Here is an article from her personal website titled "ILLUMINATI LIVE WARNING THEY THEY’RE GOING TO KILL ME!" (yes really)
http://misstilaomg.com/update-the-truth-of-reptilian-and-alien-entity-disclosure-plus-surprise-guest/

I've been keenly awaiting for this documentary about Dr. Steven Greer and the movement for UFO/new energy disclosure to come out. Now that I've seen it, I have also been seeing a lot of schoolboy/adolescent-grade bashing of this film.

I wonder if this is a "knee-jerk" reaction to such a controversial topic. Just these two issues below (of the several issues discussed in the film), cannot be so quickly dismissed as "ufo nonsense".

1. The witness testimonies (on video) from over-100 high-ranking government and military officials, pilots, and scientists.
2. The 6-inch Atacama body has not been proven to be human (even though Huffington Post was quick to state that's all it was). Watch the film, it goes in to detail about the findings made at Standford University.

I loved this game. I played it all in one night because I couldn't tear myself away from it. Its been a long time since a single player game did this for me.

Still, the ending did bother me slighty. From some reviewer,
"...these third act disclosures don’t render Infinite incoherent, they do take the story to a place where notions of coherency and consequence no longer seem to matter, before backtracking and then attempting to offer a finality that doesn’t make sense within the universe the game has created."
Pretty much exactly how I felt at the end. I enjoyed it, but I don't think it really made much sense.

I'm playing it through again on the 1999 mode and it impressive how much detail and foreshadowing there is. For example, the key you get at the start. Booker spins it so the that the bird on one side and the cage on the other sort of merge together as if they are in superposition. I may have not noticed the significance but I still think these little hints do sort of bury into your subconcious and generally improve your experience on the first playthrough.

Full disclosure - I want to be able to invoke the "related" function so I can get more votes. My idea is to find any videos related to those ive posted and attach them as related thereby "advertising" my new video on an already sifted video.
Kind of a way to get free exposure

Veteran cops, with no more empathy left to give?
It happens....give beat cops enough time on the street with enough LACK of debrief with pysch units, and eventually they go numb.

(full disclosure, Father was a cop for 30 years)

There is also something to be said for the significant ambiguity surrounding human sexuality and sexual expression whereby physical/emotional pleasure and pain are often interchangeable and submission and dominance are desired and sought out.

Certainly, full disclosure and informed consent would be necessary to ensure personal and professional liability. Alas, sex and porn remain in the perpetual shadows such that little attention is paid to this misunderstood and under-appreciated aspect of the human condition.

Haha, I actually tried that for a little while because yeah, it bothered me how insincere the whole thing can be and I hate doing that whole dance. Thing is if you unload fully on your partner then it puts them in an awkward postion because they feel they have to reciprocate your full disclosure when perhaps they don't trust you sufficiently. At least thats the way I see it (and its why I stopped being a dick to people who were just trying to be polite )

The worst small talk? 1st year of university. You meet a lot of new people which I was mostly fine with. What bothered me endlessly was the same few questions. Where are you from. What course are you on etc etc. Maybe its selfish of me, but first I got bored of asking them and then I got bored of answering. Eventually I started asking people what their favorite flavour of icecream was (lemon sorbet btw) just to, you know, break routine. I guess you might call it an ice(cream)breaker and tbh, it worked quite well. Oh, and if somebody answers vanilla then you need to keep that person close. They are the best kinds of people (and there aren't very many vanillas). Maybe I don't really have a problem with small talk, I just have a problem with boring small talk

Interesting to note that "How do you do?" is traditionally reciprocated with another "How do you do?". I mean, its seems totally absurd, its almost like the question is rhetorical - it certainly doesn't expect an answer. Its just a polite courtesy and to do anything but show the same courtesy back would be considered rude - how self absorbed of you to actually answer! The conversation might evem bloom into discourse on the state of the weather (the last refuge of the unimaginative .

Oh, and it kind of is stupid though SveNitoR. Don't worry, I don't consider myself stupid or somehow broken in this regard, but I really can't see how anxiety serves any purpose. Obsessing over the tiny details of a conversation only serves to make me look stiff and robotic, like some sort of psychopath trying to remember how to smile with their eyes. I've heard theories that the reason alcohol is so embedded in our society is because on some level we actually sort of need it to overcome this inhibition. Unfortunately I don't drink, although I have found a sort of vicarious empathy - I inherit the same hibition if I am with people who are a bit buzzed, just none of the memory loss (a blessing ang a curse). Anyway, thats quite tangental. I guess what I'm saying is that I'm quite comfortable being an introvert and while anxiety certainly bothers me and stresses me out more than I'd like I don't let it paralyse me.

I would beg to differ on this sentiment. We have little knowledge of where we come from. Even Francis Crick, one of the founders of DNA suggested that we are on Earth through panspermia from another sentient race.

Then you have to ask who created them, and who created the creators, and so on. It becomes a chain of causality. You then have two options. Either, you have to believe that something came from nothing, or, there is an eternal first cause of everything that exists. I think something coming from nothing is impossible, so an eternal first cause is the only option left. If you agree, then we'll call that God.

Who knows? The Christian perception of god in reality is quite possibly unfathomably simple, that is to say that which is the creation of all existence. Listen, I want the truth just as much as you do, that is why I gone far out to experience mystical experiences that only prove to me that whatever this is, is far more complex and loving.

It's good to hear that you are pursuing the truth. That is something I greatly respect. My question to you is, if the truth is Jesus Christ, as He claims (I am the way, the *truth* and the life), would you turn your life over to Him?

The Christian conception of God is actually very complex in some ways, and simple in others. Complex, when you consider the Holy Trinity and the incarnation of Christ. Simple, when you consider the Fathers love for His children the sacrificial love of His Son. The theology also shares this dichotomy of depth and simplicity, and it is all knit together with sinews of love and unity into the mystical body of Christ. The Christian God is, like the Universe He created, both complex and simple.

I'm not sure what you mean by more loving. I'm going to need a definition and example of what you're talking about before I reply to that.

No one can prove Jesus was raised from the dead it is a phenomenon not widely occurring. I would never say that Jesus never existed but I think it is probable that Jesus existed in a much more humble way than what is described by his disciples. Therefore, I look at it as a book of tall tales. There is nothing wrong with that, I mean if you can accept it for what it really is... a book of Tall Tales.

Presumably, if Jesus is alive, He could prove it couldn't He?

Yes, I went to a Lutheran church every Sunday for eighteen years. Most of my parents community were involved with the church. They all know my feelings on the subject and over time I have seen their Christian foundations dissolve for better or worse. For me, it is undeniably a farce of divinity. I respect Christianity, probably without Christianity I would never had wanted to seek out the real, hard truths. Christianity spoke so much of honesty and truth. I adore those concepts and unfortunately Christianity does not hold a flame to what I now know.

You will find me very much in agreement with you when you say that dead religion is a farce of divinity. When it comes down to it, there are two types of Christians in this world. Those who have a religion, and those who have a relationship. Those who have a religion are those who follow the traditions of men, and believe that to follow God is to go to church, read the bible, and pray at the suitable times. Basically, if they follow their good and bad checklist well enough, some day they will make it to Heaven. Their faith is blind and based only on what they've read, but not what they've understood to be true from experience.

Those who have a relationship are those who have a personal, intimate, experiential relationship with the living God. They have the Holy Spirit living with them, who has supernaturally transformed them into new people. These people experience the presence of God in their daily lives, and are personally guided by God in everything they do. These people know the truth, experience it, and live it out every single day. It sounds to me that your experience had the character of the former and not the latter. I am not shocked at all that you left the church under those pretenses, and I would have too. It is a story I have heard many times in the past, that people who grew up with dead religion and never learned how to have a personal relationship with Christ, quickly abandoned the faith of their parents, because either they never really believed in the first place, or they had no foundation for their beliefs, and the world quickly converted them to its ways.

There is more to this story Shinyblurry, my spiritual quest started late, after I was free from the churches hold . I am not a liar, I have never purposefully stolen anything and I treat people with honesty and compassion. I may be very left leaning but I find myself to be much more ethical, non judgemental and compassionate than most

I appreciate that you're a relatively moral person. We as humans tend to judge ourselves based on a relative standard, based on how we line up to other people. Compared to rapists and pedophiles, we're both very upstanding citizens I am sure. Compared to Hitler, we are looking almost perfect. Yet, God doesn't judge on a sliding scale; He uses an absolute standard. Gods standard for good is moral perfection, and He considers anything short of that to be evil. That is why God is holy and we are not. So, for example, you say that you're not a liar, but if you've ever told even one lie then you are in fact a liar, as a liar is a person who has lied. If you've ever stolen *anything*, regardless of its value, you're a thief. If you've ever used Gods name in vain you are a blasphemer. Gods standards are even higher than this, though, in that He consider what you've thought in your heart. For example, if you've ever even looked at a woman with lust He considers you an adulterer at heart, and Jesus says if you've ever hated anyone you've murdered them in your heart. (full disclosure: I've done all of these things) So you can see that our relative standard doesn't cut it when it comes to what God considers good, and even one sin is too many. That's why Jesus died for our sins, because we cannot meet Gods holy standard on our own.

One night maybe ten years ago, for a few seconds, and then hours I thought God had contacted me and it was weirdest thing I have ever experienced. And it was real, I mean the experience. And so my quest began and I found a partial truth after many years of research...

Tell me more about your experience of God..why was it weird, and what partial truth did you find that seemed to confirm it?

and it only raises more questions on divinity, soul, morality, the mind, the universe. Thus is life. Keep asking questions. Keep thinking. Keep researching.

I respect your search for the truth, and I think it is a good thing. Scripture says, seek and you shall find. Ask and you shall be given. Knock, and the door will open. Do you believe that you have a soul?

The truth is out there, yet none of us know it yet. And I mean NO ONE.

I'll have to stop you here because you're making an absolute claim and this is self-contradictory. This is revealed by the question, "is it absolutely true that no one knows the truth?" The best you could say is that you don't know the truth, but you don't know what I know. How could you, if you don't know what the truth is?

Further, this ties into what we're discussing about the video. That there are only two routes to truth. Either you are omnipotent, or you get revelation from an omnipotent being. Since neither of us are omnipotent, there is only one possibility of either of us knowing the truth, which is an omnipotent being revealing it to us. I fully agree with you that outside of such revelation no one knows anything. But, if God gave me such revelation how would you know whether He did or not? You couldn't say no one knows the truth, because you don't know what God has or has not revealed. You only know what God has revealed to you, if anything.

Interesting, this also seems to be a *viral for nvidia, for full disclosure. I'd love to hear about what it actually is used for.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Disclosure: I didn't write the description, it's from the link below.


Well struck, once removed, then.

Disclosure: I didn't write the description, it's from the link below.

Whatever happened to real news? Oh yeah, it never really existed in the first place!
We need more pentagon papers kinna folks-Not so much reporters as participants...people who see the big picture and risk imprisonment in the name of information distribution. People who realize that a non-disclosure statement signed will at at some point, mean your own mental and spiritual demise.

Real history would record that Lyndon B. Johnson was a complete piece of human garbage. Buildings should be renamed that carry his name, the man was a fucking monster. His administration fucked us to stone age in the grand schemata....

Assange fucked up. He wasn't choosy enough with what he released, eh?

@spoco2 The most dangerous kinds of mercury are compounds. Mercury in the raw can be easily handled in bare hands or light gloves. Short term use and exposures like this will not likely result in any toxification. More great is the risk of toxification by mercury compounds from coal fired power plants. Their methylmercury is far more toxic and very widely consecrated in food stuff now via bio accumulation.

Your childhood experience most likely didn't result in any serious contamination. Life is full of risk, driving a car is hugely risky, you just have to ask yourself what are the risks vs the payoff. Short of ingestion, the risks from this activity are very low. Greater your risks would be from sunburn which over time can cause skin cancer than mercury poisoning from this type of activity.

What would be nice, however, is an online guide of ways to handle chemicals safely. The problem is such things usually go kind of overboard and error on too much caution. Remember those "this is your brain on drugs" commercials? They were basically lies; cautionary tails that were overblown for the "don't risk it" mentality. I think a better strategy is full disclosure and personal responsibility. To much fear and dishonesty, and people just blow you off...and complete lack of guides and rules is about the same level of chaos. Some middle ground of rational behavior for dangerous substances should be the goal, but I haven't found a good mechanism for implementing such a system, and to that end, better safe than sorry like you advise is a good policy.

This came out on the 12th, it's been days.

http://articles.boston.com/2012-07-12/politics/32633322_1_bain-capital-mitt-romney-financial-disclosure

"But public Securities and Exchange Commission documents filed later by Bain Capital state he remained the firm’s 'sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president.'

"Also, a Massachusetts financial disclosure form Romney filed in 2003 states that he still owned 100 percent of Bain Capital in 2002. And Romney’s state financial disclosure forms indicate he earned at least $100,000 as a Bain “executive” in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings."

And the source of this info, from the same article.

"Government documents filed by Mitt Romney and Bain Capital say Romney remained chief executive and chairman of the firm three years beyond the date he said he ceded control, even creating five new investment partnerships during that time."

I don't know about you, but sole stockholder, chairman of the board, president and CEO with 100% ownership and control sounds to me like he might have had something to do with it. Even if he was in a coma he had legal ownership and responsibility for it. The "I wasn't there" argument is a bit thin, and if he gave different info at different times between FEC and SEC filings he may have committed a crime.

Media corporations, such as those employing Bill Moyers and journalists like him, have
always had an exception to limitations on speech during political campaigns. In the interest of full disclosure he should admit that he's just arguing for his own privilege. What he fails to mention is that after Citizen's United, as before, for-profit corporations don't give much to political candidates.

The problem with the first amendment is that it's just so difficult for those with influence to accept that it should mean what it says.