This is fairly good because it matches the Farsight descriptions. I'm ok with the idea that not all the names are genuine (eg Harvey) but we need to stay consistent at least so that we always know if we're talking about apples or oranges.

I think there needs to be a name for the group of humans whom directly oppose the secret space program.

Hi Manuel.

Sorry, I can't agree to your terms.

It has soooo much assumption built into it, and there's zero real evidence that there's any validity to any of them.

I think what is needed is giving some sort of reference for where the ideas of these come from.

Of course it's assumption. So, how would real evidence look like?

For example, how do I know that the United States of America exist? I don't live there. I have never been there. All I know about it is coming from other people talking about it. By observing these people, I came to the conclusion that they believe in the existence of the Unites States for some reason, which means they act accordingly.

It would be the same with the ETs. For example, if we ask an ET "Do you belong to the Orion Empire?", at first he wouldn't know what we mean, because he wouldn't use the same term. He would ask: "What is this Orion Empire you're talking about?" We would respond: "The empire that owned Earth as a prison planet a few thousand years ago." He could then say: "No, the empire I belong to didn't own Earth at that time." So we would know that the Empire he belongs to is not the Orion Empire as we defined it.

Of course it is absolutely possible that our definition doesn't reflect reality, then we would find no evidence. But imagine the ET says: "I know who owned your planet a few thousand years ago. It's the Empire of the Black Sun." We then would know that what he calls Empire of the Black Sun is the same as what we call Orion Empire.

Right...

And, have we seen any aliens say that?? (or any other terms used in the OP?)

I don't understand your problem. When we see them, we ask. But we need definitions in order to be able to ask.

True, I do agree with the general principle. And, yes, FS does indeed apply self-censorship...

(I don't agree on your take about the moon landing though - RVers get what RVers get, and if it doesn't happen to align with your view of the world, then you've got two options...)

Yeah, it's a bit worrying when you praise the organisations that do the most funding (and lots of carrying out) of state-sponsored terrorism..

It is all in the way we set up the targets.

1/ One needs to FIRST target the super famous Apollo 11 mission of 1969. Verify with RV the movie and everything we know about it was fabricated. It is important to put it to rest. To show your audience you are genuine. To satisfy the informed people in your audience.

2/ And then you target the secret real one... like FS did... This gives the project much more value...

3/ And of course you continue with another project to look at the technology of the ship and the people who took them there (US made UFO? Antartic Germans?)

...

+ We know Kubrick was involved in the movies. He coded it in his movie THE SHINNING in 1980 where he retells his story. Going to remote big strange location, with his family unaware of his real mission. An artist/writer signs a contract to work for "the man" and ends up losing himself. He chose Jack Nickolson to play his role. Fun fact: the kid in the movie is an RV or telepath.

"To show your audience you are genuine. To satisfy the informed people in your audience."

But - that's just a confirmation bias. What if they don't get that data? Do you a) consider that the RVers missed the target? or b) question your own beliefs, and perhaps admit you were wrong?

"We know he has CODED his involvment with the NASA in his movie THE SHINNING in 1980 where he retells his story doing the moon movies"

Sorry, I don't *KNOW* any such thing! I've seen some opinions on the subject, I've seen debunking of it. There's nowhere near enough evidence to support any such claims you're suggesting. And, I'm pretty sure that absolutely no-one else here will "know" such things either.

"The CIA is not American. According to the best historians, it is a criminal organization"

Being a criminal organisation doesn't mean it's not American....

➡️ https://www.farsightprime.com/forums/general/70106-who-represents-humanity

* The Federal Reserve: is it American? I am not sure. I think it is debatable.

* Can anyone explain why the OSS was replaced by a new organization called the CIA in 1947? (The year of Roswell and Operation High Jump!) If something works and wins, one usually keeps it.

* Looking back from the present day we can see much better this organization has been working against America and the American people. Not because of incompetence but by design.

@Psycho

You are either missing the point of this thread, or trying to distract people with lots of sidetracks that lead elsewhere. Either way, it's an interesting reaction.

@Chiquito

I tried to reply to the TITLE of your thread : "Identity of the bad ETs".

(1) as a pre-requisit I said we can go nowhere if we do not agree on "what is good/bad" (you made another thread to discuss this... very good)

(2) i recommended to focus on the BELOW (identify the actors of verifiable crimes on Earth, like children sacrifice) before moving - step by step - to the realms of the ABOVE

The idea is to avoid building one's FOUNDATIONS on terms that are FLOATING (because they refer to invisible entities, mythology, esoterics and things that one cannot verify through hardcore criminology)

I never pretend I have the answer to anything: I am just putting what I have on the table :)

I don't know.

You are clearly LOST in the clouds. With no hook on the ground. I am giving you hints as to how to succeed in IDENTIFYING your targets : the bad ET's. And even CATCH them if you can. It is not about writing novels or dancing with the stars.

You said you wanted to know WHO are the BAD off-planet groups messing with us... yes or no? Is it to make a nice painting in your bathroom or is to catch them and put them in jail?

In order to do that (without getting lost in your own bathroom) I suggested HOOKING OURSELVES on real criminal events that happened and that involved CRIMES on humans with names and locations.

For example : the newsest project by FS released yesterday is PERFECT... A case of human trafficking in Indonesia... A real case of UFO encounter with a story of HUMAN TRAFFICKING. These UFO people are clearly BAD. They are doing something on Earth in the present time and bad enough to call their action BAD for us humans.

Other similar projects are the SOLDIERS OF CERES.... or anything SSP... where we clearly have HUMAN VICTIMS of off-planet groups related directly or undirectly to ET's.

This is POLICE work. In case this is what you want: TO REALLY LOCATE AND IDENTIFY off-planet criminals, TODAY.

Same thing for the cases of child sacrifice. These are solid entry points. Real documented crimes involving humans, secrecy, cults... AND OFF-PLANET entities.

So my suggestion is to do more RV projects related to the same case, in order to climb the ladder... and identify the groups and the names behind it... (In the case of this Indonesia human trafficking event, the next step is not to stop or do another similar event but to understand WHERE the UFO left for and who are the bosses and the companies/corporations invovled and so on.)

I would not insist like this, if you were more precise about what you are trying to achieve. WHAT DO YOU WANT? Be more precise about what you are trying to look for. (1) What does it mean "bad"? why are they bad? and (2) what does it really mean for you: "to identify"? For example if you pronounce my name, do you think you have identified me?

Personally, I think you're trying to backtrack... which is fine, as long as it's acknowledged as such. Don't all of us really dislike when a politician goes back on their word, and couches it in terms of "Oh no, I didn't actually mean it like that - it's you viewers who misunderstood what I was getting at". I think that's why we have this new term getting thrown around - gaslighting.

But, anyway - the point of the thread is to 'identify'. Names and identities were thrown around. If there's some reason for those names to be used, and some reason for them to be considered 'bad', I'm all eyes... (but, obviously, I'd question the source).

Also, I think it's pretty pointless discussing things that don't exist in this context.

It is the mark of an ethical mind to admit when they were wrong - honestly, sincerely, and preferably ASAP.

@Shiningbrow

I'm trying to explain what the purpose of a definition is, and what it's not.

"but, obviously, I'd question the source"

You are free to do that. If we find evidence or even proof that the source is wrong, we adjust our definitions and move on. That's how science works. We need to have working definitions in order to be able to look at possibilities that would otherwise be missed.