The Black Eye of The Storm
Batros Radio Interview Gives Insight To the Opposition
Commentary by gary d. goodwin

For all of you out there that believe that Conspiracy isn't a dirty word, but that it aptly describes the behavior and climate of the country that we live in, and further that it is alive and well, please read on:

The other evening (16 May 2002) Ray Ward and I appeared on Mitch Batros' Earthchanges radio show to what we thought was to discuss our latest work called The Four Horsemen of The Apocalypse. We have appeared over the last few years on several shows, including a couple of appearances on Art Bell, one of the most listened to programs on radio. Generally speaking the experience has been a pleasurable one. I have never been one to seek out such exposure, although I have never really turned it down. I personally do not feel very comfortable in that arena. I am what you might call, "slow of speech". But last night was an experience I shall not soon forget. I will do my best to avoid calling Mitch names or to reduce myself to the level that he stooped last evening. However that is not to say that his approach was not totally transparent. He was obviously there to discredit us and to "debunk" us. I'm not sure of the motivation, if it was to gain ratings or if it was related to his association with someone of whom that I was recently very critical. Regardless, his approach greatly lacked any tact - asking such questions such as "Do you have a problem with authority?", "You ask questions that sound like, when did you stop beating your wife?".

The experience reminded me that we are fighting a much larger enemy here. This enemy is primarily political in nature and its footprints are indeed evil. The focus was on our education, our ability (right) to discern the world around us, and our credentials. It still amazes me that there has been not one piece of opposition to our claim that we have documented the appearance of unnatural/synthetic/intelligent objects in the atmosphere above the earth. Not one! In the one critique to the article by Glen Deen and on the Batros Radio Show, the focus was on the subject of Phobos. Indeed an important issue, however no where near the historical significance of the objects, nor does the existence of the objects depend upon the location of Phobos. These objects are there. The silence and lack of disagreement can only mean ignorance or agreement.

I have included here, emails that we exchanged, from just before the show to after the show the next a.m.. My hope is that our readers will take the time to go to his site and listen to the interview, if possible and read the following and make up your own mind as to whether or not we(I) am being a bit too sensitive. Actually this goes a bit deeper than just being sensitive. This goes to the point of whether or not certain scientists are worthy of being called scientists. There is also present the question of paradigm and the attempt to control a wide known conspiracy.

It is also a question of truth. Who has the right to stake a claim to truth?



Hi Gary,
Are you ready to go this evening? I will be calling you at about 4:55 PM (PST) at (###)###-####.
Mitch,

Mitch,
Thank you for having us on the show. Is there a place that I can link to for our readers to let them go and hear it?

I'm sorry we didn't get to talk about more of the article. I understand your approach, I just find it a little interesting that NASA is never asked to defend their findings and what they call fact. You stated that you had several "scientists" from NASA/JPL that oppose the findings. Could you share those names with me please? Or at least have them contact me directly with their concerns. I am well aware of VanFlandern's comments, I had a second hand conversation with him - he didn't argue points or specifics at all, just called us names. Check it out on the rebuttal page. Thanks again,
gary

Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 20:04:28 -0700
Hi Gary,
Thank you for a good interview. Both of you did very well. I know many of the questions may have been a bit uncomfortable.
You mention " I understand your approach". Yes, I thought it important to separate "fact from opinion". I think you guys are doing a good service by making us think in the way of alternatives. Where we may disagree is in your delivery. As you can see from many of my articles, I think it extremely important to clarify most of what you claim is simply "your conjecture or theory" based on objective data. Your conclusions are purely "subjective". Nothing wrong with this, but I believe it to be of utmost importance to clearly state it as such. For it to be otherwise, is disingenuous and perhaps could even be construed as conscience manipulation and perpetrating falsehood. This is just my opinion of course.
As both of you know, the field of research demands conflict and descention. That is how we flush out differing opinions. For someone to come forward and make statements such as "the following proof is irrefutable" and to give the impression you have "the truth" is irresponsible and sets you up to be tagged as a "nut case". (not my words or belief)
Perhaps your motive is to point out to us something to the effect of "if NASA can do it, so can we". Certainly understandable, but self-defeating. Another example of not allowing the 'principal of descent and opinion' is your comments made about Dr. Tom VanFlandren. It is one thing to disagree with him, but quite another to state "I can guarantee he wouldn't have said those words. And if he would have, he would have found his rear end soon flat on the floor". This may be contributing to some taking you more seriously. Again, just my opinion.
Regarding referenced scientist coming forward to challenge you. I am afraid not one of them wish to come forward. They believe to even acknowledge you, may give some the wrong impression, giving them the idea that you are even credible enough to receive a response. Of course I disagree with them having experienced this myself on more than one occasion which includes the NASA boys.
I would suggest to write several acknowledged researchers asking for their endorsement. The higher the profile, the better. I know, I don't like this ego-prestige thing either, but it's there. We might as well use it to our advantage. I believe this would give you a strong hand, and strong argument.
I would like to have you and Ray on the show again exploring your continued research. I think your statement which was also made in your "Apocalypse" article saying "Take a look at our evidence and YOU decide." Is surely the way to approach your subjective conclusions.
Best Wishes,
Mitch Battros

Let's evaluate Mitch's approach and see if we can understand his political motivation. First there's this statement:

"Where we may disagree is in your delivery. As you can see from many of my articles, I think it extremely important to clarify most of what you claim is simply "your conjecture or theory" based on objective data. Your conclusions are purely "subjective". Nothing wrong with this, but I believe it to be of utmost importance to clearly state it as such. For it to be otherwise, is disingenuous and perhaps could even be construed as conscience manipulation and perpetrating falsehood. This is just my opinion of course."

Mitch calls our theory "conjecture", attempting to discolor the work or to put a negative connotation to it. He also uses the word "subjective", placing it in quote marks, as if this was a dirty word. Actually all real science can be considered to some degree subjective. After all a theory is the hypothesis of a person, not necessarily a scientist, based upon personal or what you may call subject observation. The process of the scientific model is to purify that subjective observation through repetition and objective observation. However it is impossible in most cases to take out the human quotion from the theory. Generally speaking, this is due to the original idea being formulated in the human mind with parameters predefined. Recommended reading: COSMOLOGICAL INQUIRY by Earl Crockett

He suggests further that we are disingenuous and manipulative and perpetuating falsehood. These words sound strangely familiar - as in Tom Vanflandern saying we are perpetuating an Internet Hoax. And it sounds an awful lot like he's calling us liars - doesn't it? Recommended reading:ZEN AND THE ART OF DEBUNKERY by Daniel Drasin

The next statement:

"As both of you know, the field of research demands conflict and descention. That is how we flush out differing opinions. For someone to come forward and make statements such as "the following proof is irrefutable" and to give the impression you have "the truth" is irresponsible and sets you up to be tagged as a "nut case". (not my words or belief)"

Where is this rule written - that there must be conflict to "flush" out opinion? Then Mitch lets down his guard and we can really see where he is coming from - he builds a case against us, saying we are claiming "the truth" based upon a fragment of a statement - "the following proof is irrefutable". Here's the original statement in its entirety - the way it should have been interpreted:

"The following proof is irrefutable. There will be many that will doubt it, there will be many that will be astonished, however, it is for every individual person to decide for themselves. As always your opinions are welcome."

In article after article we have consistently given the reader the power to choose. We say it is for "the reader to decide" and "opinions are welcome". In this article we have gathered image after image, we have given item after item in reference to the issue - especially the issue of objects in orbit around the earth. Isn't that what the scientific model is about - repetition and multiple reproductions of the hypothesis? But we always - always go farther - we always put it in the hands of the reader!

Then:

"Perhaps your motive is to point out to us something to the effect of "if NASA can do it, so can we". Certainly understandable, but self-defeating. Another example of not allowing the 'principal of descent and opinion' is your comments made about Dr. Tom VanFlandren. It is one thing to disagree with him, but quite another to state "I can guarantee he wouldn't have said those words. And if he would have, he would have found his rear end soon flat on the floor". This may be contributing to some taking you more seriously. Again, just my opinion."

Mitch certainly likes to let us know it's just his opinion! Thanks for reminding us Mitch - we know. First - No we are not trying to compete with NASA. We believe that NASA is a corrupt proprietary agency that sucks off tax payor money and gives little or nothing in return. "Self-defeating"? not really, we are honest, compared to NASA. And as to my comments about VanFlandern - I do usually turn the other cheek, however in this public forum, his rudeness deserves to be placed where it belongs. If you consider VanFlandern's comments appropriate "conflict and descention" you might want to consider getting out of bed with him and NASA. That is if you value truth and honesty. I could care less if NASA takes us seriously, or VanFlandern or you if you are supporting them.

Next Statement:

"Regarding referenced scientist coming forward to challenge you. I am afraid not one of them wish to come forward. They believe to even acknowledge you, may give some the wrong impression, giving them the idea that you are even credible enough to receive a response. Of course I disagree with them having experienced this myself on more than one occasion which includes the NASA boys.
I would suggest to write several acknowledged researchers asking for their endorsement. The higher the profile, the better. I know, I don't like this ego-prestige thing either, but it's there. We might as well use it to our advantage. I believe this would give you a strong hand, and strong argument."

Dear Mitch, You really shouldn't make such things up. It only makes you look a bit foolish. I really doubt you have anyone that has come forward from NASA as you say to criticize us. Isn't this the real truth? In fact a number of NASA folks have criticized us publicly in the past, it didn't seem to bother them too much. And in fact we invited the criticism. To name a couple: Charles Morris, Oliver Hainaut, David Tholen, are some. But that's healthy - we said it before, but you tried to hit us over the head with it! And we continue to invite it - criticism that is.

And as to having "several acknowledged, high profile, researchers" evaluate this material. You've got to be kidding! I guess if we were trying to please our egos we might look to these kind of people. However, if you have read our pages you would have known that our observations stand on their own, they are dependent upon "well known people". Our primary goal is not the accolades of the status quo. And besides, all of the "prominent astronomers" that you might consider are subsidized by NASA. When I hear this challenge I think of one of our first discovered lies by NASA folk. You can read about it at: The Occultation

Let's take a look at some other statements in the article and see where we stand. The following is typical:

"Probabilities... Plausibility... We, unlike our critics, put it in your hands. Read the following information that we have gathered and then YOU decide. Is there a threat to the earth? Is there another civilization out there? The knowledge of which has been hidden from us by our so called political leaders? What will the days ahead bring? Take a look at our evidence and YOU decide."

This theme is presented through out this article and through out almost 4000 pages of material that we have on the page. It seems that anyone who has read our material - who has taken the time to read it, knows that we have not claimed absolute truth. So why question our ethics, our purpose at this point? Why now? Especially when others have tried and failed.

Mitch asks are we doing certain things or feel justified in claiming what we do because NASA is doing it - that is they are committing clandestine crimes and claiming credit for other's work. In fact the opposite is true. NASA and contemporary theorists report theories such as black holes, The Big Bang, Solar Theory, etc. without objective observable verifiable proofs. In fact these theories may never be able to be observed, they are merely mathematical models, never truly being able to be proved one way or the other.

The paradigm of THE MILLENNIUM GROUP is not that of contemporary science. As Asaph Hall and especially Immanuel Velikovsky proved, you do not have to have letters added to your name to make discoveries. You do not need an education from Harvard or Where Ever "U" to be a successful astronomer. Before only a few years ago the most discoveries were made by amateurs. The greatest astronomer that ever lived was Abraham, who was taught at an entirely different institution! And I know the "religious thing", as some refer to it, bothers some. Perhaps we do have a hidden agenda we cannot deny our faith.

Let's talk about philosophy for a moment here, since Mitch brought it forward. He asked if we have a hidden Christian agenda. Particularly, let me address the issue of faith. Some scientists sit themselves above, on lofty towers, claiming that they are free from influences beyond verifiable observability. They point fingers of impurity at others in this world, intending (or hoping) to mean that others are too corruptible, too unscientific, too untrained, too uneducated, or too "human". I have sad news for them and the ivory tower; every breath drawn by a human, every foot put in front of the other is done in faith. Faith is a factor in being alive that cannot be separated from the living. You may arise from your bed for sixty years and believe that tomorrow will alike come, yet on the morrow you might find yourself "not" alive. Sixty years of observable, verifiable life, does not equal breath on the morrow. The sun may rise for one thousand years, day after day becoming "predictable" in the he eyes of some. The sun may rise ten thousand years. Yet tomorrow may hold a separate destiny for you, I and the Earth. There is no sure bet. There is nothing observable enough, verifiable enough to assure surety. Faith cannot be denied his place in our lives. Some have greater faith than others. Some have faith in things which others cannot fathom. It has been said best - "If men were duly to consider themselves, and turn their thoughts and reflections to the operations of their own minds, they would readily discover that it is faith, and faith only, which is the moving cause of all action in them; that without it, both mind and body would be in a state of inactivity, and all their exertions would cease, both physical and mental"

Do we have a hidden agenda. As stated earlier, I believe anyone who has read our material knows of a surety our beliefs. I myself am Christian and believe. There are those of us here at TMG that are not Christian, they may be Muslim, they may be Jewish, or they may be agnostic. Because I am Christian does not mean that I will attempt to proselytize every one I meet. For me to say that I don't believe everyone would be better off Christian would be a lie, but it is the very teachings of my beliefs that tell me that respect of others is paramount. Christ himself loves all, paid the greatest price for all, even though all do not worship Him. Yes our approach is moved upon by faith in our own individual religious beliefs, and indeed these beliefs are influential in our understanding of the universe around us. But faith is not exclusively the domain of God and His followers, it is a part of all living.

A more important question here would be, is there an influence in some's approach which is not clearly represented - out in the open? The tact of some individuals and their backgrounds suggests that they may continued to be not just influenced but directed by a third party. The story is eternal - good against evil. That statement will surely be attacked. But if all men and women live by faith, there must surely be a truth at the end of all hope. Who is honest? And who hides and twists the truths that we have? If we all live by faith, and I believe that we do, regardless of the depth of that faith, then there must be a higher faith; and in that higher faith, there must be a Creator. There are no accidents. Then faith can be directed by that Spirit of truth. If nothing else directed by that hope that travels with faith. And so there must be an opposition in all things. Even in the truth. Why attack us on our credentials? Why attack us on a part of the article that is the least bit important? The attack had purpose. And that purpose was to put into your mind that we are on the fringe, untrained, uneducated, that we are mentally ill or worse that we are intentionally misleading people - liars and hoaxers. In the fashion that we have always held most important, we will ask you to decide. Are we? Who among us has something to hide? Who is it that has used the hard earned resources of others for their own benefit? And has gone further to hide what our dollars have paid for? And with these dollars to what ends are they willing to do to protect their evil intentions? You decide.

gary d. goodwin