you alluded to just now, I was able to contrast that with some experiences which I'd had myself, and that's independent from everything which I already knew about a number of other whistleblowers or people who were in some other way,
a thorn in the side of the vestibule.
interests.
Who had paid enormously for their courage in speaking out or taking a stand.
And there was a whole tribute page which I put up on Project Camelot many years ago when I just started to dig out all the people who had died or whose reputations had been severely and terminally crippled as a result of the stand that they took.
And it's a very, very long list of people.
And most of the people listening to this now will be aware of at least some of those.
And there are many others who are much more.
Unknown, but it's a very, very long list in the history of people who've blown whistles on not only things like black projects, but on things like the pharmaceutical industry.
Or, I mean, there's that wonderful Al Pacino movie called The Insider about the guy who was a whistleblower in the tobacco industry, and they try to ruin him, you know.
Of course, there are vested interests in tobacco, but there are enormous vested interests in this whole arena that we're addressing here, connected with UFOs, ETs, the secret space program, and so on and so forth.
So, the two experiences which I had, which I was able to directly contrast this with, and it's really quite interesting.
I completely understand and respect.
Let me first start off by saying that I'm aware.
That the sort of collective stance taken by yourself and Catherine Austin Fitz and Joseph Farrell and other colleagues in the 2015 Secret Space Program conference that you held was that it would not be appropriate and didn't fit with what you were trying to do to invite whistleblowers to speak to tell their story,
partly because they already had a platform all over the internet, and also because.
De facto, their stories were often unverifiable.
And that hooks back to what Joseph Farrell has often said, as you know, that because the whistleblower arena is so muddied, so complex, and often fraught with claims that are just so hard to substantiate, it's better to stick to document research.
And that's Richard Dolan's stance as well, as you know, which I admire and respect.
First of all, that's my caveat.
But what I would like to say, and some of those listening here may know this story already, back in Project Camelot days in 2006, 2007, we encountered a whistleblower whose real name was Arthur Neumann, like John von Neumann, in the U M A N N N.
Ambushed at the Barcelona Conference00:06:34
And we called him Henry Deacon.
We named him after a character in the TV show Eureka.
And we established his identity.
We saw his credentials.
We saw his employment papers.
We verified to our full satisfaction that he was exactly through who he said he was.
And we talked with him for hundreds of hours, hundreds and hundreds of hours.
Wow.
Literally.
There was one time when he came to stay with me.
Personally, in my apartment for a whole week, and we talked for seven or eight days pretty much night and day about his experiences.
He said that he had been to Mars, and I believed him.
We can't prove it.
But in my personal opinion, his story was very, very credible.
And then what happened, the reason why I'm just recounting this anecdote, is that in the July 2009 Exopolitics conference in Barcelona, which Henry Deacon, and I'll call him that name because that's what most people know him as, and Kerry and myself have been invited to attend, there was a An onstage presentation about anomalies on Mars by Bob Dean,
who everyone knows and loves.
And we listened to this.
And at the very, very end, I was sitting next to Kerry.
And Kerry got up and walked down the aisle of this huge auditorium containing about a thousand people, grabbed Henry Deacon, who was sitting somewhere else, by the hand, and pulled him on stage.
And I had no idea this was going to happen.
Henry had no idea this was going to happen.
And this is exactly the kind of thing that Kerry does.
Surprise.
She just decided that she was going to take Henry, walk him on stage, give him the microphone, and urge him to make a statement in front of all the television cameras.
And there really were television cameras there from mainstream television, as well as everything else.
And there was Kerry and Henry Deacon and Bob Dean on stage.
And.
To his great credit, Henry picked up the microphone and said, Look, I want to support Bob Steen's story.
There are a ton of anomalies on Mars and more, and what's more, I've been there.
And there was kind of some degree of pandemonium in the auditorium.
This was all unplanned.
And Bob handled it very graciously because, in a way, what had happened was his own presentation had been ambushed.
But it was all very spectacular.
And what happened after that?
This is the point of the story.
We were told after that by another intelligence source that we were in contact with, who at that time we had reason to believe was very reliable.
They said to us very soberly, He will never be permitted to do that again.
Now, this is highly significant.
You see, because here we're talking about the Secret space program analogy to Ed Snowden being prevented from doing his show on Gaia TV.
And what was interesting then was that three weeks after that, there was another conference in Amsterdam which Henry had already been invited to speak at.
And he was one of the star attractions because everyone knew who he was.
They thought he was going to talk about Mars.
They thought he was going to talk about his whole.
Very remarkable story.
And there were about 200 people there who'd all paid good money basically to listen to Henry, although there were other guests there as well, including Kerry and myself.
And this was three weeks after this event on stage in Barcelona, where we had immediately been told that Henry would not be able to talk about this ever again.
When we met Henry in Amsterdam three weeks later, he arrived.
He was looking flustered and he gave us the very strong impression that.
He was under some kind of coercion.
There were some things that he said.
He was being very enigmatic about it.
He didn't say anything on record to us.
It was all rather hasty because we were like there were dozens of people all milling around, and you know how that is in a conference.
And then he came to do his slot and he talked about the advantages of taking vitamin D3 as a protection against avian flu.
And there was almost a riot because that's all he talked about.
He did not talk about Mars, he didn't mention it.
He stayed off the topic absolutely.
And if you put all this together, It appeared self evident that he had been warned off.
And I just recount that anecdote to confirm what we were talking about earlier that people who do speak out, even for a few minutes, if they go over some line, and we never quite know where this line is that is drawn by the agencies who allow or disallow.
Things that are said.
When I say allow or disallow, I mean in terms of, you know, do they respond or do they take action of some kind?
Right.
We never quite know where that line is, but we get to see it sometimes when somebody crosses it because then something happens.
And I believe that in these instances, things are factionalized with the agencies.
You may well agree with this.
For instance, some people seem to be able to get away with something and somebody else might be severely punished for doing apparently the same kind of.
Thing it may depend on who they've upset, who's listening, whose vested interests they've crossed, and the fact that within the agencies there's a lot of compartmentalization anyway.
Sorting Documents and Artifacts00:03:48
It's not like you've got one head honcho who's making all the decisions.
I don't think it actually works like that.
Um, the other story which I'd like to tell, which affects me personally, because we're talking about somebody who I counted as an extremely good friend, his name was John Danner, D A N N E R, J O N D A N N E R.
We had Showcased him on Camelot under the rather silly pseudonym called Mr. X.
It was a bad choice of name, but it was actually suggested to us by another interviewer called Jerry Pippin.
And John Danner had this remarkable, remarkable story that, again, I spent a lot of time with him, he was completely convinced it was true.
That he was given the job for six months when he was actually working as.
As a draftsman in an aerospace company.
And he was given the job every day for six months, every working day for six months, of going into a guarded room.
The door was kind of locked behind him, as it were, with guards at the door.
And he was given literally a mail sack of assorted UFO and ET oriented videos, photographs.
Documents and artifacts, and his job was to sort and categorize them.
I mean, can you imagine that?
And one of the reasons why he was given this job was because he was a very detail oriented draftsman, and so he was, you know, able or it was judged that he was able to make good judgments about how to organize all these things in some kind of a library catalog.
And he did this for six months.
And there are many things which he didn't get to see because they were all sealed.
But he said that during that time he did get to see a lot of documents, a lot of artifacts, a lot of videos, and a huge number of photographs.
And he told us his story.
Okay, very remarkable story.
That was like 20 years ago.
And we told his story on his behalf.
We disguised his name.
We never showed his photograph.
We disguised his voice in a couple of interviews that we did.
And then he told us that.
He was going to come out.
He had decided, he talked to his wife, he was going to come out in person on stage.
He was going to volunteer to attend a conference in person and tell his story to anyone who is interested, not just behind this shield of anonymity.
And he told us that.
He made a little audio recording for us, which we played at one of our conferences, which was in November.
Let me get the date right.
Um, November 2008.
Okay.
Um, and we played this recording in his real voice, um, in front of an audience and saying, You know, this is our man, this is our name.
Uh, so this is his name, and this is what he's going to do, and this is his message to you.
It's just a little tape about it's just a little clip about two minutes long.
Three weeks later, he was dead.
Oh, he was.
Something like 45 years old, he was in perfect health.
Three Weeks Later He Was Dead00:09:01
He was going Christmas shopping with his wife and he dropped dead.
That's incredibly young.
I mean, this isn't, yeah.
Go figure.
Yeah.
Now, the timing there is just to suspect.
It's unbelievable.
Yeah.
And what one cannot prove, but one can infer from that, is that he upsets somebody who is in a position to make an executive decision or he.
He upset some agenda or he broke some protocol that we don't even know about, and he didn't even know about because, um, certainly not everyone who decides to appear at a UFO conference drops dead when they're going Christmas shopping, that doesn't happen, but he did, and it might have been an accident, but I don't think so.
And he was a very close friend and he was a wonderful man, and that for me was very instructive.
Once again, if we take those two instances of Henry Deacon and John Danner, and we compare that with what has happened in particular to Corey Good.
And of course, there are others to whom this applies to a lesser extent, but Corey is really like an extreme case because most whistleblowers in this field, which we're addressing here, don't actually get a TV show.
I mean, he not only got a TV show, he got like A whole contract for a year's worth of episodes, right?
Which had to be filled with new content in order to keep the viewership and to keep the interest alive and all this kind of stuff.
And he's being paid, he's being fated, he's being groomed, he's being turned into a celebrity.
And whoever it is who has these vested interests, who are determined to protect them, and where We know that there's a long, bloody history of how they have been determined to protect these interests.
He is left untouched, encouraged, rewarded, and fated.
And it's like, what's wrong with his picture?
Wow.
Well, that really gets to the root of what your article was saying.
And, you know, when I read it the first time, it was powerful because I felt there was something about the contrast, like you just illustrated there, which is having done Camelot, having done Avalon, you know, being in this world of whistleblowers from really deep black projects and having talked with them.
Regarding really intimate details of these things, you have a sense for it.
You have a sense for the fields.
And, you know, you've had your own experiences now with Corey Good early on.
And that didn't sit too well with you at the time.
Well, yes, right.
Thank you.
That's an important point that you raise.
And it's like the context for this.
I'd just like to address this first because it is true that.
I feel at least that I have some experience in this area.
I've talked to a lot of people on record, I've talked to even more people off record, and I'm sure I share this with yourself.
And over those years, and it really was a very intense period, I do feel that I became educated in many ways about what feels right and what doesn't feel right with someone's story.
Sometimes it's hard to substantiate, sometimes it's hard to put your finger on.
And sometimes it's just a clear red flag that shoots up, and then you can find documentary evidence once you've been put on alert.
And what I do want to say is this, and this is really important.
You see, in a sense, and I'm really not trying to promote myself in any way here, this is all just circumstantial.
It's kind of like I do have a little bit of an advantage in this field because I have the experience.
I'm not claiming kind of credit for that, but it's just like, okay, so that's my background.
Um, and many others, many, many others, um, all of those in the virtual audience that we've got here watching these things on YouTube or watching Gaia TV, they don't have that experience to draw on, and this is not their fault.
You see, I'm not trying to criticize anyone here for being, let's say, gullible.
I mean, that's an easy word, it's like I don't want to go there because.
What we have is we've got experience and inexperience, and there are a lot of young people, thank goodness there are a lot of young people in their 20s or younger coming into this arena, jumping onto YouTube, and bless them, they're like sponges.
They know that they've been lied to, they know that there's something wrong, they know that the world is not the way that it's been taught them by the media and their school teachers and their parents.
They know that there's that.
There's stuff there which is being kept for them.
And so they go onto YouTube and they absorb everything like a sponge.
And the problem there is that they haven't learned the skills of discernment and discrimination.
They don't know how to evaluate information.
They don't know how to evaluate the credibility of a witness.
And it's not their fault.
And what those in our field who are slightly more experienced in this area have to do, in my opinion, if we can, is try and sort of educate them.
And that's not assuming an arrogant elitist attitude.
It's simply that we've been around for a little bit longer.
And if there's some way that we can point out to people, Who are eager for any truth that they can lay their hands on by saying, Now just go slowly a minute, just pause there.
Look at this.
Do you see that this doesn't fit?
Look at this.
Do you see how that's inconsistent?
Look at that.
Do you see how that's impossible?
Look at this.
Do you realize how there's something here that doesn't feel right?
Can you kind of get that?
And we have to point these out to people who are running as fast as they can.
Pick up anything that they see and then repost it somewhere else.
And this is one of the problems that we've got in the so called alternative media that the bad information or the faulty information also goes viral.
Sometimes that happens mischievously, so to speak.
Sometimes it's all got to do with clickbait and people wanting to promote their own YouTube channels.
And sometimes it's very, very innocent because there's some young person, or maybe even somebody who's not such a young person.
Who just thinks that they're really doing the best thing they can by supporting the truth movement, and sometimes they're not supporting the truth movement at all.
And that's a really important caveat.
So.
Well, let's talk about a threshold.
In light of all that, what would be maybe what you would consider having done this and having received information that wasn't available?
Before you interviewed people and took them into this deeper level, you know, from your own standpoint, what would it be that would constitute important testimony?
Right.
Okay.
Well, when you say important testimony, I'm taking that to mean testimony that we should note and pay attention to because it seems like it may be valuable.
In other words, this deserves a second look.
Let's dig into it a bit further.
Let's pay attention to this rather than discard it.
And if you mean important testimony in that way, then I think there are certain rules of thumb, almost like very simple sort of thinking and discrimination skills that we can apply to the situation.
Evaluating Source Reliability Protocols00:15:08
And What's interesting here, what's interesting to me, and which some people know about, is that there's a very established set of protocols used by the intelligence agencies,
used by the CIA in particular, the NSA, the FBI, and other agencies in other countries throughout the world for evaluating a source and the information.
And it goes on a kind of sliding scale.
All of this is on Wikipedia, for goodness sake.
There's a whole Wikipedia page called Intelligence Source and Information Reliability.
And there's a rating for the source.
A is reliable, B usually reliable, C fairly reliable, D not usually reliable, and E unreliable.
And it kind of drills down the definitions there.
Unreliable is lack of authenticity, trustworthiness, and competency, history of bad information, and so on and so forth.
And so there's a kind of grading of the source.
In other words, if there's some informant.
Who always phones up the FBI and says this, that, or the other, and they've been wrong every time, then they'll certainly make a report because it's their duty to make a report of anyone who calls them with some kind of claim, but maybe it doesn't get the highest priority.
Somebody who phones in who's always right and is always providing good information because it's always checked out, then those are the guys who get listened to.
So any source.
Is graded on an A to F scale.
And then there's a separate grading for the information reliability.
One is confirmed, two, probably true, three, possibly true, four, doubtfully true, and five, improbable, and the definition for improbable is not logical or contradicted by other relevant information.
And so if some piece of information is coming to an agency and that That piece of information is graded an A1, then they'll take that very seriously.
It goes to the top of the pile and they'll take action, they'll check it out, and it's very valuable to them.
If it's like, you know, an E5 from a source that lacks authenticity, has had a bad history of previous information, and the information is not logical or contradictory, then that's kind of right at the bottom of the pile.
Okay.
And Those thinking skills, I mean, simply bearing that set of filters in mind can help us look at what somebody is saying when they make a YouTube video claiming goodness knows what.
And so, as my own summary for that, it's like, okay, first of all, we look at the person, and here are four questions Are they being rewarded or punished for speaking out?
One or the other.
Do they have a history of telling the truth?
Are there any reasons to doubt their integrity and their honest intentions?
Meaning, do their actions match with their words?
And does their personal history check out?
Are they actually who they say they are?
And this is something that Richard Dolan has said many, many times.
He said, If a source comes to me, I need to know who they are because anyone can.
Can sit in front of their computer on their own YouTube channel and say anything.
That means nothing.
We need to know who they are.
And then, separately, there's the information.
And the information is is their information self consistent?
And what that means is do they ever change or embellish their testimony?
Does it vary?
Is their information changing and wobbling about?
And does their information correlate with or confirm other information from independent sources?
And I use the example there.
It's like, for instance, if we take the simple thing that many of your listeners will know all about, which is the witness reports of the alien beings in the Roswell crash, most of the sources say that these little guys had four fingers.
Some of them say they had six, and that's possible.
Because it's possible we're talking about two different kinds of beings.
But if suddenly there's a new witness comes forward that says, oh, these guys had eight fingers, no one has ever said that, ever, ever, ever, in the whole history of the testimony of all the Roswell witnesses.
And therefore, there's reason to hold that statement in doubt.
It's as simple as that.
And there's a sort of broader version of whether their information correlates with other sources, and that is that is there.
Information even consistent with what is generally known to be possible, even with an, with like, even among open minded people.
And to relate this to Corey Good, and again, I'm sort of trying to use this as a kind of teaching tool to help people evaluate information, and it's just that Corey happens to be.
A really, in my opinion, a really good case study for this because it seems to me that there are, in terms of all those criteria which I laid out, the attributes of the person, the attributes of the information, there are red flags all over the place.
Yeah, well, this would be a good place for us to start to show some examples of the inconsistencies that you see in his testimony.
He talks about a race of beings called blue avians.
That's like the eight fingered Roswell beings, or the eight fingered Roswell beings who are also feathered or colored blue or something.
It's like no contactee or abductee in the history of this arena, as best I know, has ever talked about creatures who are called blue avians.
This is something new.
If this had been talked about before, Even among many of the wild contact details of the 1950s, and many books written back then about all this kind of stuff, then we could say, well, you know, this is pretty unusual, but this person back in 1956, they also reported something similar.
It's like nobody has.
This is like out of left field.
So there's nothing to link this with any of the experiences and testimony from so many others in this field.
It doesn't match.
It doesn't.
There are reasons to doubt this information because it's something completely new and apparently fantastical and totally uncorroborated.
Right.
The other thing about it, which is like an aspect of what else I was saying about whether the information kind of makes sense in the broader sense, he talked about there are a hundred Jupiter sized.
Spheres or Neptune tie spheres, large spheres entering the solar system, and they're here to help us, but they're invisible, they're undetectable.
But you just got to take my word for it that they're there.
You see, it's kind of a problem, yeah.
It's like me saying to you, Daniel, there's this pink elephant sitting in the corner of your room, and I happen to know that it's there, but you can't see it.
I can't prove it, but you just got to take my word for it.
And it's like logically and epistemologically, this is not valid information.
It's a subjective claim that cannot be corroborated, and it is logically meaningless.
If I make a claim, That cannot be substantiated because I'm making statements that say, you know, this is all invisible and you're going to have to take my word for it.
And of course, you can't see them because they don't want to be seen.
It's like, this doesn't mean anything.
Well, it gets into the fantasy realm there.
So, you know, is this real or is he playing Battle Fleet Gothic video games?
Well, yeah.
I mean, yeah.
You see, I mean, it might be true.
I mean, one cannot definitively say this is.
Impossible.
But what I'm saying is that for the purposes of evaluating information, it's not, it's not, it has zero value.
It's just a claim.
It's not like someone else can come along, look through a telescope and say, oh my God, I see this too.
It's like, it's not subject to confirmation.
It's just a claim.
And in that sense, it doesn't belong.
In the data set of information which we have a duty to collect and compile and correlate, because it doesn't satisfy the criterion for what good information is.
It's not even information.
Yeah, exactly.
It's a good point.
It doesn't even get up to that level.
It's not even information, it's just what somebody's saying.
It's a different kind of thing.
Yeah.
Well, you're actually getting right to the core of everything about this and ahead of schedule for sure.
Well, to apply any journalistic standard to it at all, it completely falls apart.
Yeah, exactly.
And this really is the crux.
And before we get to the total crux, there was one criteria that you mentioned there when evaluating an informant, which was do they have a history of telling the truth?
This is important.
So, in looking at Corey Goode in your article, you present what appear to be instances of him consciously lying about certain things.
Yes, with.
A certain caveat of reluctance, and I want to say this again because you see, it's such a tightrope that we have to walk.
Because you and I, and many people listening to this, will know that it's part of the agenda of the manipulation that the agencies exert on our so called alternative community to do what they can to get people.
Fighting with each other, disagreeing with each other, criticizing each other, breaking cooperation with each other.
And there's this kind of paradox that it's so easy that if one person who claims that they know what they're talking about then seems to be criticizing or bad mouthing another person who claims to know what they're talking about, then suddenly you've got infighting, then you've got factionalization, then you've got the whole thing being split.
It's the whole divide and conquer thing.
And I'm so aware of that, you see, and I don't want to feed this.
But the other side of this is that there are also truths that need to be told.
And so, what I would just really like to do is just to present data, just information that I am very confident is true.
And then one can make inferences from that.
And one of the reasons why I wanted to put that caveat in there is because it may sound and it may seem as if what I'm going to recount is petty.
But actually, if somebody has been shown to lie and distort, then it means that on that intelligence agency evaluation scale, it means that, well, you know, this source hasn't always told the truth, and we know that.
Oh, yeah.
Therefore, it means that they're capable of lying.
And let me go back again to say what I was saying very much earlier at the very start of our conversation here.
I'm fortunate enough.
To know people who I regard as having the very highest integrity regarding their commitment to telling the truth.
Others may be more cavalier.
So, having said all of that, here are a couple of small instances, but I think they are important.
Okay.
There are many other things which I could assert or claim or suspect about Corey, but this is what I know.
What I know is that he has made many claims that he is.
A so called IT expert.
Now, it takes one expert to evaluate the claims of another person's expertise.
I'm not an IT expert.
Very few people listening to this may consider themselves to be IT experts, but some people are.
Now, I know a couple of people very well on the Project Avalon Forum, which is where this whole thing first grew its roots, because Corey Goode was a member of the Project Avalon Forum for two years before he was first interviewed.
And I can just say a little bit about that general context and the way the whole thing sort of morphed and evolved, which is actually quite important.
But the first time it was brought to my personal attention that there was something wrong with the picture surrounding Corey Goode, it was raised by one of our administrators who really is an IT expert.
Exposing Corey Good's False Claims00:02:35
His name is Ili Pandea.
He is a Romanian guy.
That's why he's got a funny name.
He's a wonderful man, speaks fluent English, very highly skilled, most experienced.
And he had the occasion, through a joint project that we were all involved in, to have firsthand experience of Corey's claimed IT experience.
And he said, There's something wrong here.
This guy is not a.
This is my paraphrase, I should say.
There's something wrong here.
His actual words were, Something does not add up.
He is not an IT expert.
There are many, many, many things that he is doing and saying that an IT expert would not do or say or claim.
And there's something wrong with his claims.
And I have to take that testimony.
Very seriously, because in a court of law, this is the equivalent of an expert witness taking the stand and saying, you know, look, you know, I'm an expert, these are my credentials, what this person is saying doesn't add up.
That's important.
That's the kind of thing that can be used to convict somebody.
Absolutely.
And so it's a small thing, but it's important because he's making claims about himself that are not true.
And the other thing about this, and this is part of the context of it, it's sort of like the difference between the pre public Corey Good and the post public Corey Good.
There's an enormous difference.
Chalk and cheese, totally.
The pre public Corey Good was recorded by Christine Anderson, who was a Project Avalon member at that time, and who happened to be in Dallas, Texas in September and October 2014, was interested in Corey's story, which he had sort of.
Dropped hints about on the Project Avalon forum over a two year period that he was somehow involved in the intelligence world and he had one or two interesting things to say and he seemed to know one or two interesting things.
Capitalizing on Emerging Trends00:16:22
Some of it was vague.
And there was a lot of stuff which he didn't say then, but there were some things which he did and he was an interesting character.
So, quite opportunistically, Christine Anderson, who Had a dictaphone in her purse, went and knocked on Corey's door.
They were kind of friends, and in his front room, um, with the kids playing all around him, um, she had a conversation with Corey that in which Corey put on record with his agreement because he knew he was being recorded a little tiny bit about what he felt he had to say.
And one of the things that he stated.
Was that he was on medication, he was on disability, and he was unemployed.
And I don't think he actually stated this precisely, but the very strong impression, which was also confirmed to me by Christine Anderson herself, who knew his family, met his family, been to his house, and so on and so forth, was that he certainly didn't have a lot of money.
He was in a disadvantaged position.
Let's say he was in a disadvantaged position.
I mean, that's not his fault.
Many people have injuries, many people are on disability, many people are on medication.
This isn't a crime, but um, but later in his public testimony on Gaia TV, he was saying, you know, that he had forsaken his previous career where he was earning a six figure income in order to make the sacrifice so that he could go public with his story.
I mean, this is, I mean, I'll.
I'll describe that the way that it is, and what it is, is that's a lie.
Yeah.
You see?
Well, you know, this is something that Edward Snowden said that he had a six figure income and gave it all up to tell the truth.
And in his case, working for Booz Allen Hamilton, it was true.
But I wonder if Goode didn't confabulate that with his own life somehow, because it sounds like the guy that she encountered in 2014 was in a state of financial desperation.
It doesn't add up.
Some people would give him the benefit of the doubt, saying, Well, you know, it's just a little fib or it's not very important.
But I would say that it counts because what it means is that he's embellishing something or altering something for no apparent reason apart from the fact that he wants to kind of sound good.
That's the inference.
And this isn't directly related to what I was spelling out just now about what we know.
Our discrepancies in what he has claimed versus what we know is true, but but but the quality of that original interview now it's sort of paradoxical here, and every now and then I stare at myself in the mirror thinking, Oh my god, what did I do?
you know, because because what I did do was I spent probably something like 12 to 15 hours, and you do, or you're acquainted with audio editing, you know how important it is, how valuable it can be, and how you can take something that really doesn't sound too good and turn it into something that's publicly presentable.
You know, this is something that it's your professional responsibility to do.
And interestingly, one of the sort of dictums which I applied for myself in all those early Project Camelot years was I would say to myself and to anyone else who was interested that what my commitment was was to take anyone who's willing to come forward and tell their story and make them sound as good as possible.
Yeah.
Not like by changing or twisting anything, but at least by trying to make it professional, by making it audible, and doing things like, you know, Editing out the mistakes, editing out the hesitations, because what you can do with audio editing is you can make someone look like a fool if you want to, or you can make them sound smart and bright,
and you can edit out the silly things and you can leave in there the things that you feel are important.
All of that filtering.
So that's what I did.
And it took a long time because it was hard work, because the original interview, which was published.
From several clips, several different clips of raw audio over two separate visits from Christine Anderson to Corey Good's home.
It was hesitant, it was fumbling, it was unclear, it was full of hesitations, full of uncertainties, full of apologies.
When he was saying things like, you know, I'm sorry, I'm on.
Medication, please forgive me.
I can't think very straight.
I can't remember this very clearly, but you know.
And I edited out all of that stuff to make him sound a lot sharper than he actually was.
And the result was presentable.
And the result launched him into the public arena, which I had no idea about at the time.
And some of the commentators out there have kind of sort of pointed a finger saying, well, wait a minute, what's going on here?
It was Bill Ryan's fault that.
Corey rose to start him in the first place.
Well, not really, because I was just doing what I do, which is to help out.
And if someone's got an interesting story, I'm willing to help out and tell the story, and I'll always do my best if I possibly can.
And I put together quite a good video.
But what happened after that was that a whole bunch of things blew up on the Project Avalon forum, which is another little story which I would like to tell because it's instructive about his background.
Yeah, absolutely.
So let me just put a placeholder in there and I'll go back as to what blew up.
But my point here is that within a couple of months of that, or maybe three months of that, He was talking to David Wilcock and he was telling David Wilcock a huge swathe of stuff that he had never mentioned in his original interview.
It was all new.
It was stuff that he'd never said in any of his many Project Avalon posts and sort of mini articles which he'd written over a two year period.
New material, and I'll be careful with my words here, saying as if it was invented, as if it was newly created and brought to the table.
And in that context, there's a little story which I quite like to tell, which is a very, very nice one, which was that when I was a real rookie in this public arena, I wasn't.
I wasn't a rookie in the research field because I've been reading books about UFOs and ETs literally since I was 12 years old.
I knew a lot about the field long before I ever became a micro celebrity, which was back in 2006 when I was invited to speak at a UFO conference at Laughlin, Nevada.
Right.
And I was taken aside by an immensely Kind, wise, veteran researcher whose name I cannot remember, and I wish I could.
I could remember what he looked like, but I cannot remember his name.
Was it Wendell Stevens?
No, it wasn't Wendell Stevens, who I also met and who I had a great deal of respect for.
I liked Wendell, I have to say.
I mean, this is a whole different conversation talking about Wendell.
Yeah, sure.
But.
It was the kind of conference where there were a lot of these veterans like Wendell who were kind of circulating around.
And one guy, he was kind enough to sit me down at a table, buy me a cup of coffee, take me under his wing, and he warned me about what he called UFO disease.
And I said, What's UFO disease?
He said, It's what happens when a witness or a researcher runs out of material.
And in order to keep their position in the public eye, they have to invent new stuff in order to maintain their prominence and their status and maybe their income.
Right, right.
And never forgot that.
UFO disease.
And I think it's an important point, actually, because UFOs and the flaps and the different things that come out, there's no way to time it.
So if you are relying on it, you know, in the way that things are just set up in.
Our kind of capitalist world, if you're relying on a certain amount of information to get that next book out and keep it in that string, they don't work on any kind of a clock, so you wouldn't have any new material necessarily.
So, this UFO disease sounds like a very real kind of thing.
Well, that's right.
You see, there are two motivators for people embellishing or inventing new material.
One is the personality aspect of it, is that, you know, I mean, it's kind of gratifying and kind of rewarding.
You kind of wake up in the morning kind of feeling quite good.
If you're in the public eye and people are writing to you saying, hey, you're so great and thank you for this information, I really loved your last lecture or I really loved your last interview, then, you know, that's kind of something.
That it's natural human nature for us to value that and not to kind of want to lose that.
I mean, this is just, you know, very, very, very fundamental human stuff.
And there's nothing, I mean, there's no crime about that, that people like to be appreciated, they like to be valued, they like to receive, you know, praise and positive acknowledgement and so on and so forth.
And it's this, I mean, when that's kind of stretched out a little bit, it becomes a status thing, it becomes an ego thing.
But once again, this is all part of the spectrum of human nature.
And then, as you just said, there's this other aspect of financial reward.
And it's problematic.
It's problematic.
And I know that there's a cheap snipe that is often made by people saying, oh, you know, this person's just saying this because they're trying to sell a book.
Well, you know, anyone who spends six months writing a book needs to have some return for that.
Yeah.
Anyone who is.
Basically, a full time interviewer as you are, then it's like you deserve some recompense from that.
Otherwise, how are you going to live?
And so there's nothing wrong with earning money.
But once again, it's kind of a spectrum that when people really start to apparently focus on money as something.
Something that is truly important to them, then that kind of taints the picture.
Well, there's no question people like John Mack and Bud Hopkins, Linda Moulton Howe, they were never looking for a big payday with this.
With their research, they were really interested in moving the culture, getting us to look at things in a new way regarding all the implications of the UFO reality.
And as a result, their work still stands as definitive in this field.
I think there are forces out there that know how to capitalize on trends and pop up around people who come forward legitimately or illegitimately with an amazing story.
So we're left with a combination of things that are well researched on one hand and then things that are well known on the other.
And they can be two totally different categories.
You know, I personally think it's great to make the most money by giving your best work.
So they should go together, but sometimes they won't.
When you get somebody, and this is kind of bringing it back to focus, if you like.
When you get somebody like Corey Goode, who, by his own admission to us, when I say to us, I'm meaning to Christine Anderson and by proxy to myself, because I did all the editing, was on disability, had very little money.
Was unemployed and hadn't worked for quite a while.
And suddenly they get their TV show, they've got expenses paid, they're traveling all over the country.
I do not know what Corey's earning at the moment, but I remember there was one Facebook post that he made, which I happened to catch.
I've got a screenshot of it somewhere where he said how appreciative he was because he'd just been sent a $10,000 donation.
It's like, oh my God, you know, I wouldn't mind a $10,000 donation for my work, but I'm not on TV, so what can I do?
And so.
I think you made the point there with that.
Yeah, you know, and, you know, it's all a matter of balance.
It's a matter of motivation.
You see, and in terms of circumstantial evidence, in terms of the kind of argument that an attorney might make in court, let's look at it that way.
You could say, Look, this person here whose case we're trying, there is every financial motivation for them to solve their financial problems on behalf of their family and children by taking advantage of an opportunity to go on television,
to be paid reasonably good money for that, and to keep that going for as long as possible by any means possible, because.
Which red blooded American doesn't feel within themselves that they have a duty to provide for their family?
And it's like we can't criticize that, like we can't criticize somebody charging money for a book that they write.
But here's the motivation here's the motivation for somebody to take advantage of this opportunity that has been presented to them and just pick up that ball and run with it as fast as they can because they're getting.
Pursuing the Core Truth Further00:04:10
Paid, and it's all a matter of balance, it's all a matter of looking at how these jigsaw puzzle pieces fit together.
Um, but it's an important factor to consider.
And as a footnote to that, and with your okay, what I'd like to do next is I'd like to talk about what actually did blow up on the Project Avalon Forum before uh before Corey could basically turn to David Wilcock with his story.
I just want to Remind us both that this is sort of something that's an interesting story to tell.
Well, absolutely.
This is the crucial part of the story.
Now, what we'll do is we'll end part one here and so go into overtime on part two.
I want to remind everyone to go to darkjournalist.com and sign up for a newsletter to make sure that you get the episodes when they go up.
Now, before we leave this episode, and this is such a fluid situation, that actually Good responded to some of your questions on the Stillness and the Storm blog, and you've been able to review these responses.
And I'd like to just get your live take on what you feel about the responses that Goode made to your questions.
And I'll ask everyone's indulgence here because there are some issues that are going to be referenced that we haven't gotten into fully yet.
So just bear with us on this response.
I mean, much of what he says in response, he's simply flat out lying.
There's no other word to use.
I could go into great detail reading from on record text written by Corey himself or by his wife.
Here's just the nub of it.
Okay.
He did have access to the FBI database, and he was actually quite freaked out about it because he knew he had to be careful.
And he told me that on the 9th of October 2014, I have it archived.
He did receive information about me from a senior member of the Church of Scientology.
And their motivation to smear me is because, although I've never been a member, I've been very outspoken against the Church of Scientology publicly, and I'm on their published enemies list.
And all of that was posted publicly by his wife on the 16th of December 2014, and I have it archived, and it's Publicly visible on the Avalon Forum in her own hand.
Right.
The screenshot in which he stated he was on the payroll and it is what it is was absolutely not edited.
A number of people have the original full conversation and it was sent to those people by Corey himself.
I have it archived.
He was counseling people, 34 of them.
A number of people have that in a message from him dated the 16th of October 2014.
I have it archived.
I was one of the recipients.
I've never orchestrated any campaign against him.
I've said very little about this publicly for over two years.
I never have owned any businesses in South America.
This is ridiculous.
It's a flat out lie.
It's quite irrelevant, but that's an invention for whatever purpose Corey thinks it serves.
Well, aside from everything else, the lying on that is very shady because it shows this kind of invention problem I'm fabricating reality.
So that doesn't look very good.
I never asked anyone to investigate Corey.
I didn't have those personal resources.
I mean, give me a break.
He suggests I'm some kind of agent.
I could go on and on and on.
If I presented all of this evidence in a court, much of which is written by Corey himself, I mean, the jury would only be out for half an hour.
Even Christine Anderson, who first interviewed him back in October 2014 and who supported him for quite a while, she wrote publicly, How and why did a traumatized, semi delusional man on disability get picked up by the media in the way he was?
Huh.
Good question.
This sounds extreme to say, but I and many, many, many people believe this.
He's simply a pathological liar.
Subscribe for Part Two00:03:28
Wow.
Well, Bill, we're going to pursue this further in part two and get to the core of what's really going on here.
You know, I think there are a number of people listening who would like some answers to these things that you've raised about good.
The entire spectacle really is leading to more questions than answers at this point.
You know, what are we looking at here?
Bill, thank you so much for the deep reflections on this and the loads of detail.
It's great to see you in action again.
My thanks to you, Daniel, as well, for being very easy to talk to.
It's been a genuine pleasure, and I really look forward to continuing this conversation.
Well, thank you.
We definitely will, and we'll go into part two right now.
I want to remind everyone that Bill's work can be found at projectavalon.net.
The Project Avalon Forum is one of the best.
So many quality ideas moving around there.
And of course, make sure you're subscribed.
At darkjournalist.com.
Now's the time to subscribe, so go ahead and part two is coming up.
Thank you for joining me for this fascinating episode with Project Avalon's Bill Ryan on secret space spooks and whistleblower fail.
You can find more special reports, deep interviews, and documentaries at www.darkjournalist.com.
You can also subscribe to our YouTube channel to receive the latest videos.
See you soon.
Subscribe to our newsletter at darkjournalist.com to stay updated on the latest shows.
DARK Journalist.
Go for Truth in 2017.
The deepest questions.
The biggest secrets.
The darkest mysteries.
Dark Journalist.
Go for Truth.
With top guests like Graham Hancock.
Graham, how do we as a society escape the grip of a deep state in the 21st century?
Rather than spending trillions of dollars every year on building up our armies and our weapons of mass destruction and creating a climate of hatred and fear and suspicion, we should be uniting as a human race.
Catherine Austin Fitz.
Catherine, what is the issue that's holding us?
Back and destroying prosperity.
We have a system which has got a negative return on investment, it's killing human productivity, and where it's going is inhuman.
Dark Journalist.
Go for truth.
Visit darkjournalist.com and subscribe now for a special spring discount available for just $39 for one full year.
You'll receive exclusive member benefits, including access to the complete high quality audio archives to stream or download at your convenience, and subscriber only content, including bonus show material.
Sign up for our free newsletter to stay updated on the latest shows.
Dark Journalist.
This is the year.
Now is the time.
You know, we need dark journalists, so just keep doing what you're doing.