Dark Journalist Daniel List and Bill Ryan dismantle Corey Goode's credibility, citing his refusal of polygraphs, a 2015 admission of being "on the payroll," and inconsistencies regarding intelligence surveillance. They contrast Goode's sensationalism with serious researchers like Joseph Farrell and Catherine Austin Fitz, warning that his "bad apple" narrative harms legitimate whistleblowers. The hosts also critique David Wilcock for failed predictions and ego-driven behavior, arguing that untruths persist only if truth-tellers fail to filter them, ultimately suggesting Goode may be a product of manipulation or misplaced ambition rather than genuine disclosure. [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
Corey's Hypnotic Regression Claims00:15:02
Hi, this is Dark Journalist.
Today I have the exciting part two episode of my deep discussion with Project Avalon's Bill Ryan on the co opting of the secret space program narrative by a combination of influences in intelligence and entertainment circles.
Now, in part one, Ryan gave us the details of the strange case of Corey Good and his bizarre story of being a time traveling astronaut.
Good fancies himself as a messenger for blue avian aliens.
But unlike the solid cases of UFO contactees, Good offers no actual evidence for his claims.
Pushed in alt media outlets like Gaia TV as having been in the secret space program.
Is it good drugs or just a bad intelligence op?
Let's go ask Project Avalon's Bill Ryan.
This whole story is a direct copy of the account published by Michael Relf and his wife Stephanie.
As responsible researchers, we have to reject this testimony.
The Dark Journalist Secret Space Program Special Report Cosmic Backlash Corey Story's Epic Fail, featuring an in depth three part interview with Project Avalon's Bill Ryan.
Now, let's join Dark Journalist Daniel List.
Bill, it's great to have you back for part two of our deep discussion on whistleblowers and the Secret Space Program.
Program.
Thank you.
Now, before we get started, I'd like to share with everyone the three levels of information that I've been able to identify in any important story like the Breakaway Civilization or the Secret Space Program.
These three levels are one, the official story, often in place to guard the real story, two, the counter story, put out by diligent researchers and distorted by the media as conspiracy theory, three, third force narratives or junk conspiracy, where a bizarre meme is used to try and alienate those looking into alternative research.
And discourage average people from doubting the official story.
The process of examining and decoding these three different levels of information is what I call dark journalism, where we go deeper than the official reality but avoid the pitfalls of the Third Force junk conspiracy narratives by diving into the heart of the facts.
Now, we've had such an overwhelming response to part one with so many people supporting Bill's deep research into this whole matter.
And for those who feel that it's not good to question any UFO story, I have to remind us all here.
About the alien autopsy video that rocked not only the UFO community, but the world over a decade ago.
And again, in that case, it was a narrative that was riding off of the established research into an actual event.
But when the spectacle was all over, the perpetrators had muddied the research waters at a handsome profit by showcasing a false story.
Now, with all that in mind, Bill, I'm going to ask you about what I think is the crux of the Corey Good case the concept of age regression.
Now, I caught an interview with Corey from 2015 with Jay Widener, and a caller innocently asked, Were you a milk carton kid when you disappeared at six years old?
Pretty reasonable question, that's what we used to do.
Corey's response was no, because he wasn't missing.
In our real time, he was only gone for six minutes, but to him, it was 20 years.
Now, you've told me something that really rocks this whole thing that the age regression idea actually was completely plagiarized from another story.
Can you tell us that here now?
This whole story is a direct copy of the account published by Michael Relf and his wife Stephanie back in the year 2000.
Okay.
And this is called The Mars Records.
It's all on the web, themarsrecords.com.
And there are two books, and they're totally free.
They're free.
Okay.
And Michael Relf declined all interviews and never wanted to be a celebrity.
He was just baffled about his own experience and he couldn't understand it.
And he had recalled fragments of it, and this was really bugging him.
So, his wife Stephanie was a qualified regression therapist and was able to help untangle all of this for him.
And the whole thing is documented session by session, day by day.
And you can kind of work through this and you can see Michael slowly understanding what he came to believe was the truth about what he'd experienced.
He's just astonished.
He can hardly believe it.
And some might say, and this is important, Aha, this means Corey's telling the truth because he's telling the same story.
Well, it might just be that this is the source material for Corey's confabulation.
Because, as we mentioned before in part one in the previous interview, there are no regression sessions.
There's absolutely nothing.
This is just Corey's say so.
And anyone listening to this could claim anything, they can become a celebrity too.
It's the supporting evidence that makes the difference.
It's evidence, not proof.
Right.
I'm not saying that Michael Relf's story is definitely true.
It's very wild.
It's fascinating because he never copied the story from anyone else.
And Stephanie's a qualified therapist herself.
She was able to put him through this entire long process.
And Corey, if you're listening to this, this is not invasive at all.
Absolutely not invasive.
It would be very, very, very, very smart for you to do this kind of thing.
Listen, you make a lot of money, okay?
Now, every minute of every session they did is documented.
It's responsible research because those sessions aren't invented, they happen.
The entire thing.
It just reads like a detective story.
Okay.
And I've never met or spoken with Michael or Stephanie Relf, but I did know the person who trained Stephanie in her techniques, which I'm familiar with myself.
He was one of the best in the world at this.
He was a guy called Alan Wright.
The techniques are an innovative mix, and they stand up to scrutiny.
Well, we've touched on your credibility scale.
So where do you place Michael Relf on that scale?
Well,.
A little higher than Corey.
That's because Michael has not sought money or status.
The sessions were meticulously documented.
I think that counts for something.
They did their total best to get to the bottom of it all and they shared everything transparently.
So, again, I suggest to Corey have a series of regression sessions and have the courage to do that and publish that.
And I bet he won't because he might be exposed and he can't risk that.
Neither can David Wilcock.
And just maybe, neither can Gaia TV.
Well, I completely agree for the plain fact of having something to back up a wild story like that.
You know, hypnotic regression or a polygraph examination has to be the important step for any of that to be taken seriously by anyone who does real research.
Now, for the record, you asked Corey a few days ago if he was willing to have a regression.
And his response was, and a number of people have seen this, that no, it was invasive.
Which I really found bizarre because he himself, in his response to a question of whether he tried to counsel my labs on the Avalon forum, said, and it's a quote here from the Stillness and the Storm blog I never counseled a single my lab.
I only listened to their information and referred them to a regression therapist.
So here we have the inconsistencies again.
You know, he'll refer my labs for regression, but for him, no, it's too invasive a process.
It just doesn't add up.
So, this brings us to where we left off in part one.
And to summarize it here, you had these interview recordings with Corey that Christine had made.
And you said he stumbled through them, he hesitated, and he didn't really have his act together.
So, it was really a jumble.
And you edited a version of that together.
And that helped him with, let's call it version one of the story that he told.
Later, he would embellish the story to such a point that there were so many other factors that he didn't say the first time.
And this was version two.
Tighter, more polished, and different.
And that's the story that he approached Gaia host David Wilcock with.
That's correct.
It wasn't that he made it different.
It's that he amplified and magnified it probably literally a hundredfold.
Wow.
And there were things that he was saying to David and subsequently on Gaia TV that he never once told us beforehand.
Either miraculously, and I'm kind of not trying to sound snippy and sarcastic about this.
Maybe he had some recovered memories because it's possible for people who've been through programs and have been messed with in all the various ways that I think we do know are possible.
It is possible for people to recover memories that have been lost or obscured or overlaid or something.
But another anomaly there is that, as best I know, Corey has never subjected himself to a polygraph test.
He's never subjected himself to a recorded regression.
I mean, as you know for yourself, just to give one example, you spent a lot of time talking to Linda Howe, who has showcased the hypnotic regression of the Rendersham Forest Bentwaters witness John Burroughs.
Who recounted a lot of very important and fascinating witness testimony?
And his experiences when he was being hypnotically regressed have been recorded and are on record.
Corey has never subjected himself to that or volunteered to be subjected to that.
It's just hearsay.
And so the reason why I mentioned that.
That's crucial.
Yeah, go ahead.
Was because.
While it is theoretically possible for somebody suddenly to have an avalanche of recovered memories come to them, there is no evidence that this has happened in Corey Good's case.
In fact, there's circumstantial evidence that it's exactly the opposite.
And I want to kind of drop this in there with a rider.
And the rider is, and it's sort of weak testimony.
And I do know it's weak testimony, what I'm just about to say.
But I was told by somebody who claimed to be intelligence community related that they knew of a surveillance video that was captured without Corey's consent by remotely activating his computer webcam and microphone.
Yeah.
A conversation between Stacey, his wife, and himself.
They were planning on what they would invent to present to David Wilcock.
Now, that's a claim that can't be corroborated.
Of course, I asked for a copy of the video and I was told that it wasn't available because it was classified and so on and so forth.
And that may be hokum.
But I just present that as for what it's worth, which may be very little.
It's interesting because it's one of those pieces of information that fits in with something that you could make a conclusion of, saying, well, the story changed from here to here, and the idea that the story was worked on and then represented does make sense.
Yes, I mean, it absolutely does make sense.
And it's like if he hasn't invented it, or Been told what to say, in other words, being scripted in some way by some superiors and some agency, and he does have superiors and some agency, and I'll come on to that in a moment.
Then he has had a miraculous and unsubstantiated avalanche of spontaneous recall that was not there before he started to talk to David Wilcock.
Again, if I can interject yet one more footnote into all of this.
You see, while we're referring to Corey Good as a case study here, all of these points to bear in mind, rather like sort of a fast track to picking up some vicarious experience to help us evaluate not just Corey Good's story, but maybe many other stories that we see out there as well.
This is important stuff.
It's like they're kind of thinking tools.
It's like you've got to say, well, wait a minute, you know, there are things wrong with this picture.
And just inviting those in the audience, as we said earlier, especially the young people who are coming to this afresh, like enthusiastic sponges, to actually deploy that thinking tool, which is, you know, Is there something wrong with this picture?
What's wrong with this picture?
What could explain what seems to be wrong with this picture?
And just stopping to ask those questions, then we'd get a long way there.
No doubt about it.
Now, what was the strange and specific example that you referred to at the end of part one about what blew up on the Project Avalon forum with Corey Goode that helped you to realize there was something very wrong with the whole thing?
Yeah.
Well, the simplest, most distilled version of the story just.
The Intelligence Dossier Threat00:04:37
Restricting it to the essential points was that his wife, Stacey, had joined the forum just a very short while earlier.
And when I mean earlier, this is prior to December 2014, which was like a couple of months after his interview with Christian Anderson came out, and about a month before he picked up his contact with David Wilcock, approximately.
And What had happened was that Stacey, his wife, had become very upset about something that was relatively inconsequential.
And what happened most bizarrely is that she was upset with me and she launched into this sort of avalanche of.
On record information that's on record to this day about Corey and his story and what he was doing, and so on and so forth, which sort of astonished everyone who was watching.
And in the context of the fact that Stacey was being critical about myself because she had a relatively small grievance about which she was extremely upset, she said, you know.
Corey has a 70 page intelligence dossier on you and one other person.
And I heard him talking to his superiors on a four hour encrypted audio channel.
And he's got all this information about you, and you better watch your step.
And all of that is a paraphrase, but the reality of the fact that Corey was.
Holding in his back pocket a 70 plus page intelligence dossier on me and another one on another unknown, unnamed person, which subsequently,
in a rather unpleasant blog which he put up, in which he was extremely critical about me personally, after he left the Avalon Forum, he wrote a lot of stuff in a blog that.
Later on, he chose to take down.
He made various intimations that he was sort of, that he had this 70 page intelligence dossier on me, and he was kind, and it's sort of like he could release it if he wanted to.
It was like a veiled threat.
Unbelievable, yeah.
Astonishing.
And now, you and I both know.
And so do many people listening to this.
That there almost certainly exist intelligence dossiers on a large number of people who are trying to present information to the world in various ways.
I mean, of course, it's their job.
I mean, that's what they do.
That's what they do very well.
And in some cases, it's probably 700 pages, not just 70 pages.
And in your case, it's pretty big.
Well, you know, I mean.
I guess it's something that we don't really need to go into, but with all the information that we subsequently were told by Ed Snowden, I mean, it's like every single detail our financial transactions, our friends, our intimate moments, what we say on or off record, everything is logged.
They've got this enormous data processing center in Utah, which we all know about, and maybe it's untouched by human hands, but they can access this stuff.
They can pull information out if they want to.
So it's just basically a few database.
Interrogations that somebody needs to do online, and then suddenly they've got an instant 70 page dossier on anyone they want.
And so it's easy for the intelligence community to come up with stuff like that if they want to.
Who Is Pulling His Strings00:10:18
And then the question is asked.
Now, this is on record.
Corinne can't deny it.
This is all true.
This happened.
He was given this dossier.
I believe from memory, he said that he did not request it, but he was given it, a bit like being handed ammunition.
And the question is who by?
You see, who's he reporting to?
Who's he connected with?
Whose vested interests is he a part of?
What game is being played here that Corey never stated at the time or has stated since?
And this ties in.
With one of the criteria that I mentioned earlier, that is very important to know everything that there is to know about a witness's history.
In other words, are they connected with any agencies?
Are they on any kind of payroll?
Are they playing another game?
Are they playing both sides in some way?
And this kind of thing is possible.
We know it's possible.
Just to give one example of this from history and Some of the people listening to this may know this story.
There's an infamous case when the researcher and author William Moore, Bill Moore, he was the one who, with Charles Bullitts, wrote, I think, the original book called The Roswell Incident.
He got involved with the MJ 12.
Well, yeah.
I mean, he got involved up to his neck and over.
Yeah.
And he made what I think he came to realize was a bad decision.
And at the MUFON conference in 1989, he went on stage and he publicly confessed that he had agreed to be a disinformant.
And there was.
Wow.
There was almost a riot in the auditorium.
I can imagine.
It's on YouTube somewhere, and you could hardly hear the guy speak because everyone was yelling and screaming, and some people were in tears.
And here was this guy who was held up to be a paragon, who was widely respected.
And he made this public confession that he was being a disinformant.
Now, that's the clearest case that I know of where somebody has actually said, you know what, I'm sorry about this, but I was actually being a double agent all this time.
He made his excuses.
He said he'd made this deal because he was told that he was going to be told the truth if he displayed it.
But then who knows who's being told the truth?
There's no guarantee of that.
And then he wised up and realized he had to come clean, which I think was an act of great courage, et cetera, et cetera.
It's a whole different story.
That's William Moore.
So I'm only citing that.
Case study because we know this is possible.
And what we do not know is who else in the real time community that we're all part of now may have done something similar.
They may have been coerced, they may have been tempted, they may have been promised something, they may be paid, or they may have been in the employ of the agencies all along.
How do we know?
These guys are very, very, very good at what they do.
They're professionals, they're smart.
They've got billions of dollars behind them and maybe more.
They've got technology that we may not even know exists.
These guys are not amateurs.
They're very good at what they do.
And we underestimate them at our peril about what they're capable of.
How, I mean, it's like if the CIA has the experience to install a spy, like for years, I don't know, like in the Russian embassy in Moscow, you know, how simple.
Is it to install someone in this chaotic alternative research community which we're a part of?
Oh, there's no question.
It's child's play.
It's so simple for them to do this.
And we might never know unless it was confessed later.
We'd never ever know.
So, what ties in with this is something else that I want to just highlight for anyone who hasn't seen this.
And rather like the story which I told about the claimed surveillance video of Corey Goode having his inventions remotely captured by his webcam and microphone being remotely activated.
Now, that may or may not be true, and we don't know it is.
It's just an interesting little bit of unsubstantiable information.
Well, you have a mission.
Let's clarify that because you.
You have a source who claims to be an intel informant.
Well, he's intelligence connected.
I'm not sure whether I would have his okay whether to go public with his name.
So at the moment, I'd rather not.
But it actually doesn't really matter because whatever he said and whatever I said, it's not something that can be proved.
Now, What can be shown is something that corroborates that.
And I have published this before with this person's permission.
Yes.
And just as we queue this up, I'll mention here that we showed this Skype screen snap at the very end of part one.
Now, can you tell us what we're looking at here?
This is a screenshot of a Skype conversation.
We're looking at it now.
We're looking at it right now.
Here it is.
Here's the screenshot in which Corey.
Corey Goode is saying, Well, got to go.
I got to get the kid to bed.
I fully understand you are now on the payroll.
And he's talking to the same intelligence connected person who I mentioned before, who talked about the surveillance video.
I understand you are now on the payroll.
So am I.
It is what it is.
When Christine Anderson interviewed him in September, October 2014, Six months earlier, he wasn't on anyone's payroll.
He was on disability and he didn't have a lot of money.
Right.
Here he needs the money.
Here he's on some kind of payroll and we do not know what the payroll is.
But this is evidence that means something.
Absolutely.
And sort of in, in, in, um, to kind of correlate with that, um, then, Then this person who took the screenshot said, When you get back on and read this, was it someone in a program who told you you're not likely to hear from me or a forum friend?
And then Corey Goode states, No, it was a superior.
You see, what's superior?
It's an interesting question.
How come somebody.
Now, this was, I believe this was in.
April 2015.
And this, I think, once again from memory, was after he had started his contract with Gaia TV, and certainly after he had started talking to David Wilcock.
And long after he'd left the forum, and long after his story had started to become magnified and amplified, and after he had stated that he had this 70 page intelligence dossier that he himself confirmed after his wife had said it.
And he says he's talking about a superior.
So, this is not somebody who is operating as a maverick lone wolf, like, for example, one of the dozens of people who had the courage to stand alone on stage at the Washington Press Club conference with Stephen Greer and the Disclosure Project in May 2001.
Just standing up saying, Well, you know, this is my story, and no one's telling me to do this.
And I don't work for anyone anymore, and I'm not getting paid by anybody, and I'm having the courage to stand up here, and I hope it's all going to work out, and I'm willing to testify in front of Congress.
These are people with real courage who are not being controlled.
Right.
If he's got a superior, it means he is a junior.
If there's a superior and a junior, it means the superior is telling the junior what to do and what to say.
This is part of military intelligence hierarchy, and Corey Goode is stating.
By implication, there that he is a junior part of some kind of military intelligence hierarchy, again, with the implication that he is being given instructions, orders, guidance, andor money.
Go figure.
Well, that's a really big problem.
Yeah.
It's a problem.
I think what we're seeing here is a thread or a pattern of a number of different things that are showing good.
Has misrepresented himself.
Now, the screenshot itself is 100% authentic, so tell us more about it.
Well, yeah, sure.
I mean, I am certain it's authentic.
I don't know exactly what it means.
Weighing the Preponderance of Evidence00:06:33
I don't know whose payroll he was on.
I don't know whose superior it was.
That wasn't made specific.
We can guess, but we don't actually know.
But I know what the words say, and we know that Corey wrote that, and this is, in my opinion, not disputable.
And If pushed, there are other people who will come forwards who will say, yes, you know, this is a real thing.
You see, but I mean, I think once again, we have to use that legal phrase as if there was a court of law.
And the legal phrase is called the preponderance of evidence.
Right.
And the preponderance of evidence means you don't just take one thing on its own, but you take You take this and that and the other thing, and all that stuff over there, and what this person said, and what all those people said, and a bit of circumstantial evidence here,
and some evidence from an expert witness, and some evidence that is suggested about possible motivations, and you take that all together, and then you ask the jury to make a verdict on the grounds of reasonable doubt.
Now, this is the legal analogy.
And so, all these little bits of evidence, these bits of context, the things which we know are true, the things which we think are true, the things which we can infer are true, the things that other people have said, the strange anomalies, the motivation for going public, the need for money, all kinds of stuff like that and more.
Then you put it to the jury.
If I was a prosecuting attorney, I would be making my summoning up speech and I would be saying to the jury, you know, look, look at all this evidence.
It suggests to me, and I think it would suggest to any reasonable man or reasonable woman, that there's something wrong with this picture and that the testimony that is being claimed by this person is subject to profound doubt for all of this and many other reasons.
And if it's subject to profound doubt, then in the broader context of trying to fit together some kind of a picture of what this secret space program is all about, and basically it's kind of about the secret space program with one or two sort of extensions here and there.
It's like, as responsible researchers, we have to reject this testimony.
Because it's not reliable, it can't be counted on, it doesn't correlate with anything else.
There are all kinds of reasons why this person might be inventing all this.
There are all kinds of reasons to suggest that this person is inventing all of this.
Well, there's no question.
And the more you lay out here, the more obvious it becomes.
Now, I think a good question to ask at this point is what is it for you?
And I know in your long history of seeking out the truth in Camelot or in Avalon, you've seen other whistleblower cases that fell apart.
But what is it about Corey Good's case that you find deeply disturbing?
Is it the lack of honesty?
What kind of grieves me here, and I think many of your listeners may kind of empathize with this, you see, is that it's not that I'm out to kind of get Corey and demonize him like some kind of spiteful witch hunt.
I have a Profound sense of fair play and justice.
And the problem is that the knock on effect, and I think it will be an intended, engineered, choreographed knock on effect from this, is that legitimate whistleblowers get discarded, get overlooked, and for reasons which I understand and support, do not get invited to speak, for example.
At any secret space program conference, because professionally the organizers can't take the risk because it's too complicated and too difficult to try and discern who's real and who's not.
And so, the safest thing you can do is to discount all of that and go a different route.
And I absolutely support that, but some of these guys are for real, and it's a real shame for them.
Because they're suffering, they're telling the truth, they're carrying their burdens, and I've spoken to at least one of them, and I think some others who are real as well, and they are having their story indirectly rejected or filtered out because of the actions of people like Corey.
And so, what he's doing indirectly.
And I do not know whether he ever thinks about this is that he is damaging and hurting other individuals personally who have a genuine story to tell.
Because there's absolutely no way that any mainstream journalist, I mean, there's no way that the Washington Post would pick up any story about someone going to Mars, even if somebody really has.
Which I think is the case, you know, on the basis of stories like Corey's and some other people too.
And I don't even know if you have the bandwidth to go into other people here, you know, but it's like one bad story, it's like one bad apple, which is a kind of loose metaphor.
It spoils everything in the barrel, certainly from the point of view of trying to present a reasonable case publicly, you know.
Separating Fact From Infotainment00:10:40
Well, it's the spectacle.
It is.
And, you know, the next thing that's coming up is well, you know, the beings suggested I do a comic book graphic novel of my experience.
And, you know, I went back and told the beings, well, I don't know.
This might make me look like I'm trying to be a commercial guy.
Well, they said, you have to do it.
You have to grin it and bear it.
And so here comes the Cory Good cartoon.
Yeah, that's right.
I mean, you get the movie, you get the book, you get, I mean, I mean.
But, you know, the beings are telling them to do it, you know, so you can't really complain.
Now, so this is tough.
This is really tough.
I do say there's a couple of things here.
One is that let's take somebody like Gary McKinnon.
Okay.
Gary McKinnon hacked or actually wandered into these computers at NASA and, according to him, found these records of an off planet program of officers.
Yep.
Now, his story.
Got to a point where the United States wanted to extradite him from Britain and charge him for hacking, which at the time they were looking at 20 years in prison.
I think, actually, I think 70.
I think a maximum of 70.
Oh, okay.
I mean, it was.
That makes more sense.
It was like a cruel, disproportionate, ridiculous amount.
Yeah.
Absolutely.
So we can see that when you get around this information, by the way, and you're aware of this, but for anyone who doesn't know so much, About McKinnon, he was actually brought up during a meeting with Obama, and I think it was Cameron who was the prime minister at the time.
He was brought up during the press conference when Obama visited England.
I mean, this is the level that we were talking about.
You know, it gets brought up at a press conference to the president who decides to let the prime minister comment on it.
But that was because the United States and the intelligence community wanted McKinnon so bad because they were really worried about what he may have got into beyond.
What he just spoke about, but also what he spoke about.
And they wanted to send a message and everything else.
That's a real snapshot of a hardcore whistleblower situation.
Let's contrast that with the inconsistencies that we're seeing that you've laid out here very well.
On balance, this is kind of what you're talking about.
Here's somebody risking their life and prison to trying to find out about the UFO mystery and beyond into this.
And he discovers an actual list of what constitutes a secret space program, something that we could move in the direction of evidence for.
Yep.
And then over here, you have somebody who there are a number of factors, but basically has made up a story.
And if, you know, since there's nothing to prove it, That you can leave it at that level as far as evidence goes.
There's nothing to substantiate it.
So, and we have, you know, this kind of imbalance between the two.
And in this field now, this kind of behavior is being rewarded.
And this is the problem that we're getting at.
Yeah.
I mean, yeah.
I'm sort of smiling here at your use of the word imbalance.
It's like a Grand Canyon size cleft between the two.
Oh, I agree.
I agree.
It's like you got one guy.
Who, I mean, he's a young kid.
He was working on a 56K modem.
He's been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome.
He saw one or two documents which looked interesting.
He never downloaded any pictures.
He didn't download the documents.
He hasn't got any proof in hand.
And he's being hung, drawn, and quartered, arguably as an example to others.
And this poor guy, You know, I mean, it's like he didn't actually do very much.
I mean, he really didn't do very much, but yeah, but but but I mean, this is whole huge, magnified, protracted um uh uh campaign against him when he was being scapegoated.
I mean, I mean, you know, I mean, the poor guy, etc., etc., etc., and then you get Corey, who's got his own television show.
I mean, wouldn't it be nice to give Gary McKinnon his own television show apart from the fact that?
Actually, it would only last half an episode because he hasn't got much to say.
Right, exactly.
He doesn't have the ongoing material.
I mean, he doesn't have the ongoing material unless he suddenly remembered a whole bunch more of it.
No question.
And McKinnon took the heat.
And so far, the U.S. has not been able to extradite him to face charges for exposing the fact that there is a secret space program.
Now, when it comes to alternative research and media, I want to point something out here, which our conversation is hurtling toward at a fast speed.
That there are two branches of secret space program research.
One is embodied by cases like McKinnon and research like Joseph Farrell, Catherine Austin Fitz, and John Brandenburg.
This branch was well represented at the 2015 Secret Space Program Conference in Texas.
I hosted that conference, and I can tell you it had nothing to do with blue avians and everything to do with the missing trillions being pumped out of the federal budget for a covert program in space.
There was coverage about the breakaway civilization side, the advanced UFO technology.
The heavy government secrecy.
But no sphere being alliance was anywhere in sight.
And that's all Cory Good, Gaia, and Wilcox.
So that has to be clear.
The other is built more for entertainment, has TV series, comic books, and ascension exercises, and invites the kind of unsubstantiated, unverifiable headlines, you know, this kind of glitzy approach.
Now, I see some confusion starting on this already, which may be what a lot of this kind of approach, the infotainment that's being pushed out there, That op is trying to create confusion between these two.
I've even had some posts on my Facebook saying that, well, you know, Corey Goode brought the secret space program to the public, and the other researchers like Dolan and Farrell support the secret space program research.
Well, no, he didn't.
It's been out there for over a decade.
And those researchers, Catherine Austin Fitz, Richard Dolan, Joseph Farrell, and others, do not support in any way the Gaia, Wilcock, Corey Goode sort of sensationalistic approach.
And that's a fact.
And I've spoken with them, you know, for sure, they do not.
And just to put this on the record, I'm going to play clips here of them talking about this kind of approach and, in some cases, referencing good in particular, because I want people to be able to separate the two things in their mind between the actual secret space program research and this other thing.
We'll start with Catherine Fitz discussing how these kind of feel good memes can be used to turn off our natural analytical response.
There's another dynamic that's going on, too, Daniel, and that is.
If I stick with adult fairy tales, then whether it's the problem or the solution, it's a stranger.
A stranger is the problem, and a stranger is the solution.
Okay, so we have, you know, the Asian white dragon families are the savior and they're going to solve us, or E.T. is the Lone Ranger and is going to come down in his UFO and save us.
There's no requirement to look at intimate responsibilities.
So, the fact that people in my community, my neighbors, are dealing drugs, I don't have to look at.
You know, and I'm not talking about marijuana, I'm talking about hard narcotics.
Or that the bank I bank at is laundering money.
Or that, you know, my brother or sister is at Goldman Sachs doing these things.
Do you know what I mean?
Yes.
So, it gets very ugly when you have to start looking at the intimate picture.
Next up is Giza Death star author Joseph Farrell discussing how he was watching in horror.
As his core research on secret space and Antarctica was getting plagiarized and wildly sensationalized.
Well, yeah, I've noticed the same thing, Daniel.
I'll come out with something and then I'll see what appears, and I've noticed it with other people that I know in this field as well.
I have friends that have come up with some intriguing ideas, and then I see somebody else in the so called alternative research community pick up on the idea, literally take it and recast it in this.
Phantasmagoria of nonsense.
I've noticed this many, many times.
I don't like it.
Yeah, they sensationalize it.
I don't like it.
Now, here's Richard Dolan speaking about how he's uncomfortable as a UFO researcher just accepting any story or whistleblower who comes along with no actual evidence.
I'm just going to put myself on the record and say of the many, many claims that have come out over the past several years, and this includes that of Corey Good, I am not.
Willing to say, yes, I know that that's true.
I'm just not.
You know, for me to accept an alleged whistleblower, I need first and foremost to be able to know who they are, to be able to vet their credentials.
Like, if there's a genuine secret space program, which I believe there is, that doesn't mean that I think that there are blue avians on Mars.
Well, it doesn't get any more clear cut than that.
Three excellent researchers feel that we're looking at unvetted, plagiaristic, and quite possibly intel supported material here swimming around in alternative research and independent media.
So, Bill, your article, The Truth About Corey Good, far from being some kind of he said, she said scenario, captures instead the spirit of accountability and transparency that's been missing here in UFO research around the secret space program.
So, now that we see that Good's story and that whole second wave of secret space program themes doesn't sit well with some of the really deep researchers, what do you think now when you look at Corey Good's story?
What do you think of Corey's stories?
How do you feel about the possibility that he's under some kind of mind control?
Yes, I hear what you say.
Mind Control and Consciousness Hijacking00:09:46
Now, I don't know a lot about regular hypnosis, but I mean, I'm talking about sort of, you know, stage hypnosis.
You know, some people can easily be hypnotized, other people can't.
That seems to be something that is generally understood.
Now, as a subjective opinion for what it's worth, listening to the raw audio of the original interview that Christian Anderson did with Corey Goode, the one that I spent 12 to 15 hours editing carefully to try and make it into something presentable, the impression that I got, now I wasn't there, but I was listening to the raw audio very carefully with a lot of focus.
I was working with every word he said to try and make this thing sound good.
The impression I got was that this was somebody who was already on medication, who was not certain about some things, who was in pain because he had a shoulder problem, had certain anxieties which we knew about, like he was worried about money.
He seemed to me, for what it's worth, to be somebody.
Who at that time, let me say it glibly, was not a strong, rock solid, certain, clear person.
He seemed to me to be somebody who could be described as potentially malleable.
And I think that's what you were referring to.
Now, I'm not a professional in this field, but it seems to me that somebody who's got anxieties, somebody who's in pain, somebody who's On medication, somebody who's got memory issues, somebody who lacks confidence, somebody who's not sure about whether they can remember something clearly or not, that they may be what hypnotists call suggestible.
Right.
So if he was profiled, I mean, this is all surmise.
If he had been profiled himself, he would probably come out with a bunch of boxes checked about, hey, You know what?
This is somebody we can work with.
I think we can turn this guy into the character we want to see out there.
Whereas there may be other people who would not be so suggestible, would not be so malleable, would not be so vulnerable.
And again, you see, this is another rider that I want to restate again.
It's like it might not be the guy's fault if that's what happened.
Now, I think he made some bad choices.
This is my opinion.
I think he made some bad choices.
I think he consciously embellished some things.
I think there were some things that happened which he was party to and which he knew about.
But there is no doubt in my mind personally that he was regarded as an asset.
And you see, anyone who is manipulated is in any way at all, even if it's by a street con man who's trying to con you out of 10 bucks, you know, anyone is manipulated through their vulnerabilities.
And somewhere in there, we comply.
Somewhere in there, we make some choice at some level that we're kind of going to go along with it because of some weakness, some need.
Some desire, some apparent solution to a problem.
And again, I mean, it's like if we're to invoke some compassion here, then I mean, it's like we can kind of forgive people for that, you know.
But behind all of this, there's a responsibility when bad choices are made.
And it is my opinion that whatever influences were brought to bear on Corey, whether it's money, whether it's mind control, whether it was his superiors giving him.
Orders that he couldn't refuse.
We don't know what that story was, that somewhere in there he didn't stand up and he said, No, I'm not going to do this.
You see, he did not.
He wanted to do it because there's a payoff for him of some form.
Wow.
Oh, that really makes sense.
Now, while we're going deep into this, you've done a lot of work on the research of Dr. Robert Duncan about people being programmed and having their consciousness hijacked.
So let's get into that here and how it may relate to a good story.
Dr. Robert Duncan.
Is a genuine whistleblower of covert mind control technology that is almost terrifying to listen to.
And a lot of this stuff is because he was in one of these programs that then he left himself.
And I have to say, here's another caveat I do not know why he is being allowed to talk about this, but my.
My guess, and it's only a guess on that, is he's being allowed to say this stuff because what they really have nowadays far supersedes anything that he's really talking about.
So it doesn't matter whether people talk about this stuff or not.
And he talks about what is called brain entrainment, where a trained psychic will go into.
A sensory deprivation tank, one of these things that's like they're floating in a body temperature saline solution in a thing that's like a sealed black coffin.
And their senses are completely neutral.
There's nothing outside their body that they can feel at all in this thing.
And these are trained intelligence agency military psychics.
And then they focus on their target.
Rather like a remote viewer focuses on their target, but this time they're not remote viewing, they're remote influencing.
What they do is they hijack the person's consciousness.
In the words of Dr. Robert Duncan himself, the mind has no firewall.
And this is a very important thing to kind of print out and stick on your fridge.
The mind has no firewall.
So if somebody with the ability to hijack someone's consciousness, Someone's consciousness actually does that.
Like Gary McKinnon hacking into the Pentagon, it's easy.
There's no password.
Dr. Robert Duncan gives a lot of examples of what they can do.
He said, you know, they can make somebody say things, they can make somebody think things, they can make somebody fall down the stairs and hurt themselves, they can make somebody drive off the road, they can make somebody do something irrational, they can cause them to decide to commit suicide, they can do anything because they're at the controls just like remote.
Piloting a drone.
Go figure.
Wow.
Now, I have not heard Dr. Robert Duncan talk about using this technique to implant overlay false memories.
But from what I can understand and figure out from his testimony, it seems that that's just an extra step.
If they can do that, if they can do that, then rather like what Dr. David Jacobs, someone else who I hugely respect, a meticulous researcher, says about abductees, he says, Look,
we've got to take all the abductees' testimony with huge care and diligence because whoever's doing the abducting has complete control over the abductees' mind, including what they go away with after their experience.
And as And as best I know, there is no reason to believe that there are not black projects which can replicate all of this, take over the controls of someone's mind, their consciousness, their emotions, their actions, and their memory, if there's enough motivation for them to do so.
And that's terrifying.
Huh, absolutely.
But it seems to me that we should realize that that is at least a possibility.
And there is some compelling evidence that this is operational.
Well, since we know they have the technology, and it probably goes even a lot more deeper than that, and we're just getting a fleeting glance here on the surface, it probably goes a lot deeper and more sophisticated.
But if they have the technology, do you think this is what's happening in the case with good?
Absolutely, I do.
I think it's possible, I think it's likely, and I think that it could well be a mixture of factors.
Candidly Examining Remote Coercion00:02:31
It could be a mixture of ego, desire for status, desire for money, encouragement from David Wilcock, who we haven't really spoken about.
His questions are up next.
But there's something, I mean, let's just be completely candid about this.
I mean, I'll say it as simply as I can.
Corey's getting paid, he's getting a lot of kudos and attention from this.
David is as well.
He has his own payoffs for this.
And it's possible that so there could be encouragement, there could be compliance, there could be reasons why he's inventing things, and there could be as well any kind of remote coercion or influence to cause Corey to believe at least some of the things.
That he's saying.
Because as we were saying earlier, a whistleblower who believes what they're saying is all the more valuable and credible because of that.
Right.
And it may be a mixture of all of that.
And I'm really not able to say.
But I think all of those things are in the melting pot for consideration.
But it is absolutely not as it appears.
Let's put it that way.
That's fascinating.
Well, let's talk about David Wilcock here for a moment.
You know him.
He started out really with an author named Winfrey.
And Wilcock claimed at the time that he was Edgar Cayce, the famous psychic, which was an instant red flag.
You know, I'm somebody famous in a past life and never really sits too well and shows something of a weak sense of identity.
So that's how I see that.
The author, Winfrey, by the way, wrote another book about his friend looking like the reincarnation of St. Catherine and all based on physical resemblance.
So I guess that's how far that went.
Now, before that, Wilcock was the crazy guy that Art Bell wanted to know why is this guy continuing to fax me saying that New York City was going to be nuked?
That never happened, of course.
But we get a sense here of somebody who likes a spectacle and probably doesn't have such a great relationship with reality.
And he ends up doing these shows on Gaia TV.
So there's a kind of I need to be in the spotlight thing going on here.
So he predicted cabal arrests, Obama disclosure, tribunals of the elite, and none of that stuff happened, needless to say.
The Spotlight Obsession Problem00:02:46
And then he came across good.
Yeah.
Now, I think someone like Wilcock, even he must realize the good story with no evidence doesn't really hold water and will have a very short shelf life ultimately.
So the question is is he basically serving as an entertainment platform for this because that's basically his job?
But how do you see it?
You know, you know him.
This work that he's getting into with good doesn't have any academic or journalistic value and really looks more like a circus with the comic books and everything else.
Yes.
So, I don't know, opportunistic?
I understand all that and I understand the implied question in there.
Let me see what I can say about that.
You use the word academic, and I think academic is important because at least the concept of academia is important.
And it's a rare quality among our community.
Those who come to mind, who you and I both know who are academic in the way that I would use the word, are Joseph Farrell, Richard Dolan, Catherine Austin Fitz.
Linda Howe, everyone who I think spoke at the secret space program conferences.
And what I mean by the word academic is that they're cautious, they collect information, they're careful in drawing conclusions, they know how to correlate, they know how to filter, they know how to reference, they know how important it is to state.
How they know what they claim to know, or how they have concluded what they claim to have concluded.
And to refer back to another name that we mentioned earlier, I would put Timothy Good in that category as well.
That was the great strength of his wonderful book, Above Top Secret.
Yes.
By those criteria, I mentioned earlier that.
Michael Sala wasn't an academic in that sense, even though, ironically, he was trained as one and he was an academic working in a university position before he entered the field of ufology.
Interesting.
Strengths Amidst Wild Errors00:10:03
And David Wilcock is a strange mixture.
And I do want to be careful about what I say here.
But I think I can safely say the following.
I first met David over 10 years ago.
And although he'd done work on the internet and in the public domain before Kerry Castile and I met him, we both did quite a lot to put him on the map.
We interviewed him a couple of times and on audio, we interviewed him more.
He took part in some of our projects.
We met him a lot.
We exchanged information.
We regarded him as a friend, and I liked him.
Right.
He was unassuming in the initial stages.
He wasn't very confident.
He was smart.
He's got an extraordinary capacity for data retention.
And he's extremely articulate and he's very presentable.
And he's got a bunch of positive qualities.
And he's done a lot of very important work over the years, including some groundbreaking work.
At the same time, he's got some things wildly wrong.
But what I have seen since then, and again, here I need to be careful because I don't want people to react to this conversation we're having by saying, look, here's Bill Ryan.
He's firing cheap shots at everyone he can.
This is not my intention.
It's not what I'm trying to do.
Well, you could say our conversation is about transparency, and there's a reason why we're talking about these things.
Yeah, right.
Let me break in on what you were just about to say, because I can complete what I was about to say there after this long caveat.
Because there are a lot of admirable things about David.
His commitment, he's hung on in there, he's suffered through bad times, he's been criticized, he's sometimes been unwell.
The books that he has written are of the highest quality and contain good research, like the Source Field Investigations, for example.
I mean, this is wonderful stuff.
You know, I mean, I can't fault that at all.
He's done us all a service with that kind of work.
And somewhere in there, he.
What words can I use?
He started to enjoy the limelight.
Okay.
And again, because we're all human, this is something that we can all.
Identify with and empathize with, and kind of sympathize with.
It's like, you know, this isn't a hanging offense to relish the moment when you stand up and say something and everyone's applauding, you know.
This is all part of our richness of human experience that it's important for us to be valued.
We seek rewards, we seek acknowledgement.
And all of that is kind of healthy.
And I think what's happened over the years is in David's case, it's become overplayed.
And maybe the safest sidestep I can take in this is to accurately report what many people have said to me, what other people have said to me in writing and in conversation.
They talk about his ego, they talk about his desire to be.
In the limelight, his desire to be well known, his desire to be famous, his desire to be the one who's bringing all these stories out there, to be the champion, to be the holder of the torch, which represents us all, and he's out there in front leading the way.
And I have heard hundreds of people say that, each in their own different way.
And I believe it's a shame because I think that there is some truth there.
And earlier we were talking about how a strength, when a strength is overplayed, it becomes a weakness.
So if somebody's too willing to stand up in front of a microphone and talk the truth or what they think is the truth, which is a strength, because some people are shy and some people don't want to do it and some people want to hide and some people are nervous.
It's a strength to want to do that.
If the strength is overplayed, then it starts to come across like they're pig headed, like they're egotistical, like they think they're the best, like they think they're more important, they think that they're the one who's right, they think that they're the one who deserves more credit than anybody else.
Then it all turns itself inside out because this strength is being overplayed.
And that's kind of what I see.
And in this journey that we're all on, Where we're working with whatever strengths and weaknesses we all have, and we're trying to deploy these as best as we can.
Like life is some big video game, and we're deploying all the assets we can.
Sure.
We all have the responsibility to make choices about how we present ourselves, what opportunities we take, what opportunities we decline, when we choose to exaggerate something, when we choose to promote something, to push.
Every moment of our lives, we're making choices.
We're making little choices, we're making big choices.
And some of us, sometimes, because of various pressures, external or internal, we make bad choices.
And one of the ways that, I mean, this is kind of going way off on a sideways step here, but my personal interpretation of karma is it's when we kind of get that sort of looping payback from those bad choices that we've made.
It's like, oh, this has come back to haunt us now.
It's like, oh my God, now that investment didn't pay off.
Or, whoops, I thought I was being smart, but you know what?
Now I realize I've been dumb, and now this is what's happening.
And it's like we're all on this journey.
Every single one of us is on this journey, and it's all about choices.
And the best that we can possibly do is learn from our own mistakes and learn from the mistakes of others and make the smartest choices we can make.
And this is where this all loops back to David and Corey.
In separate ways, I believe they have both made bad choices.
Isn't very smart.
And I do not know whether all this is going to blow up.
I do not know whether all of this is going to somehow backfire in some Shakespearean tragic way.
I don't wish any harm on anybody, and I would like to think this does not happen, but it could.
It could, in this way that I'm interpreting karma here, it's like when somebody gets to look foolish, when the audience suddenly decides.
They're the hero which they put on a pedestal now should be pelted with tomatoes.
And this happens all the time.
The people who are celebrities, it only takes a whim sometimes for the audience to turn on somebody who they previously felt was a hero because then they're projecting their anger on the fact that they feel they've been betrayed because of their own over trust in somebody who's demanding this trust of them.
Right.
And so it's possible that all this could somehow end in tears.
I don't want it to end in anyone's tears, but it's a kind of paradox because at the same time, I want the truth to come out because there is some overarching responsibility which we all have, which we all feel we have.
When I say we all, I mean we all in this so called research community here, to stand for the truth, to encourage the truth, to ferret out the truth, and to filter out the Untruths.
And that's really what's motivating.
I mean, it's the only thing that's really motivating this whole conversation, which I'm having with you.
It's like, you know, to paraphrase that idiom, like all the evil has to do to succeed is for good men to do nothing.
I mean, here we're not talking about evil, that's way too strong.
But it's like, One could paraphrase it by saying that all that is necessary for untruth to stand firm is for the truth not to be told by people who are able to do that.
Wow, that's an excellent point.
And I agree with what you're saying there.
It's really about defending the integrity of the field of research.
Subscribe for More Deep Interviews00:03:13
Bill, we have to end part two right here, but I have more questions and you have more revelations to share.
So we'll take it into overtime, part three.
The discussion continues at darkjournalist.com.
Just amazing information, Bill.
And in part three, we'll look at the role of intelligence services in the alternative media even deeper.
And some things you're going to put on the record here for the first time.
The site is projectavalon.net.
Fantastic information.
And remember to go to darkjournalist.com for more and part three in your inbox in just a couple of days.
Now's the time to subscribe.
Bill, thanks for being with us.
Very good, Daniel.
Thank you.
Kudos to you.
Thank you for joining me for this fascinating episode with Project Avalon's Bill Ryan on Cosmic Backlash, Corey Story's epic fail.
You can find more deep interviews, special reports, and documentaries at www.darkjournalist.com.
You can also subscribe to our YouTube channel to receive the latest videos.
See you soon.
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.