Tom Delonge is revealing a little bit more info, on the lead up to the release of his documentary!

a reply to: Davg80

cause i still cant get my head round his career move.

While a Networth of 60 Million sound like an awesome feat to many of us here, it quickly gets overshadowed by people worth 100's of millions and even billions. Worth is relative.

Don't underestimate the power of money and power itself. In earlier interviews before this UFO thing came out ,he stated something along the lines of wanting to become a Hollywood mogul and power player.

this book series and movies are certainly a method to get there.

Not saying it is, but certainly makes more sense. Its also more believable than a rock star who was out of the loop that was able to solve a problem that our top scientist and gov't officials couldn't for decades .

a reply to: zazzafrazz

IIRC

my earlier post asserted that Mark vetted Tom in SOME RESPECTS.

1. Asserting that he is a decent, honorable bloke is a measure of vetting.

2. I did not say that Mark affirmed as true any, much less all, of Tom's claims.

a reply to: interupt42

LOTS of fiction narrative in this arena have disclosed LOTS of true things about what's really going on.

OF COURSE, we have no way of sorting out the wheat from the chaff in such regards.

However, to claim that a work of fiction has NO FACTS in it about what's going on,

is, to me

short-sighted, foolish, imperceptive, nonsense.

a reply to: humanoidlord

IMO the photo is just for illustration purposes, it's not meant to be the real deal. Heck, even people with relatively minimal knowledge of UFO's know the whole Billy hoax.

a reply to: interupt42

yes but the only way it makes sense, of the kind of heights he is aspiring to reach, tells you that he has information that he believes can propel him to these heights....
if he doesn't bring something spectacular to the table he wont get near his aspirations.
..... what problem did he solve that top scientists couldn't solve by the way?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

By all means, then, according to your construction on reality . . . go ahead and trash him and all he says.

5-10 years from now, we should have a different perspective from which to assess whether your perspective . . . or a different perspective

had more predictive value.

I believe your perspective will be the one suffering the most trashing, at that point.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: zazzafrazz

IIRC

my earlier post asserted that Mark vetted Tom in SOME RESPECTS.

1. Asserting that he is a decent, honorable bloke is a measure of vetting.

2. I did not say that Mark affirmed as true any, much less all, of Tom's claims.

Not doubting you, but could you link to his vetting Tom? I assume this was somewhere else than the AMA

a reply to: Davg80

1. The shambles the world is in at the moment has been carefully designed, constructed, set-up.

2. The critters and oligarchy stooges of theirs will use the shambles and increasing chaos to their advantage in setting up their long held goals of a world government and world religion.

3. The foolish and more deadly, eternally destructive option will be to swallow the swill of the critters and the oligarchy when it is rolled out more fully.

4. I strongly agree about avoiding Bar-B-Q-ing someone until more data is in. Alas, it is !!!!TRADITION!!!! around here--and a rather short-sighted, compulsive tradition, at that.

a reply to: Davg80

Great points.

Though I wouldn't put a lot of weight into the female gods aspect. I don't think they will be the majority by quite a margin.

a reply to: Tuomptonite

I understand your reasonable points about Mark and his relationships etc. etc. etc. I don't know that we have any fool-proof way to ferret out much in those regards.

Time will tell whether Tom D L has offered anything above what's been known before, or not.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

Blaming me

for doing something

I did NOT do--at least not per your definition

is very dirty pool.

Sheesh.

I chose my words very carefully in those posts.

YOU ASSUMED MY WORDS

meant what YOU distorted them to mean.

Dirty pool.

a reply to: Davg80

Well put.

Thanks.

I think mr DeLonge is an honest person. I believe he has been played in a way unseen since mr Bennewitz. I see nothing coming of tyhis and expect even less.

Thanks for the info though.

a reply to: vlawde

AND

the evidence is that

simply labeling, categorizing the B Meier thing

as simply a hoax

is ALSO

NOT TRUE TO ALL THE FACTS.

a reply to: vlawde

IIRC

Mark noted at the intro to Tom's AMA that Mark vouched for Tom's authenticity as a person and as being in touch with folks in the know.

THAT is a MEASURE of vetting.

Sigh.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Really, that is the best excuse you can give us for throwing Springer under the bus? Are you capable of simple saying apologies I was in error?

This is what you said;

5. Springer is NOT an idiot. He would not vet Tom as much as he has IF he did not have good reason to do so. I have no trouble giving Springer's vetting and Tom's info a FAIR-MINDED hearing.

and

1. Springer vetted Tom. That's NOT "nothing."

You made a wrong assumption, own it.

a reply to: BO XIAN

reread your posts, I put no words in your mouth. I QUOTED YOU, I didn't make anything up.
But keep backpeddling.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

OH REALLY?

HERE ARE MY POSTS ON THE ISSUE:



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 11:36
link edit quote reply
a reply to: AboveBoard

I believe that

In terms of the Tom DeL stuff . . . we do well to consider VERY FAVORABLY Springer's already vetting as much as he has.

Does that mean that Springer can now be certain that all that Tom shares is the absolute "Gospel Truth?"

Of course not.

But it LIKELY AT LEAST MEANS that we are not dealing with a run-of-the-mill idiot or charlatan.

5. Springer is NOT an idiot. He would not vet Tom as much as he has IF he did not have good reason to do so. I have no trouble giving Springer's vetting and Tom's info a FAIR-MINDED hearing.

I simply disagree . . . on what I find to be reasonable grounds.

I think it is a VERY significant factoid that Springer has vetted Tom in certain respects.

1. Springer vetted Tom. That's NOT "nothing."

= = = = =

I guess I should keep more in mind that

straining at gnats and swallowing camels

is a blood-lust Olympic level sport around here.

We might see who is or is not good at apologizing, now.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

I think "vetted" is too strong of a word but that Bo Xian means no harm by it.

My understanding is that Springer has spoken with Tom directly for a length of time and that people Springer knows that are "in the know" have verified that TD is speaking to real live higher ups. This was something that I think George Noorey *said as well? I'm paraphrasing here. Perhaps Springer will clarify it? I remember that Springer isn't claiming to support everything Tom says by any means - he's just waiting to see what Mr DeLonge eventually puts out there like the rest of us.

ETA George Knapp. My mistake!

a reply to: zazzafrazz

Actually, I did make some phone calls an inquiries about his "insiders" and was told by people who I know would know the truth and they confirmed that Tom is in deed in contact, on a regular basis (weekly if not near daily) with the "highest of the high". That's not really "vetting" but it's the best I can do with what I have to go on. To be honest, I've never really believed our government's top people have any more clue than we do about the phenom. I'm told I've been wrong about that, we'll see.

That said, it doesn't mean much more than he is talking to the "right" people and not spinning a yarn about anonymous "insiders" like we see so often. Take from that what you will...

I take it to mean it's worth holding off making my opinion about what he's got to tell us until he tells us. That may sound trite but it's not, I can't tell you how many people contact us a month with "the next BIG STORY from the "REAL" insiders" that is utter horse hockey, this is different in as much as Tom is at least actually speaking with "the top level" folks in the USG.

So whether you can call that vetting or not is up to the individual I guess, I don't think I would use that term, but I understand its use.

Personally I believe Tom believes every single word he says, that doesn't make it the truth but it does negate the "charlatan" or "purely a marketing campaign" aspect some suspect is the crux of this. I'd also add that his target demo is not "us", the images used in social media posts have no purpose beyond illustrating the topic.

I agree that for "us" (ATS members and others who have been researching for years) the images they've used so far on Instagram are bad choices and seem stupid. But ONLY because WE know what they are. The people whose attention he's trying to get won't know or care about the images, but, if the images attract their eyes causing them to read the content and GET INTERESTED in the topic he will have succeeded.

I think it would be helpful for those who are so aghast about all of this to realize we're not the target demo, for that reason I for one don't pay attention to the marketing (I knew nothing about the Instagram posts until I saw the threads here on ATS), I don't need to be made aware of the phenom obviously.

When the "reveal" comes I'll see what's in it and make my judgement then based on what is revealed not what they used to attract the attention of the millions of young folks who really don't know anything about the topic.