Well said all. I wrote this before reading the recent posts.
------------------------------------------
Possibly stating the obvious... If one assumes that the 'Powers That Be' consist of a geographically dispersed collection of individuals unified only by:
- selection to their organisation,
- opaque roles, influences and hidden leadership
- operations formed by limited communication without review or strong legal basis
- a shared a sense of belief and loyalty towards the 'vision and values' of the organisation,
then it is likely that the organisation would eventually become fragmented in terms of its goals, agendas, motivating ideas and interpretation of information, events, tasks and actions. (For example, differing views may eventually result from scenario bias, interpretation of analysis and affects on global political, socioeconomic stability, various opinions on policies, rules, law, the US constitution, representation and projection of national interest, national security, and so on and so forth.) Over time, a struggle of ideas may eventuate which may or may not trigger an actual power struggle within the organisation.
As has been suggested elsewhere, one might speculate (in terms of rapid disclosure of ET visitation/contact) that within the PTB there are members camped-
a) in favour, pro-disclosure rapid timeframe
b) against, con-disclosure rapid timeframe
c) undecided delay-makers and fence-sitters
If this is true, it would be understandable then that the pro-disclosure group (a) may eventually decide to push boundaries by releasing 'some' (totally deniable, untraceable) information whilst not stepping over an interpreted no-go line and triggering internal organisational chaos. This would put pressure on group (b) and (c) as a means of furthering the pro-disclosure cause and the argument in favour of such action. As a a consequence, it would be equally natural that group (b) would take steps to both resist and undermine/denigrate (a)s position and leaked information.
It could be a planned step in the path of a slow timeframe disclosure process. Or it maybe be a hoax.
All relatively futile, repeated speculation and I have nothing new to offer here. In the end, whether Isaac's account is
-a complete hoax (for reasons of self-promotion, human internet study, mental perversion or whatever),
- a partial release of legitimate data wrapped in a cover story (to serve pro-disclosure activities), or
- disinformation (with-some-bizarre-manipulative purpose)
I believe this 'work' to be the planned actions of a group and not just one individual. No proof, my personal assessment/opinion based on the degree of effort and sophistication. Of course, the impact of Isaac's 'work' has been distorted by wanna-be's, fantasists, idiots and satirists (and if the speculation above is valid and accurate, then also by disinfo agents). All a dis-service to unbiased analysis.
Unfortunately as much as I'd like to know more, I don't expect to receive more conclusive data or definitive answers.
---------------------------
Over to the entity known as Isaac?
