Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,174 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 491,241
Pageviews Today: 599,084Threads Today: 113Posts Today: 1,881
04:42 AM

Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing

Between The Devil And The Returning Rock - Part I..The truth about the Annunaki.

The Light
User ID: 19691449
09/15/2012 12:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Between The Devil And The Returning Rock - Part I..The truth about the Annunaki.
Between The Devil And The Returning Rock - Part I

· Between the Devil and the Returning Rock.* The issues of governance, security and inter-dimensional relations caused by the heavenly conflict due to the “return of NI.BI.RU.”

I will put the author information at the end of the article. Most of this information was not new to me, but this paper (despite the use of pseudonyms by the authors, who are a part of the Life Physics Group) was well documented by government and military personnel, at least as well as could possibly be expected concerning the subject matter. People who openly talk about these things are called “whistleblowers,” if they are not murdered before they have a chance to be called anything at all. But, since this information IS going to become public very soon, and since I am virtually anonymous as any kind of a force, (although undoubtedly known as a bit player by the spirit world) I’m going to post it.

I should add that these people have New Age views, and therefore their conclusions cannot be trusted. Their ‘science so-called’ is even suspect, from my personal point of view. However, I don’t care about their conclusions. I am simply after the factual testimony of their witnesses as to the FACTS of spiritual beings and their government involvement. As you read, keep in mind that this was written six years ago (2007) after 5 years of research. My comments are bracketed and in red. Everything else is verbatim.


We will examine issues generated by the presence of the Annunaki [returning Nephilim] on Earth and the Kingdom returning. The presence of people from another world on Earth presents unique problems and opportunities, creating a compelling need to confront the basic issues.

The two driving assumptions we make are: (1) not everything is as it seems, or as we are told it is; and (2) neither are all assets completely disclosed in this paper, nor are their real capabilities and uses open to public scrutiny. We present these results of our field study to stimulate discourse. It is evident that there is little or no intelligence on them in the public domain, and we believe this to be a dangerous state of affairs.

Fortunately, there are ways and places to find this information, from humans who have had access to high level policy formulation, as well as people who have received information from confidantes due to their allegiance and loyalties. Our sources have spoken to us on the condition of anonymity, with regard to what we are facing now and will face in the future. It took nearly five years of search and scrutiny of the sources and the information culled from them – and a complex vetting procedure. We also required confirmation of information by at least two or more sources. The landscape in this unfolding drama is murky. We will explore scenarios raised by informant reports in two areas: (1) governance, and (2) near-Earth security.


Our Sources:

1. FIOA documents, codified rules as in Code of Federal Regulations and certain military manuals

2. Government and military sources of public and leaked information in England, NATO and the EU, U.S. National Space Council and UN

3. Witting informants (from both government and military), willing and able to provide hints, partial disclosures, confirmations, and information on a case by case basis, referred to as numbered informants.

Governance as an issue seems to have taken a new shade of meaning in the late 1970s, when in the words of Informant #1, “things went kind of haywire, when the people from the incoming (NI.BI.RU.) made contact through unexpected assets requesting a meeting with representatives of the United States….the only thing that saved the day was the cool-headed handling of matters related to this contact, and the delegation made by the President to his close friend from Navy days to head the group that met with them up in the tundra….A semi-formal arrangement was set up for exchanges and contacts directly through the interagency directorate set up by the White House and [unspecified agency] to handle them and facilitate the settlement and acclimation of one of theirs at one of our installations in [unspecified] desert.” At the time, we were in the throes of the first Iran situation “and the people from the incoming filled us in on the actual conflict being played out at that time.”

Governance then ceased being a matter of mere elections and political parties, and more of a two-track affair of state – one involving politics as usual on the domestic side and a carefully orchestrated foreign policy enriched by the revelations on the nature and genesis of the Iranian about-face (the invisible hands of the Serpent Faction…); the other involving more of a managing of relationships with those who were coming in, mostly through the one whom Informant One referred to as “the ambassador.” The new intel available through such contacts “concerning Serpent Faction activities in fomenting division by religious fundamentalism was heard but not heeded – at least not until the next administration.” How much of what had transpired in the ten months prior to the 1980 election was passed on during the transition is unknown, but five informants, especially those in the military attached to the interagency directorate, did confirm that “awareness of what was going on was palpable from day one, but how much the old man knew was anybody’s guess. Everything was still being handled in compartments and very few of us had access to the latest intelligence from out west [in the desert?]”

“The thing that changed everything were the reports coming in from the Naval Observatory and the project that was handling the astronomical observations in South America and Australia. By then we knew that this whole thing was for real, and that there were needs superceding the way we were then organized.” But it would apparently take nearly six years for pertinent information to reach the summit of power in the White House – even though the interagency directorate was said to have functioned out of the EOB and in one of the subfloors under the White House. Why this took so long, and by what means did Reagan become aware of things concerning the Annunaki is unknown, and remains so.

In 1986, then President Reagan met with Secretary General Gorbachev in Reykjavik, Iceland for a mini-summit. In a private session, which is said to have included their respective wives, Nancy and Raisa, the foursome is reported to have received a formal briefing on information culled from astrophysical, technological and historical sources concerning what cannot be anything other than the 10th Planet in our solar system, the historical record of anthropological and archeoastronomical information concerning NI.BI.RU. and its inhabitants, and the “apparent civil conflict between members of an asset group [Nibiruan Annunaki [Nephilim, fallen angels] on Earth] and the [NI.BI.RU.-borne] governing body of the incoming.” The occurrence of this briefing was verified by six of the eleven sources we cultivated over the years. It was also said that reference was made during the briefing to “the handling of understanding with those here concerning matters of mutual interest,” which were discussed by the principals and questions asked of the briefers, “senior military officers in civilian clothes.” Both Reagan and Gorbachev wished to know how extensive was the institutional awareness of this “threat” on the part of the other major powers and industrialized nations of Earth. The answer was said that awareness was highly restricted to “intelligence sharing of certain compartmented information on a need to know basis” and “only with those who’ve assisted us in term of recoveries [of extraterrestrial artifacts] in the past.”

Issues of national governance raised by both heads of state concerned “both internal issues of disclosure and preparation, and issues on how to handle them.” Gorbachev was said to be more concerned with the managing of relations with the asset group and its leadership, while the American president was said to have voiced concerns about the position in which the U.S. was finding itself with respect to the asset group on planet surface and what stance was the proper one to take on this matter. The president was said to have been reminded that the information compartment, though inclusive of major aspects, was also still restricted to the highest level, to those having a [certain specific compartment] clearance, “and to those serving on the [National Space] Council,” and that “all previous contacts and understandings with them [the Earthbound asset group] remain in place”. The president was also reported to have asked for recommendations on possible options for the handling of the situation at hand.

It was then said that, as an initial step, Gorbachev recommended the matter be disclosed to the United Nations both privately and publicly “in the strongest possible terms,” but avoiding unnecessary and premature full disclosures. Both heads of state also are said to have requested and received descriptive information on “what these people looked like.” The briefing was said to have been sober and business-like, with the wives remaining quiet and attentive, but with Nancy taking some notes. It was also said they were reminded that the matter would not arise as “a tangible” until the beginning of the second decade of the next century” [now...] and that “there was still some time to organize an infrastructure for the handling of contact, intelligence and positioning of assets with the aim of establishing a basis for future diplomacy.”

Interestingly enough, a relatively short time after the briefing, Reagan publicly addressed the United Nations General Assembly and is reported to have held private meetings with a select group of NATO allies and other industrialized nations. Towards the end of his speech to the Forty-second Session on September 21, 1987, the President said that, "in our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to make us recognize this common bond. I occasionally think," continued Reagan, "how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world. And yet, I ask" -- here comes the clincher -- "is not an alien force ALREADY among us?" The President now tries to retreat from the last bold statement by posing a second question: "What could be more alien to the universal aspirations of our peoples than war and the threat of war?”

There are indications also that Reagan and Gorbachev had already spoken about aliens during their previous Geneva summit. And there are further indications in the public domain that the president had awareness of the presence of “aliens” on Earth. Earlier during the second term, the astrology flap had caught public attention, and when the next time Reagan mentioned “a threat” from outer space, it was a further attention getter. The media was having a field day with horoscopes at the White House when Reagan talked about the possibility of Earth uniting against a threat by "a power from outer space." Although the idea wasn't new for the President, as we shall soon see, this time everybody paid attention. More as a joke than a serious thought, however. The AP story on the speech, for example, had the headline, "Reagan follows astrological flap with comment on space invaders." The President first disclosed his thoughts about "an alien threat" during a 4 December 1985 speech at Fallston High School in Maryland, where he spoke about his first summit with General Secretary Gorbachev in Geneva. According to a White House transcript, Reagan remarked that during his 5-hour private discussions with Gorbachev, he told [Gorbachev] to think, "how easy his task and mine might be in these meetings that we held if suddenly there was a threat to this world from some other species from another planet outside in the universe. We'd forget all the little local differences that we have between our countries...."

Except for one headline or two, people didn't pay much attention. Not then and not later, when Gorbachev himself confirmed the conversation in Geneva during an important speech on February 17, 1987, in the Grand Kremlin Palace in Moscow, to the Central Committee of the USSR's Communist Party. Not a High School in Maryland, precisely! There, buried on page 7A of the Soviet Life Supplement, was the following statement:

"At our meeting in Geneva, the U.S. President said that if the earth faced an invasion by extraterrestrials, the United States and the Soviet Union would join forces to repel such an invasion. I shall not dispute the hypothesis, though I think it's early yet to worry about such an intrusion..."

It is significant that Gorbachev didn’t consider this to be an incredible proposition; he just said that it's too early to worry about it. If Gorbachev elevated the theme from a high school to the Kremlin [Politburo], Reagan upped the ante again by including the "alien threat", not in a domestic speech but to a full session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. Unlike the off-the-cuff remarks to the Fallston High School, we must assume that the President's speech to the General Assembly was written very carefully and likewise, it merits close consideration. Ronald Reagan has told us that he thinks often about this issue, yet nobody seemed to be paying attention. [The Media pays attention to what they are advised to pay attention to - then and now.] When the President mentioned on 4 May 1988 in Chicago for the third time the possibility of a threat by "a power from another planet," the media quickly dubbed it the "space invaders" speech, relegating it to a sidebar in the astrology flap. The ET remark was made in the Q&A period following a speech to the National Strategy Forum in Chicago's Palmer House Hotel, where he adopted a more conciliatory tone towards the Soviet Union.

Significantly, Reagan's remark was made during his response to the question, "What do you consider to be the most important need in international relations?"

"I've often wondered," the President said, "what if all of us in the world discovered that we were threatened by an outer -- a power from outer space, from another planet." And then he emphasized his theme that this would erase all the differences, and that the "citizens of the world" would "come together to fight that particular threat..." There is a fourth, unofficial, similar statement from Ronald Reagan about this particular subject, which was reported in the New Republic by senior editor Fred Barnes. The article described a luncheon in the White House between the President and Eduard Shevardnatze, during the Foreign Minister's visit to Washington to sign the INF Treaty on September 15, 1987. "Near the end of his lunch with Shevardnadze," wrote Barnes, "Reagan wondered aloud what would happen if the world faced an 'alien threat' from outer space. “Don't you think the United States and the Soviet Union would be together?” he asked. Shevardnadze said, “yes, absolutely. And we wouldn't need our defense ministers to meet." In terms of secrets, there is also an unconfirmed story of a special screening in the White House of the movie ET years ago, with director Steven Spielberg and a few select guests. Right after the movie, Reagan is reported to have turned to Spielberg and to have had a whispered conversation for a few minutes. Then, as they stood up, Reagan said, more audibly, "There are only a handful of people who know the whole truth about this." If true, Reagan knew.

During the Reykjavik briefing, it is also reported that both heads of state pushed for the formation of a “response network set to handle aerial reconnaissance, surveillance and chase,” over the national skies of participating nations under an integrated command “ostensibly controlled by the American and Soviet higher commands.” But, as other informants reported, “this suggestion, in practice, met with so much resistance that it was ultimately dropped.” Thus, at this juncture and on the basis of informant reports, we can discern neither the extent to which the matter developed and materialized, nor which countries led in the effort.

In the United States, the president is reported to have formally organized diverse American space security assets under a National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (or NGA), which is said to have been

charged with providing “warning systems and means of downward and outward surveillance of matters and astronomical objects of interest to the national security.” This is said to have been accomplished through a secret presidential executive order. The primary concerns at the time were reported to be practical and their nature institutional in tone – what needs to be organized as networks of response to the threat on a case by case basis, how to organize participants and assets, how to orchestrate and make use of assets, and disposal of same under an integrated domestic command when events warranted it.

On the domestic side, lead in event response was said to have been given to NGA, the National Space Council and its contact committee, and to “a kind of space security czar.” [I have read many times that there are over 30 levels of space intelligence and CONTROL above the President.] All intelligence agencies, both on the civilian and military sides, were said to have been directed to provide support and assets as needed. Another, albeit not fully vetted, informant provided information concerning the formation of what was referred to as a “National Security Council-Augmented” group to provide “specific constituencies within US Gov and certain foreign constituencies” with what was described as “voice participation and recommending function” in discussions of issues and problems connected to presidential taskings, event response situations, and crises. We were not able to verify this report with information from other independent informants, but it is included here because it is suggestive of the institutional response set initiated under Reagan, and because it fits the preparatory and crisis handling patterns following the initiation of institutional responses to the perceived threat.

Two of our informants also reported that the initial focus on in-situ Annunakis declared by Reagan had changed during the next administration, only to have it reversed and amplified in the next two. When queried about these changes in focus as possible institutional inconsistencies, the reply was that “these were not so much structurally driven inconsistencies, either from the White House or from the foreign constituencies, but rather they were more like a floating focus driven by events and situations, some of [which] were surface [i.e. domestic and foreign political and military] events and situations stemming from administration policies.” In other words, “the pucker factor [fear] was much higher during the administration immediately following Reagan than during any of the other two following, including the present one.” The framework within which the remnant Annunaki situation was conceived and dealt with was, in the words of Informant Five, “as something ongoing and not readily subject to change. It was something that had to be managed, and managed carefully, choosing levels of engagement as carefully as if dealing with a live cobra” (2005). Interesting choice of words, given the moniker chosen by those who are here – Serpent clan. This meant, Informant Five explained further, that “when, for example, those who are here began making moves to meet and begin securing allegiance and loyalty oaths from members of groups like retired military, retired military intelligence and civilian intelligence people, de facto and ad hoc groups pretty much on their own initiative around the turn of the century, meetings with official USG people started taking place as pro-forma, but in some cases obligatory contacts arranged, managed and conducted from the highest levels. But those who would be sent to meet with them were at most deputy level people” (2005).

We also asked if, and how, governance was conducted following the institutionalization of what we

baptized as the NI.BI.RU. event response. Was safety and security (personal, public, institutional) ever an issue at any time? With regard to governance, “once the realization set in that things were not imminent, that the arrival [in southern skies] of the incoming would not be until the second decade of this century, [they are on an imposed time schedule] governance as an issue was forestalled by putting in place a multitrack program for managing anything from suppression and disinformation to public information and conditioning – all of that through about damn near 800 ST/SCI/SARs. All in the hands of an umbrella project [not the infamous MJ-12] that had superceded the one that had been handling things for the last forty or fifty years.” (2005).

Governing was more or less a two track affair after Reagan, according to Informants Four and Seven: “after Reagan and the fall of the Soviet Union, things got a little hairy for a while, but they turned less so after No. 41 [Bush senior] left office and the dust settled in Iraq” (2004). “Governing went back to politics as usual, the winning and losing of elections, etc., on one side, and on the other, not visible side, it became a kind of tap dance – managing carefully requirements by both sides [those who are here and those who are coming] “ (2005).

Both sides? Was there formal contact with the home planet before Reagan? Was this contact ongoing? “No to the latter; yes to the former, but through a more self-contained and insulated group who pretty much was left to its own devices for keeping the [Annunaki] here happy” (Informant Seven 2005). “It was only after the detection of NI.BI.RU. in the late ‘70s that things went into higher gear” (Informant Four 2004). “When the interagency directorate was set up, things moved to the White House and the tap dance began. Now there were two groups to contend with and the [exo]politics at times would get intense” (Informant Seven 2005)

Was the group that handled things then the same as that which led the umbrella project mentioned earlier? “Yes, with some additions after the other side [those who were on the incoming] requested and got a formal meeting up in the tundra [unspecified whether in Canada or Alaska, or Antartica], when things started to go slightly crazy, sort of being between the devil and the incoming rock. But all of that happened before Reagan” (Informant Two 2004; Informant Four 2005; Informant Five 2005; Informant Six 2005).

security, near Earth space security and Annunaki interclan conflict, informants have also provided some information on contacts with “aliens” from outside the solar system (e.g., the Angleton tapes and the SERPA TS/SCI referred to by Collins and Doty 2005). This appears to reflect a reframing of how USG views the Annunaki vis-à-vis “the real aliens” (Informant Six 2005). Our current hypothesis is that Annunakis are currently viewed as “ancestors, not really aliens, but more like people who are like us, probably because they were here before the human race appeared on Earth through them” (Informant Six 2005) [They obviously do not believe that mankind was created by God, but accept Satan’s lie that we came from the aliens … although some truly were from the seed of Satan.] This makes sense to us, since we were asked more than once to clarify our questions regarding “aliens” from the “incoming.” Is it that at present lead agencies regard this as a “local” event requiring a “local event response set”? It would seem so. This worldview on Annunaki presence on Earth would also fit in with the seeming working definition of “those who are here and those from the incoming” as a “local problem” (Informant Six 2005; Informant Eight 2005

How, then, has the issue of governance been affected by the double Annunaki presence since the ’79 meeting? One of the seeming results of the formalized infrastructure specific to this situation is the insulation of the White House from the appearance of real access to UFO information. Two examples of this approach are the handling of the Rockefeller initiative during the Clinton administration (i.e., the involvement of assets said to be with CIA at the time and the White House deft use of UFO/alien humor) in deflecting one of the most delicate exopolitical crisis faced by President Clinton; the other is the style and tenor used by the Bush 43 administration: silence. The Annunaki seem to have forced the USG into a space security structure responsive to two exopolitical constituencies. This is reflected “in the way things get handled,” said Informant Eight. “Looks like everything political is handled by the [National Space] Council and the Vice President as chair. This is where the two tracks originate. One umbrella for TS/SCIs handling the incoming, another umbrella for TS/SCI dealing with those here, and the twain shall never meet. NGA looks like it works with both tracks, but it really is controlled by the other czar for space security. This is one of the most secret functions, ‘cause from what I can tell, this person is the Executive Officer of the whole space security apparatus” (Eight 2005). We asked some of our informants to describe what they knew of the infrastructure of this “space security apparatus.” Figure 1 (below) is a graphic representation of our understanding of the information at this time.

Source .. [link to royalheir.blogspot.ie]

Part 2... [link to royalheir.blogspot.ie]

Part 3 ... [link to royalheir.blogspot.ie]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 288414
United States
09/15/2012 01:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Between The Devil And The Returning Rock - Part I..The truth about the Annunaki.
Hey I think your god seems to have spelled his name wrong;
[link to www.hypnotiqueolmecpunch.org]

Can you tell me which word is wrong?