12-1-11
Comment by dwilcock on November 29, 2011 @ 5:32 pm
I just finished the interview with Fulford about an hour and 15 minutes ago and my brain is finally not aching anymore.
Ben talks really fast — and in order to intelligently participate at that speed, you have to actually listen to everything he says while also thinking of your next response, and/or looking at the big picture and trying to toss things in that will add to the discussion, and/or steer it in directions he may have overlooked.
As a result, what we have here is a commercial-free one-hour-and-40-minute tour-de-force… way more comprehensive than anything I’ve ever seen or heard before from Ben. I was able to get significant clarifications on a variety of things that were overlooked or had remained unmentioned in earlier postings.
Due to the extreme urgency of this, I’m going to transcribe it myself, which I can do almost at conversational speed. It could take 2-3 days to post but hopefully will be out by this weekend at the very latest.
We will soon have a much more robust view of Ben’s background and credentials, the scope of who he is talking to, the number of insiders he’s in contact with in a given week including where they’re from and what they do, his direct firsthand involvement with the Asian Secret Societies, et cetera.
In particular, it was amazing to track the gold. I was unaware of how the Asian families came into contact with this gold by trading silk, spices and china with the Romans, who invariably paid in gold — which they in turn had plundered from elsewhere.
Much of this gold — we’re talking seven Olympic-sized pools’ worth, if not more — was deliberately removed from the “official” financial system and blacklisted. Other gold was removed from China and brought to the US in 1938 on seven US destroyers, ostensibly to protect it from Japanese thieves — who apparently were working for the Rothschilds.
This gold is what is under dispute. Ben said we should be able to find magazine/newspaper records and other documented evidence of the transfer of this gold to the US for “safe keeping” in 1938. Apparently there was also a trial where the US returned a much smaller amount of gold and tried to say it was full payment due to appreciation of its interest value. This did not fly and they lost the case.
One surprising twist is that Ben said there is NO consensus right now as to when to do the mass arrests, or how to proceed. There are ideas. It seems clear that they are waiting for a “window” to arrive, and this window by necessity will involve things collapsing first, or at least getting worse than they are now.
I do hope they form a consensus and stick to the original plans for the mass arrests. However, they clearly do not want to do so until they have the right opportunity. This lawsuit is one, but not the only way in which they apparently are trying to open those doors.
I will do my part in transcribing and posting this interview to aid in the efforts of the just. I’ve barely even started to cover the scope of what we just went through.
– David
Comment by dwilcock on November 30, 2011 @ 4:41 am
Another significant development. I called the main attorney on this case [the case which Ben mentioned in his article] and he knew who I was. He said he would ‘perhaps’ talk to me later. I then wrote him an email on their website and told him if this was a fraud perpetrated against him, I would help him quickly put it to an end.
Right after I sent this out, I got an email from a female radio show host who had called him and gotten a call back, which she recorded and presented to me as an MP3. In this call, a man with the same voice I had just heard identified himself as William Mulligan, of Bleakley Platt and Schmidt, and confirmed that 11civ8500 had been filed by him and his firm as a civil complaint.
Amazing! I am hoping to get an interview with Mulligan, but this story has now become vastly more substantiated. I will tag my brief discussion with the radio host onto the end of the MP3 that will be released.
– David
Comment by dwilcock on December 1, 2011 @ 10:03 am
I would like to formally apologize to Ben Fulford and to Neil Keenan for how I talked about this case in my initial post.
It is certainly OK to be skeptical and to conduct your own investigation. However, at that point I so believed I was right that I didn’t even stop to consider that this might actually be a real case.
Now that I’ve interviewed Fulford, spoken to the prosecuting attorney and to Keenan, I realize I came across too harshly in the original letter [comment].
Specifically I said that if the cited parties were to murder Keenan, they could potentially make the problem go away.
Obviously this is a real danger, and I never would have written it up that way if, at the time, I’d believed it was true. Now that I have confirmed the validity of the filing, I wish to apologize for how nonchalantly I spoke about such a sensitive subject.
The interview transcript is complete and the posting should occur within the next 2 days. It was a lot of work! Whew.
– David
