If human beings originated in Africa, how and from where did the white, yellow and red races arise?
835th Contact
Saturday, 18th February 2023, 19:24 hrs
Ptaah:
Greetings, Eduard my friend. Today I cannot stay long, for I come here only to bring you the necessary answers from the panel, as well as to talk some things over with you, for Bermunda has told me that 5 days ago you both …
Billy:
… yes, yes, we were over in America – 2 good hours, and I have a … Here, this is … However, also be greeted and welcome to my den. If you can’t stay long, it’s like, once again, you have what I have to photograph and read later, because it’s quite a lot.
Ptaah:
Thank you, I guess it will be, but you should not be open about what you …
Billy:
You mostly that I am behind the ca… … But …
Ptaah:… you really should keep quiet about that, because …
Billy:
If you think – you might be right, because ….
Ptaah:
That’s exactly what I think, and we shouldn’t talk about that openly, because …
Billy:
As you say – maybe it really is, because quite obviously the air is already thick, because we tried to get in touch again with some people who were here in the early 1980s and made the contact film. They also responded, but suddenly they went back into silence and haven’t been heard from for months now. Michael wanted to know a few things about the interview with Marcel Vogel, but it was all cut off. It’s also suddenly happening in Japan, where the film is supposedly no longer to be found and has disappeared. The Americans are also in there, probably blocking everything so that Marcel Vogel’s statements are not disseminated, because he examined the metal samples that I had received from your daughter Semjase very carefully. He then explained his result in an interview and said that this metal alloy could not be of earthly origin, how that on Earth the development would only be so far in about 150 years that this metal resp. this alloy could be produced.
Ptaah:
This is not to be known and therefore concealed, because it would prove your contacts with us. Therefore everything is also denied and you are accused of swindling, fraud and other machinations, just as during your life it is sought to put you out of existence, which fortunately has so far failed many times.
Billy:
Quetzal has also contributed a great deal to this good fortune that you are referring to, with the visual protection system, whereby other members of FIGU have also been saved from harm or even more.
Ptaah:
Correct, but you still have to be careful, because other methods prevail among Earth-humans than the use of firearms and throwing knives, etc., whereby I will mention explosives, which are especially … not an impediment, as …
Billy:
Well, there has not been anything so far – but what is not, can …
Ptaah:
That is the point, how you each say to something when you give the reason etc. regarding a certain thing.
Billy:
But what do you say when I talk about politics, which is not really what we should do, because stupid people think that FIGU or I interfere in politics. But my question is what do you think, that now America is officially warning China against supplying weapons to Russia?
Ptaah:
When you or I discuss something, it has nothing to do with FIGU in any manner, so it does not affect the Free Interest Group at all, because it is our private conversation. Further, we do not politicise, neither you nor I, consequently we also do not express any opinion, because we already do not build such an opinion at all, because ‘having an opinion’ is always wrong, because such an opinion never corresponds to reality and consequently also not to the truth.
Billy:
Exactly – forming an opinion and therefore then having an opinion is always based on the fact that the human being, according to his views and ideas etc., mentally and emotionally forms something which he takes as given, but which consequently does not correspond to reality and its truth. This is because views, ideas and assumptions etc. are always individual and therefore far removed from reality and its truth. For human beings, this means that they should only accept and represent as given, correct and true what they can actually see, hear, realise, experience and thus grasp as truth. Also, the human being should only ever say what are effective facts and facts, so he should only ever name something that corresponds to truth and reality, and that without adding a comment or anything else, so that only pure facts are named that are also actually given. This, however, requires that also in learning only the effective learning material as such is studied, but not any personal assumptions and presumptions etc. are mixed in. Without exception, reality and its truth should be searched for and found and perceived, but not simply everything should be accepted on faith. This also means, for example, that everything that you and I speak, that I bring and teach in the form of the ‘Teaching of Truth, Teaching of Creation-energy, Teaching of Life’, as well as everything that I teach, explain and speak at all, must be independently, thoroughly, specifically considered and also experienced and experienced by the students, learners, listeners and readers themselves. The mere fact that only what I teach is then simply learned and read and simply accepted and thus only believed, this excludes reality and its truth and only promotes faith. Fundamentally, it means that the human being should comprehend everything and anything through his own efforts and concerns, as well as through a sensible and clear self-life and self-experience, precisely to the extent that it is possible for him, that he thereby recognises reality and its truth and gains a certain certainty that what he has learned, heard, seen, experienced and witnessed corresponds to reality.
Ptaah:
There is probably nothing more to be said about this, because it is absolutely clear that no opinion is to be formed and therefore also not to be represented. Effectively, only pure reality and the resulting truth is ever to be named and represented.
Billy:
Opinions are, in truth, only views, ideas and suppositions, as sometimes they are also only dreams or false doctrines, which are unconscionably spread, leading to belief, as is the case with religions. Through their false teachings, namely, the human being is only believing, whereby he always hopes for the help of a higher power, such as a ‘god’, a ‘saint’ or a ‘holy one’, etc., but thereby completely disregards himself and his own abilities and necessary efforts of self-regulating and self-working everything desired. In this way, however, he atrophies with regard to any self-help, because all self-initiative of the human being is lost and he becomes helpless, in such a way that others seize his initiative and he becomes dependent on them, especially those human beings who are addicted to a religious faith. These people live erroneously according to the completely thoughtless and religiously-affiliated and absolutely idiotically false saying ‘God thinks and directs’. In doing so, a fanatical and confused devotion to faith is displayed, which reveals how frighteningly stupid the personal and real freedom of thought as well as the logic, the intellect and the reason of the human beings are degraded and demolished by religious faith in this respect. This happens in such a way that the human being is no longer in any manner himself, but only a slave to his religious faith and to those who pelt him with religious and thus lying and deceitful heresies and scrounge his head full of nonsensical stories. Real and sensible thinking is disappearing, consequently the human being has long since fallen prey to illusory thinking and the longer, the more he falls prey to it, especially what is conditioned by religious faith and is deluded into believing religious nonsense. This, however, makes him more and more dependent and also leads him to believe not only the lies of the respective religion and its representatives, but also the lies and deceptions of the majority of politicians. In particular, America has become big and powerful in this respect since the end of the last World War, when it brought German war criminals and mass murderers to the USA for its own benefit and advancement, such as Wernher von Braun for rocket building, in order to thereby get on the moon. So this in the case of rocket building, but also elsewhere for many other things, like the atomic bomb, etc.
Ptaah:
These are words of truth, but they will not endear you to those you address. However, they are your words nothing but a statement of how everything really is.
Billy:
Of course, it is not meant to be anything else, for it all corresponds to honesty and its logic, which after all corresponds to part of the 12 senses of human beings.
Ptaah:
Whereas Earth-humans are only aware of their 5, if I’m not mistaken.
Billy:
You’re quite right, but to say something about it is surely as pointless as pointing out that from time immemorial the number 12 has been the ‘value of all things’, as well as the fact that the ancient ancients had 12 fingers and 10 toes instead of 10. They also mixed with the earthlings at that time, so that it still happens today that very distant descendants are once again ‘equipped’ with it, precisely that they are born with 12 fingers and 12 toes. In addition, there is actually a whole tribe of indigenous people living in the jungle in South America, untouched by civilisation, whose human beings each have 12 fingers and 12 toes, as I saw for myself when I was there with Sfath. Of course, 12 fingers on the hands and 12 toes on the feet are called bodily aberrations or the like by earthly scientists. It is not known to them, after all, that it is a complete naturalness that was once brought here and can now and then break through as heredity in earthlings whose very early ancestry of parents goes back thousands of years, but this cannot be fathomed, just as it cannot be fathomed that their very early ancestors had mixed with the hereditary ones. As a rule, however, the true earlier ancestry of the ancestors thousands of years ago cannot be fathomed, which leads back to the parents of 12-fingered children and 12-toed descendants. But what do you want when earthly scientists are so stupid as to claim things that even a complete idiot must realise the imbecility of. This, how it is asserted that human beings originated in South Africa and migrated to the North, to Asia, etc., etc. And Earth’s humanity believes this nonsense and does not ask how it came about that suddenly white-skinned, yellow-skinned and red-skinned as well as slit-eyed and otherwise completely different types of human beings arose from it. Even the climate, the vegetations and the influences of the living conditions of millions of years were not able to bring about such transformations.
Ptaah:
It is not possible to argue about this with rational thinkers; consequently, only sham thinkers foolishly and simple-mindedly try to come up with an opinion to dispute this.
Billy:
Unfortunately, this kind of thing is common among earthlings, with so-called scholars in particular claiming to know everything or to know better than reality and whose truth reveals effective reality. But now you should tell me what is still to be done for the by-laws, for you have had it reported by Bermunda that the body has some things which are to be put in the by-laws in addition.
Ptaah:
That is correct, but it is not only the by-laws, because there is also a lot to be put in the by-laws. It is necessary that I dictate to you what is required, so if you can write it down.
Billy:
Of course, just fire away.
Ptaah:
So, the following is to be written by you ….
Billy:
… I’ve got all that.
Ptaah:
Then there is this. …
Billy:
… OK, but you can’t use that like that, that needs to be worded better. Also missing is this, that …
Ptaah:
For that I first have to go to the panel again and ask them exactly.
Billy:
Good, then I’ll wait and write it down when you bring me the answer. But I would appreciate it if that could be done quickly so that it can still be written up for the meeting.
Ptaah:
It will only be 2 or 3 days that I will need. But now I must return to my duties and go.
Billy:
But here I still have what I wanted to show you, but which you can copy. Please …
Ptaah:
This is a bit long, but there is still time enough for me to photograph it … That is done, so goodbye then, Eduard, my friend.
Who Destroyed the Nord Stream Pipeline?
Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland during a press conference in January 2022:
Victoria Nuland: “As far as Nord Stream 2 is concerned, we continue to have very strong and clear conversations with our German allies. And I want to make it very clear to you today: if Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not come on stream.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njJIJrAuniI
President Joe Biden and Chancellor Olaf Scholz during a press conference on the 7th of February 2022 (17 days before Russia invaded Ukraine):
President Biden: “If Russia invades, that means tanks and troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, then there will no longer be a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.”
Journalist ‘Andrea’ from Reuters: “But how will you do that exactly, since the project and the control of the project is within Germany’s control?
President Biden: “We will, eh, I promise you we will be able to do it.”President Biden: “If Russia invades, so tanks and troops cross the border of Ukraine again, then there will be no more Nord Stream 2. We will put an end to it.”
Journalist ‘Andrea’ from Reuters: “But how exactly are you going to do that, given that the project and control of the project is in German hands?”
President Biden: “We will, uh, I promise you that we will be able to do it.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS4O8rGRLf8&t=18s
On the 26th of September 2022, multiple blasts were used to attack the Nord Stream pipelines. This disrupted both strings of Nord Stream 1 and one of the two strings of Nord Stream 2.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschlag_auf_die_Nord-Stream-Pipelines
Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland during a Senate Foreign Affairs Committee hearing On Countering Russian Aggression, 26th January 2023.
Victoria Nuland: “Senator Cruz, like you, I am and I think the administration is very gratified to know Nord Stream 2 is now, as you like to say (pointing at Senator Cruz), a hunk of metal at the bottom of the sea.”
Victoria Nuland: “Senator Cruz, like you, I am very pleased and I think the government is also very pleased to know that Nord Stream 2 is now, as you say (pointing to Senator Cruz), a pile of metal at the bottom of the sea.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJdbMj8fStA
How America Shut Down The Nord Stream Pipeline
The center has been training highly skilled deep-water divers for decades who, once assigned to American military units worldwide, are capable of technical diving to do the good—using C4 explosives to clear harbors and beaches of debris and unexploded ordinance—as well as the bad, like blowing up foreign oil rigs, fouling intake valves for undersea power plants, destroying locks on crucial shipping canals. The Panama City center, which boasts the second largest indoor pool in America, was the perfect place to recruit the best, and most taciturn, graduates of the diving school who successfully did last summer what they had been authorized to do 260 feet under the surface of the Baltic Sea. Last June, the Navy divers, operating under the cover of a widely publicized mid-summer NATO exercise known as BALTOPS 22, planted the remotely triggered explosives that, three months later, destroyed three of the four Nord Stream pipelines, according to a source with direct knowledge of the operational planning.
Two of the pipelines, which were known collectively as Nord Stream 1, had been providing Germany and much of Western Europe with cheap Russian natural gas for more than a decade. A second pair of pipelines, called Nord Stream 2, had been built but were not yet operational. Now, with Russian troops massing on the Ukrainian border and the bloodiest war in Europe since 1945 looming, President Joseph Biden saw the pipelines as a vehicle for Vladimir Putin to weaponize natural gas for his political and territorial ambitions.
Asked for comment, Adrienne Watson, a White House spokesperson, said in an email, “This is false and complete fiction.” Tammy Thorp, a spokesperson for the Central Intelligence Agency, similarly wrote: “This claim is completely and utterly false.”
Biden’s decision to sabotage the pipelines came after more than nine months of highly secret back and forth debate inside Washington’s national security community about how to best achieve that goal. For much of that time, the issue was not whether to do the mission, but how to get it done with no overt clue as to who was responsible.
There was a vital bureaucratic reason for relying on the graduates of the center’s hardcore diving school in Panama City. The divers were Navy only, and not members of America’s Special Operations Command, whose covert operations must be reported to Congress and briefed in advance to the Senate and House leadership—the so-called Gang of Eight. The Biden Administration was doing everything possible to avoid leaks as the planning took place late in 2021 and into the first months of 2022.
President Biden and his foreign policy team—National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, Secretary of State Tony Blinken, and Victoria Nuland, the Undersecretary of State for Policy—had been vocal and consistent in their hostility to the two pipelines, which ran side by side for 750 miles under the Baltic Sea from two different ports in northeastern Russia near the Estonian border, passing close to the Danish island of Bornholm before ending in northern Germany. The direct route, which bypassed any need to transit Ukraine, had been a boon for the German economy, which enjoyed an abundance of cheap Russian natural gas—enough to run its factories and heat its homes while enabling German distributors to sell excess gas, at a profit, throughout Western Europe. Action that could be traced to the administration would violate US promises to minimize direct conflict with Russia. Secrecy was essential.
From its earliest days, Nord Stream 1 was seen by Washington and its anti-Russian NATO partners as a threat to western dominance. The holding company behind it, Nord Stream AG, was incorporated in Switzerland in 2005 in partnership with Gazprom, a publicly traded Russian company producing enormous profits for shareholders which is dominated by oligarchs known to be in the thrall of Putin. Gazprom controlled 51 percent of the company, with four European energy firms—one in France, one in the Netherlands and two in Germany—sharing the remaining 49 percent of stock, and having the right to control downstream sales of the inexpensive natural gas to local distributors in Germany and Western Europe. Gazprom’s profits were shared with the Russian government, and state gas and oil revenues were estimated in some years to amount to as much as 45 percent of Russia’s annual budget.
America’s political fears were real: Putin would now have an additional and much-needed major source of income, and Germany and the rest of Western Europe would become addicted to low-cost natural gas supplied by Russia— while diminishing European reliance on America. In fact, that’s exactly what happened. Many Germans saw Nord Stream 1 as part of the deliverance of former Chancellor Willy Brandt’s famed Ostpolitik theory, which would enable postwar Germany to rehabilitate itself and other European nations destroyed in World War II by, among other initiatives, utilizing cheap Russian gas to fuel a prosperous Western European market and trading economy.
Nord Stream 1 was dangerous enough, in the view of NATO and Washington, but Nord Stream 2, whose construction was completed in September of 2021, would, if approved by German regulators, double the amount of cheap gas that would be available to Germany and Western Europe. The second pipeline also would provide enough gas for more than 50 percent of Germany’s annual consumption. Tensions were constantly escalating between Russia and NATO, backed by the aggressive foreign policy of the Biden Administration.
Opposition to Nord Stream 2 flared on the eve of the Biden inauguration in January 2021, when Senate Republicans, led by Ted Cruz of Texas, repeatedly raised the political threat of cheap Russian natural gas during the confirmation hearing of Blinken as Secretary of State. By then a unified Senate had successfully passed a law that, as Cruz told Blinken, “halted [the pipeline] in its tracks.” There would be enormous political and economic pressure from the German government, then headed by Angela Merkel, to get the second pipeline online.
Would Biden stand up to the Germans? Blinken said yes, but added that he had not discussed the specifics of the incoming President’s views. “I know his strong conviction that this is a bad idea, the Nord Stream 2,” he said. “I know that he would have us use every persuasive tool that we have to convince our friends and partners, including Germany, not to move forward with it.”
A few months later, as the construction of the second pipeline neared completion, Biden blinked. That May, in a stunning turnaround, the administration waived sanctions against Nord Stream AG, with a State Department official conceding that trying to stop the pipeline through sanctions and diplomacy had “always been a long shot.” Behind the scenes, administration officials reportedly urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, by then facing a threat of Russian invasion, not to criticize the move.
There were immediate consequences. Senate Republicans, led by Cruz, announced an immediate blockade of all of Biden’s foreign policy nominees and delayed passage of the annual defense bill for months, deep into the fall. Politico later depicted Biden’s turnabout on the second Russian pipeline as “the one decision, arguably more than the chaotic military withdrawal from Afghanistan, that has imperiled Biden’s agenda.”
The administration was floundering, despite getting a reprieve on the crisis in mid-November, when Germany’s energy regulators suspended approval of the second Nord Stream pipeline. Natural gas prices surged 8% within days, amid growing fears in Germany and Europe that the pipeline suspension and the growing possibility of a war between Russia and Ukraine would lead to a very much unwanted cold winter. It was not clear to Washington just where Olaf Scholz, Germany’s newly appointed chancellor, stood. Months earlier, after the fall of Afghanistan, Scholtz had publicly endorsed French President Emmanuel Macron’s call for a more autonomous European foreign policy in a speech in Prague—clearly suggesting less reliance on Washington and its mercurial actions.
Throughout all of this, Russian troops had been steadily and ominously building up on the borders of Ukraine, and by the end of December more than 100,000 soldiers were in position to strike from Belarus and Crimea. Alarm was growing in Washington, including an assessment from Blinken that those troop numbers could be “doubled in short order.”
The administration’s attention once again was focused on Nord Stream. As long as Europe remained dependent on the pipelines for cheap natural gas, Washington was afraid that countries like Germany would be reluctant to supply Ukraine with the money and weapons it needed to defeat Russia.
It was at this unsettled moment that Biden authorized Jake Sullivan to bring together an interagency group to come up with a plan.
All options were to be on the table. But only one would emerge.
PLANNING
In December of 2021, two months before the first Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine, Jake Sullivan convened a meeting of a newly formed task force—men and women from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA, and the State and Treasury Departments—and asked for recommendations about how to respond to Putin’s impending invasion.
It would be the first of a series of top-secret meetings, in a secure room on a top floor of the Old Executive Office Building, adjacent to the White House, that was also the home of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB). There was the usual back and forth chatter that eventually led to a crucial preliminary question: Would the recommendation forwarded by the group to the President be reversible—such as another layer of sanctions and currency restrictions—or irreversible—that is, kinetic actions, which could not be undone?
What became clear to participants, according to the source with direct knowledge of the process, is that Sullivan intended for the group to come up with a plan for the destruction of the two Nord Stream pipelines—and that he was delivering on the desires of the President.
THE PLAYERS Left to right: Victoria Nuland, Anthony Blinken, and Jake Sullivan.
Over the next several meetings, the participants debated options for an attack. The Navy proposed using a newly commissioned submarine to assault the pipeline directly. The Air Force discussed dropping bombs with delayed fuses that could be set off remotely. The CIA argued that whatever was done, it would have to be covert. Everyone involved understood the stakes. “This is not kiddie stuff,” the source said. If the attack were traceable to the United States, “It’s an act of war.”
At the time, the CIA was directed by William Burns, a mild-mannered former ambassador to Russia who had served as deputy secretary of state in the Obama Administration. Burns quickly authorized an Agency working group whose ad hoc members included—by chance—someone who was familiar with the capabilities of the Navy’s deep-sea divers in Panama City. Over the next few weeks, members of the CIA’s working group began to craft a plan for a covert operation that would use deep-sea divers to trigger an explosion along the pipeline.
Something like this had been done before. In 1971, the American intelligence community learned from still undisclosed sources that two important units of the Russian Navy were communicating via an undersea cable buried in the Sea of Okhotsk, on Russia’s Far East Coast. The cable linked a regional Navy command to the mainland headquarters at Vladivostok.
A hand-picked team of Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency operatives was assembled somewhere in the Washington area, under deep cover, and worked out a plan, using Navy divers, modified submarines and a deep-submarine rescue vehicle, that succeeded, after much trial and error, in locating the Russian cable. The divers planted a sophisticated listening device on the cable that successfully intercepted the Russian traffic and recorded it on a taping system.
The NSA learned that senior Russian navy officers, convinced of the security of their communication link, chatted away with their peers without encryption. The recording device and its tape had to be replaced monthly and the project rolled on merrily for a decade until it was compromised by a forty-four-year-old civilian NSA technician named Ronald Pelton who was fluent in Russian. Pelton was betrayed by a Russian defector in 1985 and sentenced to prison. He was paid just $5,000 by the Russians for his revelations about the operation, along with $35,000 for other Russian operational data he provided that was never made public.
That underwater success, codenamed Ivy Bells, was innovative and risky, and produced invaluable intelligence about the Russian Navy’s intentions and planning.
Still, the interagency group was initially skeptical of the CIA’s enthusiasm for a covert deep-sea attack. There were too many unanswered questions. The waters of the Baltic Sea were heavily patrolled by the Russian navy, and there were no oil rigs that could be used as cover for a diving operation. Would the divers have to go to Estonia, right across the border from Russia’s natural gas loading docks, to train for the mission? “It would be a goat fuck,” the Agency was told.
Throughout “all of this scheming,” the source said, “some working guys in the CIA and the State Department were saying, ‘Don’t do this. It’s stupid and will be a political nightmare if it comes out.’”
Nevertheless, in early 2022, the CIA working group reported back to Sullivan’s interagency group: “We have a way to blow up the pipelines.”
What came next was stunning. On February 7, less than three weeks before the seemingly inevitable Russian invasion of Ukraine, Biden met in his White House office with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who, after some wobbling, was now firmly on the American team. At the press briefing that followed, Biden defiantly said, “If Russia invades . . . there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.”
Twenty days earlier, Undersecretary Nuland had delivered essentially the same message at a State Department briefing, with little press coverage. “I want to be very clear to you today,” she said in response to a question. “If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.”
Several of those involved in planning the pipeline mission were dismayed by what they viewed as indirect references to the attack.
“It was like putting an atomic bomb on the ground in Tokyo and telling the Japanese that we are going to detonate it,” the source said. “The plan was for the options to be executed post invasion and not advertised publicly. Biden simply didn’t get it or ignored it.”
Biden’s and Nuland’s indiscretion, if that is what it was, might have frustrated some of the planners. But it also created an opportunity. According to the source, some of the senior officials of the CIA determined that blowing up the pipeline “no longer could be considered a covert option because the President just announced that we knew how to do it.” The plan to blow up Nord Stream 1 and 2 was suddenly downgraded from a covert operation requiring that Congress be informed to one that was deemed as a highly classified intelligence operation with U.S. military support. Under the law, the source explained, “There was no longer a legal requirement to report the operation to Congress. All they had to do now is just do it—but it still had to be secret. The Russians have superlative surveillance of the Baltic Sea.”
The Agency working group members had no direct contact with the White House, and were eager to find out if the President meant what he’d said—that is, if the mission was now a go.
The source recalled, “Bill Burns comes back and says, ‘Do it.’”
THE OPERATION
Norway was the perfect place to base the mission.
In the past few years of East-West crisis, the U.S. military has vastly expanded its presence inside Norway, whose western border runs 1,400 miles along the north Atlantic Ocean and merges above the Arctic Circle with Russia. The Pentagon has created high paying jobs and contracts, amid some local controversy, by investing hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade and expand American Navy and Air Force facilities in Norway. The new works included, most importantly, an advanced synthetic aperture radar far up north that was capable of penetrating deep into Russia and came online just as the American intelligence community lost access to a series of long-range listening sites inside China.
A newly refurbished American submarine base, which had been under construction for years, had become operational and more American submarines were now able to work closely with their Norwegian colleagues to monitor and spy on a major Russian nuclear redoubt 250 miles to the east, on the Kola Peninsula. America also has vastly expanded a Norwegian air base in the north and delivered to the Norwegian air force a fleet of Boeing-built P8 Poseidon patrol planes to bolster its long-range spying on all things Russia.
In return, the Norwegian government angered liberals and some moderates in its parliament last November by passing the Supplementary Defense Cooperation Agreement (SDCA). Under the new deal, the U.S. legal system would have jurisdiction in certain “agreed areas” in the North over American soldiers accused of crimes off base, as well as over those Norwegian citizens accused or suspected of interfering with the work at the base.
Norway was one of the original signatories of the NATO Treaty in 1949, in the early days of the Cold War. Today, the supreme commander of NATO is Jens Stoltenberg, a committed anti-communist, who served as Norway’s prime minister for eight years before moving to his high NATO post, with American backing, in 2014. He was a hardliner on all things Putin and Russia who had cooperated with the American intelligence community since the Vietnam War. He has been trusted completely since. “He is the glove that fits the American hand,” the source said.
Back in Washington, planners knew they had to go to Norway. “They hated the Russians, and the Norwegian navy was full of superb sailors and divers who had generations of experience in highly profitable deep-sea oil and gas exploration,” the source said. They also could be trusted to keep the mission secret. (The Norwegians may have had other interests as well. The destruction of Nord Stream—if the Americans could pull it off—would allow Norway to sell vastly more of its own natural gas to Europe.)
Sometime in March, a few members of the team flew to Norway to meet with the Norwegian Secret Service and Navy. One of the key questions was where exactly in the Baltic Sea was the best place to plant the explosives. Nord Stream 1 and 2, each with two sets of pipelines, were separated much of the way by little more than a mile as they made their run to the port of Greifswald in the far northeast of Germany.
The Norwegian navy was quick to find the right spot, in the shallow waters of the Baltic sea a few miles off Denmark’s Bornholm Island. The pipelines ran more than a mile apart along a seafloor that was only 260 feet deep. That would be well within the range of the divers, who, operating from a Norwegian Alta class mine hunter, would dive with a mixture of oxygen, nitrogen and helium streaming from their tanks, and plant shaped C4 charges on the four pipelines with concrete protective covers. It would be tedious, time consuming and dangerous work, but the waters off Bornholm had another advantage: there were no major tidal currents, which would have made the task of diving much more difficult.
After a bit of research, the Americans were all in.
At this point, the Navy’s obscure deep-diving group in Panama City once again came into play. The deep-sea schools at Panama City, whose trainees participated in Ivy Bells, are seen as an unwanted backwater by the elite graduates of the Naval Academy in Annapolis, who typically seek the glory of being assigned as a Seal, fighter pilot, or submariner. If one must become a “Black Shoe”—that is, a member of the less desirable surface ship command—there is always at least duty on a destroyer, cruiser or amphibious ship. The least glamorous of all is mine warfare. Its divers never appear in Hollywood movies, or on the cover of popular magazines.
“The best divers with deep diving qualifications are a tight community, and only the very best are recruited for the operation and told to be prepared to be summoned to the CIA in Washington,” the source said.
The Norwegians and Americans had a location and the operatives, but there was another concern: any unusual underwater activity in the waters off Bornholm might draw the attention of the Swedish or Danish navies, which could report it.
Denmark had also been one of the original NATO signatories and was known in the intelligence community for its special ties to the United Kingdom. Sweden had applied for membership into NATO, and had demonstrated its great skill in managing its underwater sound and magnetic sensor systems that successfully tracked Russian submarines that would occasionally show up in remote waters of the Swedish archipelago and be forced to the surface.
The Norwegians joined the Americans in insisting that some senior officials in Denmark and Sweden had to be briefed in general terms about possible diving activity in the area. In that way, someone higher up could intervene and keep a report out of the chain of command, thus insulating the pipeline operation. “What they were told and what they knew were purposely different,” the source told me. (The Norwegian embassy, asked to comment on this story, did not respond.)
The Norwegians were key to solving other hurdles. The Russian navy was known to possess surveillance technology capable of spotting, and triggering, underwater mines. The American explosive devices needed to be camouflaged in a way that would make them appear to the Russian system as part of the natural background—something that required adapting to the specific salinity of the water. The Norwegians had a fix.
The Norwegians also had a solution to the crucial question of when the operation should take place. Every June, for the past 21 years, the American Sixth Fleet, whose flagship is based in Gaeta, Italy, south of Rome, has sponsored a major NATO exercise in the Baltic Sea involving scores of allied ships throughout the region. The current exercise, held in June, would be known as Baltic Operations 22, or BALTOPS 22. The Norwegians proposed this would be the ideal cover to plant the mines.
The Americans provided one vital element: they convinced the Sixth Fleet planners to add a research and development exercise to the program. The exercise, as made public by the Navy, involved the Sixth Fleet in collaboration with the Navy’s “research and warfare centers.” The at-sea event would be held off the coast of Bornholm Island and involve NATO teams of divers planting mines, with competing teams using the latest underwater technology to find and destroy them.
It was both a useful exercise and ingenious cover. The Panama City boys would do their thing and the C4 explosives would be in place by the end of BALTOPS22, with a 48-hour timer attached. All of the Americans and Norwegians would be long gone by the first explosion.
The days were counting down. “The clock was ticking, and we were nearing mission accomplished,” the source said. And then: Washington had second thoughts. The bombs would still be planted during BALTOPS, but the White House worried that a two-day window for their detonation would be too close to the end of the exercise, and it would be obvious that America had been involved.
Instead, the White House had a new request: “Can the guys in the field come up with some way to blow the pipelines later on command?”
Some members of the planning team were angered and frustrated by the President’s seeming indecision. The Panama City divers had repeatedly practiced planting the C4 on pipelines, as they would during BALTOPS, but now the team in Norway had to come up with a way to give Biden what he wanted—the ability to issue a successful execution order at a time of his choosing.
Being tasked with an arbitrary, last-minute change was something the CIA was accustomed to managing. But it also renewed the concerns some shared over the necessity, and legality, of the entire operation.
The President’s secret orders also evoked the CIA’s dilemma in the Vietnam War days, when President Johnson, confronted by growing anti-Vietnam War sentiment, ordered the Agency to violate its charter—which specifically barred it from operating inside America—by spying on antiwar leaders to determine whether they were being controlled by Communist Russia.
The agency ultimately acquiesced, and throughout the 1970s it became clear just how far it had been willing to go. There were subsequent newspaper revelations in the aftermath of the Watergate scandals about the Agency’s spying on American citizens, its involvement in the assassination of foreign leaders and its undermining of the socialist gov-ernment of Salvador Allende.
Those revelations led to a dramatic series of hearings in the mid-1970s in the Senate, led by Frank Church of Idaho, that made it clear that Richard Helms, the Agency director at the time, accepted that he had an obligation to do what the President wanted, even if it meant violating the law.
In unpublished, closed-door testimony, Helms ruefully explained that “you almost have an Immaculate Conception when you do something” under secret orders from a President. “Whether it’s right that you should have it, or wrong that you shall have it, [the CIA] works under different rules and ground rules than any other part of the government.”
He was essentially telling the Senators that he, as head of the CIA, understood that he had been working for the Crown, and not the Constitution.
The Americans at work in Norway operated under the same dynamic, and dutifully began working on the new problem—how to remotely detonate the C4 explosives on Biden’s order. It was a much more demanding assignment than those in Washington understood. There was no way for the team in Norway to know when the President might push the button. Would it be in a few weeks, in many months or in half a year or longer?
The C4 attached to the pipelines would be triggered by a sonar buoy dropped by a plane on short notice, but the procedure involved the most advanced signal processing technology. Once in place, the delayed timing devices attached to any of the four pipelines could be accidentally triggered by the complex mix of ocean background noises throughout the heavily trafficked Baltic Sea—from near and distant ships, underwater drilling, seismic events, waves and even sea creatures. To avoid this, the sonar buoy, once in place, would emit a sequence of unique low frequency tonal sounds—much like those emitted by a flute or a piano—that would be recognized by the timing device and, after a pre-set hours of delay, trigger the explosives. (“You want a signal that is robust enough so that no other signal could accidentally send a pulse that detonated the explosives,” I was told by Dr. Theodore Postol, professor emeritus of science, technology and national security policy at MIT. Postol, who has served as the science adviser to the Pentagon’s Chief of Naval Operations, said the issue facing the group in Norway because of Biden’s delay was one of chance: “The longer the explosives are in the water the greater risk there would be of a random signal that would launch the bombs.”)
On September 26, 2022, a Norwegian Navy P8 surveillance plane made a seemingly routine flight and dropped a sonar buoy. The signal spread underwater, initially to Nord Stream 2 and then on to Nord Stream 1. A few hours later, the high-powered C4 explosives were triggered and three of the four pipelines were put out of commission. Within a few minutes, pools of methane gas that remained in the shuttered pipelines could be seen spreading on the water’s surface and the world learned that something irreversible had taken place.
FALLOUT
In the immediate aftermath of the pipeline bombing, the American media treated it like an unsolved mystery. Russia was repeatedly cited as a likely culprit, spurred on by calculated leaks from the White House—but without ever establishing a clear motive for such an act of self-sabotage, beyond simple retribution. A few months later, when it emerged that Russian authorities had been quietly getting estimates for the cost to repair the pipelines, the New York Times described the news as “complicating theories about who was behind” the attack.
No major American newspaper dug into the earlier threats to the pipelines made by Biden and Undersecretary of State Nuland.
While it was never clear why Russia would seek to destroy its own lucrative pipeline, a more telling rationale for the President’s action came from Secretary of State Blinken.
Asked at a press conference last September about the consequences of the worsening energy crisis in Western Europe, Blinken described the moment as a potentially good one:
“It’s a tremendous opportunity to once and for all remove the dependence on Russian energy and thus to take away from Vladimir Putin the weaponization of energy as a means of advancing his imperial designs. That’s very significant and that offers tremendous strategic opportunity for the years to come, but meanwhile we’re determined to do everything we possibly can to make sure the consequences of all of this are not borne by citizens in our countries or, for that matter, around the world.”
More recently, Victoria Nuland expressed satisfaction at the demise of the newest of the pipelines. Testifying at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in late January she told Senator Ted Cruz, “Like you, I am, and I think the Administration is, very gratified to know that Nord Stream 2 is now, as you like to say, a hunk of metal at the bottom of the sea.”
The source had a much more streetwise view of Biden’s decision to sabotage more than 1500 miles of Gazprom pipeline as winter approached. “Well,” he said, speaking of the President, “I gotta admit the guy has a pair of balls. He said he was going to do it, and he did.”
Asked why he thought the Russians failed to respond, he said cynically, “Maybe they want the capability to do the same things the U.S. did.
“It was a beautiful cover story,” he went on. “Behind it was a covert operation that placed experts in the field and equipment that operated on a covert signal.
“The only flaw was the decision to do it.”
https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream
Lecture by Harvard Economist Jeffrey Sachs at the Hungarian National Bank on December 20th, 2022
The full speech is on the YouTube channel of the Hungarian National Bank:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZiZPwtsre4
Tittle: Jeffrey D. Sachs: The Role of Sustainability Amidst Current Global Crises
The following are the unedited first 20 minutes of the speech:
And what a pleasure it is to be together. And I really hope we can have a dialog also so I can hear what’s on your mind and questions and brainstorming together on the complexities of the world today, which is in a technical term, a mess. We’re really with more crises, more confusion, more disagreements than I can recall during at least my professional career, which is now 42 years of professional work in economics.
Thank you for the reminiscences of 30 years ago. The start of the transformation. And I’ll start back ten years before that just for a moment, because I studied economics in the 1970s and that was an era of stagflation as we have right now, high inflation and big shocks to output. And I thought that’s a good thing to write a dissertation about.
So my dissertation in 1980 was on stagflation and supply shocks, and my first book was called The Economics of Worldwide Stagflation exactly 40 years ago this year. So I’m living a deja vu from 40 years ago because stagflation is back. So I’ve seen it before and it gives me some thought. I didn’t want to see it again this way, like the stagflation of the 1970s, so many of the causes of our crisis are human made blunders and mistakes.
We’ve done it again, and we should really learn better from the past and the events of 30 years ago. Those early days of transformation also continue to have a big shadow on today in ways that I didn’t expect because after I got involved with stagflation in the early 1980s, we had a terrible economic crisis worldwide in the 1980s, in the developing world and in Central and Eastern Europe.
Of course, big debt crisis that came in part from the end of that stagflationary period. You will recall that because of the high inflation in the early eighties or maybe you won’t recall, it’s ancient history. But at the time of the high inflation of the late seventies and early 1980s, after some failed attempts to control the inflation.
Finally, the United States got a new governor of our central bank, the Fed, who was two meters tall and smoked big cigars. Paul Volcker. And he put interest rates up to 20% in the US, which was unprecedented through a deep recession, ended the high inflation in the U.S., but created a debt crisis worldwide. That made my career.
I have to say thank goodness for Volcker and his big cigars because so many countries started to call and say, we have a big debt crisis. And in 1985, I went to Bolivia, which had a massive debt crisis and a hyperinflation as a result of the debt crisis, very classical. And so I helped them to end the hyperinflation, in part by repudiating the debt and that was an idea that I took from the 1920s and the 1930.
So it was history repeating itself. And in the twenties and thirties, the debt crises were ended in part through defaults or renegotiations or cancellations of the debts. Sometimes too late, sometimes only after World War Two. But in any event, I took those ideas and helped Bolivia cancel its debts and the inflation ended. And then in early 1989, I was called by an official in the Polish Embassy in Washington who came to Harvard and said, We also have a debt crisis.
Can you cancel our debt? And it was January 1989. And I said, I have to confess, I’m really on the side of solidarity. It’s under Lech Walesa, he’s under house arrest, and there’s martial law. I can’t really help you. And he said he understood and called me back four weeks later and said, we’re going to eliminate martial law. Now, will you come?
That was not my doing. It was just the matter of timing. And so I arrived in Warsaw, April 4th, 1989, the day of the signing of the round table agreement between the government of President Jaruzelski and the Solidarity Movement. And I became an advisor to the government and to Solidarity for a couple of months. And then after the June four elections in Poland to the Solidarity movement alone.
And I’ll say one one word about shock therapy, which is that they asked, What should we do? We’re broke, we’re bankrupt. It’s hopeless. I said, It’s easy. Your debts are going to be canceled, so don’t worry about the debt. And they looked at me a little bit like I was crazy, which I probably was. But I was asked to write a plan for market and economy, and it was in the apartment flat of a wonderful Polish leader named Jacek Kuron, who went from jail to become the minister of Labor, and he was a close adviser to Lech Walesa.
And so one night I spent about 4 hours describing my idea of what a market economy reform would look like. And he didn’t speak English. I didn’t speak Polish. We had a translator. There was a lot of smoke, a lot of whiskey that he was drinking. And every few minutes he’d pound on the table. Tak rozumiem! Tak rozumiem! I understand.
And at the end of this, at about midnight, he said to me, okay, you have to write this now. We need this in a memo. And I said, of course, Mr. Kuron, I’m going back to the United States tomorrow night and I will send it to you by fax, at least within two weeks. No, tomorrow morning. It’s midnight.
And so we went to a kindergarten room with the manager of the Gazette…(?). And they had a new IBM laptop, which was brand new at the time that the U.S. had given them. And I typed a memo all night, and at 7 a.m. gave it back to Kuron, how to make a market economy. So that was my all nighter of writing this.
If anyone’s interested, I’d be happy to email it to you because many years later someone found it in the archives and sent it to me. So I actually have a copy of that all nighter, and that became the basis of the Balcerowicz Plan to an important extent, actually. And the idea was to make the currency convertible and open the borders to trade right away.
That was the basic idea. And to back it up with two core financial steps, one was a lot of aid and the key was something I recommended called the Polish Zloty Stabilization Fund, which was to give reserves for this new convertible currency. And the second was debt cancellation. And that theory became called the seven postcards theory, because the night that Mazowiecki came into power, there was a meeting of the OKP(?), which was the Polish, the Solidarity members of Parliament, and they invited two speakers that night.
Outside speakers. One was Senator Dole, who was the U.S. chief senator, and he was there representing President Bush. And they invited me to speak. And it worked out very well because Senator Dole spoke first and said the American people will do anything for the freedom of Poland. And then I stood up and I said, I agree with Senator Dole.
And that’s why I’m sure that America will cancel all of Poland’s debts. And so I said the way out of this is seven postcards, one to each of the G7 countries and tell them, thank you very much. But the Soviet era debts are gone. And in the end, Poland got about 60% of its debts canceled. The last step was Germany, because Germany was very resistant to canceling debt, as you can imagine.
And it took Balcerowicz, I sent Balcerowicz a copy of the 1953 London agreement between post Nazi Germany and the West, canceling the pre-World War two German debt and Balcerowicz handed it to Helmut Schmidt, who looked at it in the meeting and said, You know, you have a point. And I ended up Germany supported the cancellation of the debt also, not 100% as I wanted, 60%.
So that was the the origins of that. But it’s worth all this reminiscing, I hope, to make a geopolitical point, which is that after that happened, I was asked by Grigory Yavlinsky, who was advisor to Gorbachev to help President Gorbachev in 1990. And I believed that Gorbachev’s idea, what he called the Common European home, was exactly the right idea for Europe and for the Soviet Union.
This is before the end of the Soviet Union. But Gorbachev said we should have a democratic Soviet Union and it should be open, completely open and we should have a peaceful European home. In fact, that stretches from Rotterdam to Vladivostok. I loved Gorbachev. I thought he was a man of incredible integrity and decency, basically. Because he believed don’t shoot people.
This was his most core belief. Don’t shoot people. That was remarkable for a Soviet leader. And it was the greatest statesmanship of the age. And so he, as you know, and Hungary led the way in every way, opening the borders and showing the different path. Gorbachev said we will dismantle the Warsaw Pact. And it happened at the time that Helmut Kohl and Hans-Dietrich Genscher and George Bush and James Baker said, whoa, that’s good.
That’s big. If you do that, we won’t move NATO one inch eastward. And so a deal was made in 1990. It’s a very explicit deal. It’s not just a conversation. It was actually a very deeply discussed and negotiated deal. So the deal was made. Warsaw Pact ended, NATO not moving at all. Germany reunified. And that was the deal.
And I believed in that deal and believed in Gorbachev. And I recommended that the Soviet Union also get financial help because it was in a state of collapse, a failed economic system, a disastrous social conditions. And Gorbachev, of course, had borrowed a lot short term in the mid 1980s to try to prop up the system. And all of that debt was coming due and oil prices had collapsed at the end of the 1980s.
So the Soviet Union was in a very sharp short term financial crisis. So with Yavlinsky and some of my colleagues at Harvard, we wrote a document which we called the Grand Bargain, which was that Gorbachev would continue the democratic reforms and the West would help the Soviet Union with this financial transformation so that the economic transformation could take place.
Interestingly, this was presented to the White House in April of 1991. It was based on the same principles as the Polish episode. It was completely rejected by the White House. We’re making no bargains. We’re giving no help, no financing for the Soviet Union, no nothing. And I was a little surprised. Gorbachev was a little more surprised. He came back from the G-7 summit in Houston, only to be abducted and kidnaped in that attempted coup that summer.
He came back empty handed and that was the end of the Soviet Union. And the end of Gorbachev and Yeltsin’s rise. And just to continue, because I’m going to come to the current moment in a moment in November. Now, in September of 91, I got a call from Jegor Gaidar, who said, there’s going to be an independent Russia, come help Russia on the economic reforms.
So I went back to Moscow to a dacha outside of Moscow. Pretty run down dacha, by the way. It showed. This was an empire at the bottom, and we worked on a strategy. And at that time in November, the G-7 finance deputies had a mission led by David Mulford, to come to Moscow. And Gaidar, I coached him. You have to ask for a debt standstill financial help this, this, this and this.
And I remember, he came out of the meeting looking terrible, and I said, what happened, Jegor? He said, not only did they say no help, but they said, if you don’t pay every penny that’s due, we will stop any help on the ocean, any food shipments, anything this moment. So he was given a complete hard line block. This was Russia, not the Soviet Union.
This was Yeltsin coming to power in November 1991. Well, the reforms did not go well in Russia. Let’s say I lasted two years. My role was to try to help get Western money. I think they saw me as the only chance to get some relief. And I delivered zero or nothing. And I couldn’t understand it because in Poland I was saying to the governor and the deputy governor, everything I said, they agreed to.
And I kept saying, I’m so good. And then everything I said about Russia they disagreed with. But it was the same thing and same advice. So it was geopolitics, which I didn’t understand as a young person. I thought we were doing economics, not geopolitics, but they were playing geopolitics. I was playing economics. And so I was trying to give good economic advice.
They were trying to basically make Russia subservient to a new unipolar American world. I did not understand that for a very long time. I resigned and was very unhappy and went to work on many other things with the UN and sustainable development and climate and other things that are really crucial, but till today this geopolitical shadow also loomes over the world. The US is a us versus them world. This is the mentality. We run the world. You are with us or you are on the other side. And it is a very tough, wrong vision of the world, because all of the real things we need in this world, need to be done collaborately. They cannot be done under a cold war.
The climate crises, the broader environmental crises, the global social crises are not cold war issues. They are global issues. And so we need a completely different mind set from the mind set we are having right now. The biggest problem we are having, in my experience, is the US mind set, which is that we are fighting a different battle. We are not fighting against climate change, we are not fighting against poverty, we are fighting against an enemy. Today the enemy is China, mainly, and Russia, but it is always someone on the other side. And this is what I grapple with every day. The biggest challenge that I face in the practical work that I am trying to promote.
See also:
Norway’s Act of War Assures Russian Attack Predicted in 1987
For the original German and English translation, click here.
Is this Facist Biden gonna be President in the next election? What have they done…
“All politicians are Fascist,they think they own us and push our buttons to tell us what we can say and do like puppets on a string etc! What`s even worse are these stupid religious freaks who believe in a make believe world of gnomes, faries and so on etc such as oney which Planet Erra did a away millions a years ago!” All this hate and animosity will just destroy Stupid Earth in the first place with WW4!”
fa
Quote: “You’re quite right, but to say something about it is surely as pointless as pointing out that from time immemorial the number 12 has been the ‘value of all things’, as well as the fact that the ancient ancients had 12 fingers and 10 toes instead of 10. They also mixed with the earthlings at that time, so that it still happens today that very distant descendants are once again ‘equipped’ with it, precisely that they are born with 12 fingers and 12 toes. In addition, there is actually a whole tribe of indigenous people living in the jungle in South America, untouched by civilisation, whose human beings each have 12 fingers and 12 toes, as I saw for myself when I was there with Sfath.”
Brazilian family cross extra fingers for sixth World Cup:https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-soccer-world-bra-fingers-idUSKBN0EW06J20140621
That’s wild. Their fingers generally match the layout of our fingers, but it appears as if they have two middle fingers.
Quite amazing really! If they get angry at someone they could flip an additional middle finger 🙂
I couldn’t find an article on the South American tribe but some news outlets have covered this family – there’s more pictures here and a clip: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4973342/Brazilian-family-12-fingers-toes-each.html
Asket explained to Billy during his teen years, that the numbers 3, 7, 12 and 49 (7×7) could describe everything in the universe. So maybe 12 is much more normal than our 10 fingers? But religious people would probably demonize this group, and call them deformed creatures!
Now that’s cool, that those numbers could describe everything in the universe. Just what this math/numbers nerd needs, more numbers to throw into the equation of life. lol I can’t wait to unravel as much as I can with this information.
I’ll be thinking about this one for awhile too, thanks for posting Kim!
Take great care of yourself and your loved ones Kim and everyone!
Salome,
Charles
A deformation implies something that is at odds with normal natural functioning, but their hands are perfectly functional and symmetric. Plus I bet those extra fingers and toes translate into more neural connections in the brain, making them a bit more physically evolved than us.
As a pianist and guitar player, I’m extremely jealous and envious, more envious than anything really. Just brilliant, and the family seems to be a pretty happy family with great attitudes and outlooks as well, good for them, good things.
Salome,
Charles
About the 12 fingers and 12 toes,
Six-fingered family are Brazil’s lucky omen (Amazing)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxXGiys7eMg
Man with 12 fingers and 12 toes known as “24”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXJ8YdRR054
My food stash is located… and the combo for the lock is … Bring your own … because when… happens, we’re gonna…
“sighs in near total frustration”
D !
I think preserving Billy’s life is more important than anyones frustration.
Stephen.
I think preserving all life is important.
Here an extra video I found.
The family with six fingers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlfPIKQmPok
It’s still available for those who want to or have not seen it yet. The contact documentary from the original investigation is a must see before it’s too late. Please watch, like, and subscribe to try and push it out for more to see.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dhutxr7W4w&t=1272s
Thank you everyone, your efforts are priceless.