SOTT Focus:

Kerry Cassidy of Project Camelot Interviews Laura Knight-Jadczyk

Sott Editors
Sott.net
Fri, 30 Apr 2010 06:09 UTC

When Kerry Cassidy of Project Camelot stopped by to interview Laura Knight-Jadczyk in early February, we had our own cameras and microphones set up to record.

Laura shares a personal account of her search for the true nature of existence and her inquiry into the paranormal, past lives and the unknown, that has served as an inspiration for so many.

Reader Comments

cyre2067 · 2010-04-30T12:35:37Z

oh sooooo much better.

The audio quality is slick and the video quality is much improved.

Joey Tavares · 2010-04-30T13:16:00Z

Good Stuff!

Kerry Cassidy is committed to authenticity and a strict code of professional ethics. She and Project Camelot are the perfect scoop-ees for Laura KJ's intellectual breadth. I am most pleased to see two trusted sources of true information brought together. Great interview...

Conkers · 2010-04-30T17:52:34Z

I thought Project Camelot..

..were discerned as being COINTELPRO?

SeekinTruth · 2010-05-01T03:33:52Z

To clarify

Project Camelot was suspected of being a disinformation source because of Bill Ryan's involvement. Now that Kerry Cassidy and Bill Ryan don't see eye to eye about in what direction their project should go, Kerry shows that she is more interested in Truth no matter where it leads.

So it's not really about Project Camelot, but it's one of those "coincidences" that all hell broke loose over there when this video was being prepared....

Gaby · 2010-04-30T13:30:01Z

Powerful interview!

It condenses so many topics in a most remarkable and eye opening way. It is unique in the way it encourages soul questing and re-searching, and in the way it points out the dark forces which rule this world. The research behind this interview is truly unique in its depth and open minded approach. Laura's work is unique in the way she helps people to use their own minds. Thank you Kerry for conducting this interview and to Laura for sharing what she has learned at a very high cost. A gem for all truth seekers!

IceOwl · 2010-04-30T13:56:39Z

SOTT editors

Whenever you guys write your own information about yourselves or friends it sounds like the ad copy on the side of a Barbie doll package. Flowery, empty, and subtly manipulative. Not manipulative as in trying to hurt people, but trying to get them to think that you're awesome. Now I realize that these people are probably your friends, and maybe 90% of what you write is actually seen as true by you... however it still sounds like crap. Many of us that come to your page are particularly trained and experienced in detecting BS, and I'll bet if you ask around, the intro of this article would set more than a few people's BS detectors off. I know it did mine. So, what I toss up into the air as a suggestion is this: Have someone else look it over before you post it. Send it to me, even. I'll send you back suggestions for free. Probably a lot of people would. The problem is that if YOU sound fake, and WE the readers refer people to your site, now WE seem fake. So yeah, your readership would totally proofread for free. If you want I could show specific words and word pairings which set off crap detectors, and again so could a lot of your readership. We're used to having to skim the truth out of various murky soups.

ocean59 · 2010-04-30T14:20:32Z

@IceOwl

It sounds like you simply disagree with the four sentences that caption the video above.

However, you have totally failed to explain what specifically you disagree with, or why.

Niall · 2010-04-30T14:28:52Z

Pay to proofread?!

Sott.net is not a professional organization. This is a labour of love - nobody gets paid a dime to work on Sott.net! Everyone that works on Sott.net was "WE the readers" until they became involved in helping to run an entirely not-for-profit organisation dedicated to Truth.

"Many of us that come to your page are particularly trained and experienced in detecting BS"

Who's us? You and your friends?

"I'll bet if you ask around, the intro of this article would set more than a few people's BS detectors off. I know it did mine."

I'll take you up on that. Here's what I want you to do: I want you to send this article to all your friends and ask them what they make of it. Now don't tell them what YOU think of it until after they've seen it and formed their own opinion. Only then can you compare notes. Then report back here.

"Send it to me, even. I'll send you back suggestions for free."

For FREE?!!? How magnamimous of you! See above.

"Probably a lot of people would. The problem is that if YOU sound fake, and WE the readers refer people to your site, now WE seem fake."

It's all about you isn't it? How does the world reflect on me? Me, me, me. Newsflash for you IceOwl: Sott.net wasn't created to serve YOU. It was created to serve ALL, and if you can't grasp that, don't worry, there are plenty of COINTELPRO options that will stroke your ego out there in the murky soup.

apeguia · 2010-04-30T14:29:52Z

IceOwl, subjective and ill intentioned

IceOwl, you accuse Sott of sounding "subtly manipulative" - something I do not see at all. You, however, sound quite openly aggressive, and apparently for no particular reason, for all you have written above is plain subjective. No facts, just your biased opinion. If you want mine, it is quite obvious that you do not come here as a bona fide reader; so much so that it appears that you did not even bother to watch the video before going on the attack. So why don't you put your real thoughts on the table so we can all understand what you are here for? A bit of sincerity on your part would be appreciated.

Or perhaps I am mistaken and you have no further thoughts; you simply have no manners and are used to step into other people's houses uninvited and claiming that the furniture and the carpets are rubbish, for you are an expert in furniture and carpets.

Either way, I think you owe the sott editors an apology.

irini · 2010-04-30T14:59:09Z

@IceOwl

Well, first thank you, because your post made me chuckle! I certainly don't subscribe to your opinions however, and i find it odd that you took the time to write what you did. I mean, seriously, it's just a couple of sentences that honestly describe the person being interviewed. So i am just wondering, do you go about writing to every site posting an interview to tell them your views on how they present the interviewees? Because frankly, i haven't seen a negative intro/presentation of an interviewee anywhere this far.....

SeekinTruth · 2010-04-30T15:51:32Z

Did you watch the video, IceOwl?

What about the content of the video. By the way, why don't you give us your an example of your "expert training" and give us your suggestions for the intro -- for free, of course?

I, for one look forward to be enlightened by an expert on BS detection, especially on something as all important as the intro to the interview.

Sojemand · 2010-04-30T16:07:49Z

Sum up the noise

Barbie doll, empty, subtly manipulative, crap, BS, BS, fake, fake, crap, murky soups.

Ohh, so much noise and so little to say. It seems like that Laura does a good job.

Be well and prosper.

PRao · 2010-04-30T18:12:30Z

you can spot the manipulations, then why you can't express them ?.

If you are able to spot the errors, where are the error?. where is the manipulative tactics. SOTT never said that it is closed for the suggestions or correcting the errors. Are you not sure ?

Dave M · 2010-05-01T02:23:08Z

Err.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, IceOwl my friend.

Your point, essentially, is that you think that SOTT and/or Laura generally make claims about their doings that sound like sales pitches without substance about themselves, and that you don't think this is a good thing for the cause of spreading truths. You also think that you would be able to help in a public relations or proofreading capacity.

Unfortunately, the good intentions you may have had which spurred you to write, or which at least allowed you to justify to yourself writing your comment, were drowned out by your rage and insults. You imply that they're deluded, manipulative, don't proofread or plan their words, and that somehow you, as a representative for "WE the readers" have special understandings and are "particularly trained", and that the editors are not.

Years ago, I too once raged at Laura for her choice of topic focus on this site, for essentially the same reasons as you, because I thought it alienated people who might otherwise come here and become better informed about the state of the world. My criticisms are recorded in the archives of SOTT along with Laura's humbling response to me on the FRONT PAGE soon after. Your mistake is the same as mine. We both thought that we knew better how to present things than the people that run this site, but instead of using that as a reason to help in a positive manner, we used it as a reason to take a righteous fit. And that is never pretty. I bet it burnt a few calories though, didn't it? There's your exercise for the day.

I actually do agree, that attempts at promotion of ideas with "flowery" language like "Laura shares a personal account of her uncompromising search for the true nature of existence" puts discerning, skeptical people on the defensive and makes it difficult to share with others. You could have simply said that. But for whatever reason, you didn't. Take what lesson you can from that. Oh yeah, and take it easy, friend. You sound stressed.

SeekinTruth · 2010-05-01T03:40:55Z

@Dave M

I get what you're saying, but it still is not clear to me what part of the introductory sentences is manipulative, misleading, or inaccurate.

It's only a few sentences so it should not take much effort to point out what's written and how this is not accurate, is a distortion, or whatever. It would really be helpful if what's pointed out is backed up with what's in the video, i.e. where the contradictions of these "troublesome claims" in the intro really become apparent.

Because to my mind, "Laura shares a personal account of her uncompromising search for the true nature of existence" is borne out by the substance of the video: she DOES share a personal account of her uncompromising search....

JEEP · 2010-04-30T14:15:00Z

One had to wonder

about all the unusual occurrences surrounding the release of this video. How can one ignore the split between Kerry and Bill leading up to this interview and the subsequent Nexus Conference brouhaha? Just some weird coincidence?

That the interview delves into the subject of some human beings not possessing souls could be quite disturbing for those who've never considered the possibility. Laura has researched this subject extensively. Below are some links that not only provide more on the subject but also gives a true indication to the amount of time and effort that Laura has expended in the pursuit of knowledge and truth:

[Link][Link][Link][Link]

Laura · 2010-04-30T15:34:17Z

Strange...

When Kerry and Duncan Roads friend were here, we talked quite a bit about many things. Among the things this friend of Duncan Roads talked about was the earth's carrying capacity. His argument went something like this:

"I have done the calculations myself and the entire population of the world could fit more or less comfortably in a landmass the size of Texas. This would give each 4 people about 20 square feet of apartment and a small household garden, and a very small little lawn. And including room for roads and few places like City Halls, etc. There is no overpopulation. There is, however, crippling overconcentration."

apeguia · 2010-04-30T16:32:49Z

By the way...

This is a must-see interview. Lots of stimulating and intriguing ideas; and now it is in a much more viewer-friendly format.

Thanks Laura, Sott and Kerry!

NSD · 2010-04-30T17:30:15Z

Great Interview!

My heart must say whatever someone will think, becouse of Laura and her work i see beter this world and live my life on some diferent way with less negative thing's, i drive trough obstacles better and truth is like someone said She is realy shining light in this world of darkness! Thanks!

System · 2010-04-30T22:22:16Z

Outstanding reality check!

I think Laura provided us all with a courageous example candidly making plain traumas and treasures of her life story for all to see. And I think Kerry did us all an investigative favor touching on so many urgent concerns and bringing out Laura's down to earth wisdom illuminated by the stars. I think the bravery of both women gives cause for anyone with all perceptions open to stop and consider the true nature of events and how souls stand to navigate.

It's an eye opener to learn Kerry's had to keep company with personalities aligned with Duncan Roads given all Roads has divulged about himself recently and its spooky to consider all the uber-geeks jacked on tech running around declaring their worldview comprehends enough to advise on the likes of planetary population concentrations given how skewed the stage we're all playing on has been by the PTB. "Who needs aliens when we've got psychopaths!" (For the record, I'm not calling anybody a psychopath, but rather using a soundbite from the interview to summarize the ponerized state of mind many folks are running around with).

moby1325 · 2010-05-01T10:38:42Z

Bill Ryan are you there?

Bill, your lack of doing background checks, your faith in the goodness of human kind is showing that you can be gullable. Happens to many of us, myself included. Look at what Laura has exposed in her investigation of Jim Humble. Take down your videos and state a disclaimer before someone sues you, Jim is a danger to you and interviewing him in a positive note is making you look bad.

gdpetti · 2010-05-02T12:00:09Z

It's alright.... Worth a B, but wouldn't an A be better?

But it makes you really appreciate the job of a 'good' interviewer such as Bill Moyers interviewing Joseph Campbell in that classic 'Power of Myth' series... 7 parter wasn't it?

We the viewer followed along with Mr Moyers as he took this 'class' by the teacher just before he died. There was an informed mind seeking knowledge in a purposeful manner while trying to stay open to the information as it was presented. Perhaps SOTT should ignore the naysayers and present their own well prepared/researched interview, as sometimes you just have to do things yourself if you want it done 'right'. Give everyone what they ask for, be it inspiration or tidbits of facts they can twist in their hearts content. Fun for everyone!

gdpetti · 2010-05-02T12:02:04Z

Ignore the typos please... 'to' not 'in' their hearts content.

That said, Mr Moyers has ended his PBS show and might be open to a new challenge... just a thought.

System · 2010-05-02T15:12:36Z

A christening of mini-series possibilities too!

I have to admit that a couple of times it seemed to me Kerry was a bit out of her element (though not far) in attempts to bring elucidation to finer points. But given the revolutionary implications of the research I don't think anybody can be faulted for stumbling's on the pathways leading to the comprehensive awareness the C's and SOTT researchers make available. That Kerry stepped up to face the music and open the channels of communication I think is laudable in more ways than are readily apparent. I think she sets an example just by engaging Laura's research in the first place (which is well deserved but still potentially devastating to dominating worldviews) and simultaneously both women provide a working example of the courageousness it takes to face the impact of previously unrecognized factors of truth.

Given the org-chart governing major media (or any of the grant driven public broadcasting for that matter) I'm not counting on Bill Moyers stepping up any time soon. But I agree the research deserves stronger delineation and elucidation in an audio-video presentation although the breadth of the research poses some unprecedented challenges in my mind. Nevertheless the comprehensive scientific approach seems to offer a platform and structure well suited to a whole mini-series!

Iconoclast · 2010-05-04T10:07:15Z

moyers?

funny you mention that series - i watched it and found moyers to be completely out of his element and an embarassingly bad interviewer (in this case)

Avatar · 2010-05-02T22:02:40Z

Project Camelot smells of NWO

Laura did a great job just being her self and telling the truth. As a tobacco smoker I love they way she explained the benefits of tobacco. Where I live there is a distinction between smoking cigarettes and smoking tobacco.

Tobacco is a plant that has been smoked for thousands of years, and is used in spiritual rituals along with Yaje, an herbal soup.

The “Energy Creatures” Laura refers to can co-exist in the human body along side an existing consciousness which creates a dual-consciousness in the individual.

The psychopaths are genetically different and this defect was intentionally created or tweaked. I suspect the psychopaths are the vehicles or portal for these negative energy creatures. I would have loved to hear more explanation of these planet earth controllers.

The invasion of planet earth will be done by occupying human bodies, either via consent (membership in secret societies and occult organizations); or humans born soulless to be occupied at a later date by these negative energy creatures. The Host by Stephenie Meyer or the movie Avatar is two good examples of occupying a body by these creatures.

We souled humans have much work to do especially in the area of understanding our enemy.

The revolution will not be televised.

tarri · 2010-05-04T23:45:22Z

Great information.

Mom and I loved the interview. Laura packed tons of information in what was actually very little time. She knows her stuff, and I was finely gratified to find out how she remembers so much stuff. photographic memory. ( envy) Thanks for the interview Laura. Thanks for all your hard work. Tarri

Oxajil · 2010-05-08T07:30:58Z

Great job!

I think both Kerry and Laura did a great job here. Great and clear questions and answers!

redrock12 · 2010-05-12T09:45:30Z

Congrats Laura and Kerry!

When dis/misinformationists like IceOwl have to resort to such sleazy and factless character assassination on a public forum, rest assured you have struck a raw nerve with the PTB. You cannot use lies to refute the truth, for the truth stands on its own. In contrast, a lie depends on blind obedience, ignorance, psychological manipulation, authoritarianism, and brute force.

I hate to say it, but they probably did the boy a favor with his passing. DMD is a terrible disease, My grandson has it. Its terminal, and it's...

Oldfart

Currently, I question all polls. In terms of manipulation: polls can artificially show any numbers they want through the data selection...

Dwoods44

In my view, Putin is countering the saber-rattling of the West. The West's hubris is on full display. Ever since the fall of the USSR, they have...

Dwoods44

We know Klaus said a "cyberpandemic" is coming which means it is planned. In that context, there have been a number of cyberattacks over the last...

Dwoods44

The proliferation of conspiracy theories across the UK is deeply disturbing. They are deliberate campaigns to spread disinformation and fear [...]...

eulogical

SOTT Focus:

Kerry Cassidy of Project Camelot Interviews Laura Knight-Jadczyk

Reader Comments

Latest News

Picture of the Day

Quote of the Day

Recent Comments

Quantum Quirk