Who Is John Desouza

Apparently, retired FBI agent and author John Desouza is the source for the TV series and films The X-Files. He is the author of two books: The Para-Investigators: 52 True Tales and Concepts of Supernaturally Gifted Investigators (2015), and The Extra-Dimensionals: True Tales and Concepts of Alien Visitors (2016).

His bio on his website says he was an attorney, as well:

He was an attorney and investigator who maintained a Top Secret security clearance for many years. This background infused him with an ability to decipher mysteries that are beyond conventional abilities.

www.johntamabooks.com...

I think the term “extra-dimensional,” as opposed to extraterrestrial, is interesting. His work appears to be interesting, as well. I had never heard of him before, and have been introduced to the name by a Kerry Cassidy interview “John Desouza–X-Man–Former FBI Agent–UFOs & ETs.”

Is anyone familiar with his work?

No, but now I have something new to research.

Thanks!

a reply to: sled735

textbooknova.com...

originally posted by: LiberateEarth
Apparently, retired FBI agent and author John Desouza is the source for the TV series and films The X-Files.

But in the interview with Kerry Cassidy, he says that he did not have contact with the creator of The X-Files TV series, Chris Carter, and that he was demoted from G-Man to X-Man because he had a love for the TV series.

Also, a more accurate description for him is Special Agent for the FBI.

originally posted by: LiberateEarth
Also, a more accurate description for him is Special Agent for the FBI.

Retired Special Agent, that is.

During the video of the Kerry Cassidy interview, regarding the extra-dimensional hypothesis he writes about in his second book, Desouza shares with us the URL vault.fbi.gov and instructions to click on "unexplained phenomena, UFOs," go to the first link, (Part 1 of 16), and see page 22 of it, where there is a very interesting memo written July 8, 1947, by an FBI supervisor, and described by Desouza as "the smoking gun document." In the document, the supervisor uses the word "supernormal," which Desouza said is the 1947 version of the word supernatural today, to describe the supervisor's source for the information conveyed in the memo.

That part of the discussion begins at 39:23:



Lnk to the document in question: Page 22 of Part 1 of 16

originally posted by: LiberateEarth
That part of the discussion begins at 39:23

Here are my notes regarding what I heard him say about UFOs as described in 1947 by the supervisor:

1. Nobody inside; somehow operating remotely
2. Not made of metal; they're some kind of plasma/light material
3. Alien visitors are not physical; they are from other dimensions of reality
4. Earth is more a gateway than a planet
5. They get here by changing their vibration/vibratory rate to our vibratory rate so that they can be physical, here, with us, for short periods of time

Desouza talks about the globalists in that on this planet we have gone from the age of secrecy to something he calls “data flooding,” because with the technology we the public have available to us today, the globalists can no longer keep secrets; it’s impossible. Now, the method used to hide what they’re doing is to inundate us with information.

Also, he said that whenever a genuine paranormal event takes place, there are “global shops” (I think that’s what he said) that will create copies of that event, and upload them, which are meant to duplicate, but appear fake, and usually take down the original paranormal event as reported, get rid of it, and substitute their own Hollywood production level copies of it, so that people who try to go to see the event will conclude that it’s fake and that it has been debunked. He said one such example was the 2010 UFO over the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem.

This part of the discussion begins at 47m48s.

nice find,
very interesting things being said by him, it seems we are going down the road of extra dimensions with disclosure,
bring it on

Apparently Wernher Von Braun of NASA warned us about a fake war that would be perpetrated against us on earth from unnecessary weapons surrounding the earth, put there by the weaponization of space posing as space travel, by the globalist controllers. (Alien visitors are coming to earth through gateways extra-dimensionally, not physically.)

Listen at 1h1m57s.

Evidently, there is an acronym (I just heard Desouza use it in the Kerry Cassidy interview), EPIC, which stands for the Elite Powers in Control.

I had never heard that acronym before.

Regarding abductions, or contactees, I think Desouza is right on, and I find him extremely credible, when he says there are both malevolent and very positive cases. This is just like life, which is full of good and evil. I suspect that is exactly how it is. This discussion in the Kerry Cassidy interview starts at 1h15m30s.

originally posted by: Davg80
nice find,
very interesting things being said by him, it seems we are going down the road of extra dimensions with disclosure,
bring it on

Extra dimensions love the idea of it but it's blows my mind.

originally posted by: LiberateEarth

originally posted by: LiberateEarth
That part of the discussion begins at 39:23

Here are my notes regarding what I heard him say about UFOs as described in 1947 by the supervisor:

1. Nobody inside; somehow operating remotely
2. Not made of metal; they're some kind of plasma/light material
3. Alien visitors are not physical; they are from other dimensions of reality
4. Earth is more a gateway than a planet
5. They get here by changing their vibration/vibratory rate to our vibratory rate so that they can be physical, here, with us, for short periods of time

A "smoking gun document" my ass.

Just look at the actual memo and google a bit. The memo is from a newsletter called The Flying Roll, a separate publication of The Round Robin magazine (and radio show?) for "students of psychic research and parapsychology".

But Mr Desouza would know this, wouldn't he?

And the great BS show... err I mean disclosure continues.

a reply to: moebius

Why has the FBI posted it on their website?

Since the author in the video interview above seems to put special emphasis on the significance of goings on in the antartic region, I thought I should point the interested reader/listener to a somewhat interesting paper dealing with a lot of what seems to be the background to the Antartica controversy / conspiracy.

This is a paper discussing what did (and did not) happen during WW2 and later in Antartica, and deals with such topics as a Nazi permanent base in Antartica during WW2, operation High-Jump and other related issues.

It is often presented as a definitive debunking of the conspiracy theories related to Antartica, but while I am all in favour of the denial of ignorance, I am not a great believer in debunking - which I view as an unscientific and deplorable practice. You should rather read it as a presentation of facts (with references) and you can, if you so choose, check those facts for yourself and then compare it with whatever facts you can find from other sources. As they say, you be the judge.

The article appeared in Polar Record in vulume 43 (2007) from Cambridge University link.

Whatever you might think of its conclusions, it is at least well written and appears to be well sourced.
I hope this will be of interest to some.

BT

originally posted by: beetee
Since the author in the video interview above seems to put special emphasis on the significance of goings on in the antartic region . . .

Yes, thank you for pointing that out.

He emphasized that strongly as a huge issue right now for us all, and the importance of educating ourselves about how the globalist controllers deceive us about what's really going on. Listen beginning at 56m25s.

. . . I thought I should point the interested reader/listener to a somewhat interesting paper dealing with a lot of what seems to be the background to the Antartica controversy / conspiracy.

This is a paper discussing what did (and did not) happen during WW2 and later in Antartica, and deals with such topics as a Nazi permanent base in Antartica during WW2, operation High-Jump and other related issues.

Mainstream research papers, this one associated with the University of Cambridge, will probably not be dealing with the truth about Antarctica.

All "facts" that we have in the mainstream are up for discussion, in my opinion.

We have to keep reminding ourselves that the globalist controllers determine what is allowed to be published by universities. Nothing is 100%, but I think what's going on in Antarctica is best learned about from whistleblowers.

a reply to: LiberateEarth

That is, of course, your right to think. And you might be right, because I certainly cannot prove that you are not.

I am, however, a bit familiar with the dynamics of scientific research (within the sphere of archaeology mainly, but I know quite a few scientists in other fields as well), and my opinion from my experience is that what is accepted as valid avenues for research is more influenced by peer pressure, fear of ridicule (the giggle factor) and somewhat with interfaculty policies (informal). There is also the question of money, and who will donate and sponsor research (scientists have to eat, after all) and so you end up with a community that is fairly conservative and slow to break out of the ruling paradigm.

That said, I also know well the mechanics at work that almost automatically discounts something claimed by someone outside the field. The dreaded amateurs. I have seen this quite often, and it is an ugly mechanic. But by saying that anything reported by the mainstream, whatever that is, must automatically be discounted? Isn't that just the same mechanic at work? Just from the other side, as it were? I am not prepared to do that.

I live in Europe, so the climate is perhaps different here than e.g. in the US, but my view of many scientists and researchers that I know personally, is that they will go where the data leads them (cautiously) if they think to look for it, that is. Peer pressure and fear of beling looked at as somewhat of a clown might keep them from voicing certain ideas loudly, even if they might secretly harbour them, but mostly because they do not have the hard evidence to back them up. And especially if nobody else is making similar claims. It is scary to break out of the herd, you know.

I realize many people here have a negative view of scientists and their somewhat high-handed dismissal of theories held dear by a lot of people, and I freely admin many scientists are at times acting very unscientifically. They are, after all, humans. Some are even obnoxious humans. They say stupid things and make silly mistakes. That's what documentation and evidence is there to catch, after all.

However, I am pretty certain that if my spouse were ever to unearth anything remarkable (she is an archaeologist), there would be papers written about it as soon as it was documented.

Unless, of course, she is really a secret government disinformation agent, which I cannot rule out, even though I find it rather unlikely :-)

My point is, I guess, we must look at the evidence, such as it is, and make our mind up based on what it is, and not based on what somebody says it is. Or indeed based on what someone claims we should think, scientist or FBI agent. It doesn't really matter who you are, as long as the evidence support what you are saying. That's how it should be, at any rate.

Scientist, FBI agent, CIA agent, astronomer, geologist, biologist. If it cannot be proved or substantiated in any significant way, why should we even care?

Cheers,

BT

originally posted by: beetee
a reply to: LiberateEarth



My point is, I guess, we must look at the evidence, such as it is, and make our mind up based on what it is, and not based on what somebody says it is. Or indeed based on what someone claims we should think, scientist or FBI agent. It doesn't really matter who you are, as long as the evidence support what you are saying. That's how it should be, at any rate.



BT

I couldn't agree more.

originally posted by: beetee
a reply to: LiberateEarth
I am, however, a bit familiar with the dynamics of scientific research (within the sphere of archaeology mainly, but I know quite a few scientists in other fields as well), and my opinion from my experience is that what is accepted as valid avenues for research is more influenced by peer pressure, fear of ridicule (the giggle factor) and somewhat with interfaculty policies (informal). There is also the question of money, and who will donate and sponsor research (scientists have to eat, after all) and so you end up with a community that is fairly conservative and slow to break out of the ruling paradigm.

I think that you are exactly right, but that all of that is engineered by the globalist controllers.

But by saying that anything reported by the mainstream, whatever that is, must automatically be discounted? Isn't that just the same mechanic at work? Just from the other side, as it were? I am not prepared to do that.

Remember I said “nothing is 100%.”

It is a huge task for us all to try to separate fact from fiction in this world.

Personally, I feel that there are two basic world views in effect at present: One is formed by getting most of your information from the mainstream, and the other is from getting most of your information from the internet.

For myself, after I learned about 9/11 Truth, my main source of information had to shift to the internet.

Scientist, FBI agent, CIA agent, astronomer, geologist, biologist. If it cannot be proved or substantiated in any significant way, why should we even care?

We shouldn’t.

But figuring out whether or not it actually has been proved is very difficult, don’t you think?

For myself, I rely a great deal on my intuition. I believe it is every bit as valid as the rational mind.

My intuition tells me that whistleblowers are the best source of what's really going on. My first choice is a video of the whistleblower so that I can read body language. Second choice is audio, where a lot can be picked up from the voice.

In this video, John Desouza comes across to me as extremely credible. Weighed against a mainstream scientific paper, he wins.

a reply to: LiberateEarth

Well, you are certainly correct that it can be difficult to sort fact from fiction, often in the same source. I think the so called mainstream media is more likely to be careful with what they write, because the reputation and integrity as a news source is very important. Trust is very difficult to build and easily torn down, and to a business that wants to be a source for information, that is critical.

I am not suggesting that there are not individuals, businesses and organizations that cannot influence the media, but they are more likely then to not report on something, then to tell outright falsehoods. I know I will get flak for this on here, but that's my opinion anyway. If you have to put your name to a story, as a reporter, and it turns out you made it up, well, then your reputation as a journalist is instantly tarnished.

The alternative media, on the other hand, has it's own problems. There is not, after all, any lack of agendas on that side of the fence either, in my opinion. Many have pretty clear agendas, and might skew their reporting on current events to suit their purposes. I would therefore be quite wary about getting all my news solely from the alternative media.

Many will also report behind the comfort of total anonymity, and can say what they like without their actual name and career beeing on the line. This is also something that makes me uncomfortable. If I am to be lied to, I would at least like to know who is doing it.

And who is the alternative media, anyway? ATS? reddit? Infowars? Youtube? Some blog or other?

I think the main problem with any media is that it is basically a contract of sorts. Back in the day, there was an understanding that journalists would have a certain standard as to the numbers of independent sources they would need before they could even write a story, but now it seems more important to jump on the bandwagon before the story gets "old", which makes for poor facts checking and some ill advised quick decisions. So, we come back to the problem of sources. Who is the source, and how many sources are there. And, are the sources stated and verifiable?

This is, of course, all second hand and me musing, which is (according to my own standards) quite worthless, but it is nevertheless how I see the world. At this moment :-) Liable to change at any time.

BT