Firstly, I want to Compare the interviews of Jason Rice by Jay Weidner and George Noorey with the interviews of Corey Goode, Pete Peterson and several others by David Wilcock.

David Wilcock has many years experience of interviewing people who have claimed to be whistelblowers from unacknowledged black projects. As the host of the show he has an idea in his mind of areas in the testimony that he wants to cover, he will generally introduce the episode and then allow the interviewee to begin their account. At a given point he will begin interjecting and pulling the person back, and then leaping ahead. This is commonly called “making the person tell their story backwards.”

This technique is often employed in police-style interviews. Generally if a person has learned a story, they rely upon the linear “telling” much more than when a person has experienced the events that they are recounting. Obviously this is in a much more informal setting than a police interview room, but the principal remains the same.

David Wilcock makes it clear to his audience that his participation in the interview is one of building trust, often stating that he feels as though it is his reputation on the line if he were to give someone an easy ticket through and they turned out later to be fabricating their story. While this isn’t a guarantee that any given interviewee is being 100% genuine with us, it reassures us that anyone who gets by him would have to be an accomplished liar and fraudster.

We didn’t have this benefit with Jason Rice. In fact, to my knowledge David Wilcock refused to have anything to do with the process, and Corey Goode also declined to participate, this despite appearing with a plethora of other whistleblowers: Pete Peterson, John Lear, Niara Iseley, Clifford Stone, David Adair, Boyd Bushman and of course, the late, great William Tompkins. Critics of Corey Goode have tried to suggest that his rejection of their stories and refusal to endorse them is in some way closing the door behind him… but personally I prefer to believe his account and the warning from Teir-Eir and ‘Gonzalez’ in 2016 that we were in for a spate of LARPers claiming to be ‘super-soldiers’ and Secret Space Program insiders. The past evidence certainly indicates that he doesn’t mind sharing a platform with others when he believes their testimony.

So Gaia took a shortcut and sat him by someone who we must take at Gaia’s own word is competent (along with the FBI mug on the desk), and take their word for it that from here on out, everything we are told is 100% true and backed by a lie-detector. This isn’t how polygraph testing works, and is easy for a biased interviewer to provide the results that they need. We’ve seen this used by the legal team appointed by Sen Feinstein on behalf of Christine Blasey Ford recently, and a lot of microphone muting and anxious whispers before Congress when questioned about this. As an audience, we don’t know the specific questions that were asked of her: was Justice Kavanaugh mentioned by name in the interview, if not, “something” could feasibly happened to Dr Ford but Brett Kavanaugh would have had nothing to do with it. This is just a hypothetical to demonstrate what I mean about the ways that a polygraph can be engineered to say whatever you want it to say. I’ll point to Jeremy Kyle here with his lie-detector tests. The audience at home and in the studio hear the specific question asked, they often see the answer given and the needle spike or remain unchanged.

What it did show us was Jason Rice’s body language, specifically in regards to his unmoving eyes when he was giving false answers for the purpose of this test. I would suggest watching this again to anyone still undecided on the validity of his testimony.

Jay Weidner then leads Jason Rice through his testimony, all chronologically laid out. It’s interesting to note that both George Noorey and even Jay Weidner (despite his eyes being almost closed much of the time) give more expression in their body language than Jason Rice does. Jay Weidner through Cosmic Disclosure showing this brief and uncomfortable to watch lie-detector test, and the George Noorey through his referencing to this lie-detector test, intend for the viewer to take at their word that this testimony is honest and should be believed, as though it should be a ‘given’ from here on out.

Add to that the regression hypnotherapy sessions. What I found unusual about these clips were firstly, how stiff and unrelaxed Jason appeared to be, but then how he actually showed emotional response in these sessions. Perhaps not unusual in itself, unless you consider how little emotional expression is involved in his actual testimony.

A few examples I want to pull out of the hat here are Clifford Stone and Niara Terela Iseley, and how when watching their testimonies I felt an empathic trigger to their emotional outbursts. As an observer they ticked all of the boxes for genuine emotional response… that certainly was not the case for me with these sessions “on the couch” with Jason Rice. In itself this could easily be dismissed. There is much that we do not understand when it comes to empathic ability – and is it is not an established science, you’d just be taking my word for it. I haven’t been triggered empathically by other testimonies in the past, many genuinely accepted within the community, such as Emery Smith, I’m not declaring that Emery Smith is a liar here, I’m stating that in itself this ‘evidence’ is tenuous. But it stacks up for me personally. In our society today we have largely tuned out our intuitive senses and ‘abilities’ in favour of full-blown, left-brain logic; I feel that is an error in our thinking process. We have been given these right-brain functions for very good reason, and we need to implement that intelligence into our thinking processes a great deal more in order to advance consciously as a species.


So let's take a look at this performance a little closer. During his testimony, so far presented in the most linear fashion, we can observe Jason Rice maintaining what many could consider positive body language. He leans in towards the interviewer, he nods a lot and maintains rigid eye contact. All good indicators for honesty, right?

According to most experts in this field, over a brief encounter, yes, this could be taken as a very positive indicator - however there is no acedemic research which supports this as a fact. It is generally agreed that maintaining eye contact for too long is a definite warning sign. Maintained over a lengthy, or several lengthy interviews of between 30 minutes and an hour (in the Beyond Belief interview) it is a really hefty red flag! In fact Jason rarely searches his memory for answers when on these Gaia TV episodes, generally responding to questions immediately and without pause. This contrasts very heavily with the unscripted Fade to Black radio interview with Jimmy Church, including many questions submitted by the home audience. Here you can hear Jason stumbling over many of his answers, a lot of 'umming' and 'ahhing'  as you would expect when being probed with questions that have arisen in the minds of viewers over the period of his exposure. A few clatters and bangs (apparently a door fell on him) - his phoneline began repeating several overlaid voice messages as though he was in a call centre somewhere, and someone (cleaner or janitor maybe) was heard whistling in the background.

Maintaining eye contact for these unnaturally long periods is a major cause for concern, and it does give us one very big tell. According to Julius Fast, MD in his seminal book 'Body Language' there is a phenomenon which he describes as "The Liar's Blink" - where forced eye contact is confronted with the efforts of the subconscious mind to look away. A subject will blink much more often than is natural and often for longer than natural periods (a natural blink is around 1/40th of a second long), this Jason Rice does, and roughly every 4th blink is of an inordinately long duration.

He maintains this eye contact which is stage performance. In real situations we pointedly avoid staring at people in this manner and it can be read as dehumanising. It is reserved for animals at the zoo, in (hopefully) bygone times we may have stared this way at 'coloured' people in the American South, or at people in a freak show. It's actually really, really disconcerting if you find yourself in this position... or try it - it becomes uncomfortable very quickly. It is natural to make initial contact, recognising that the person is there with us. We then tend to become as expressive with our eyes as many people do with their hands when we talk, and again here, to the trained observer, this can be laiden with clues.




In the longer interview by Jason, on "Beyond Belief" with George Noorey, around about the 42 minute mark, we actually see (for I think the first time) his eye contact break from the interviewer. In a rare close-up image of Jason Rice during this interview he looks to his direct left (Auditory construction). In the remaining minutes of the interview he looks down to his left (Kinesthetic) on a couple of occassions, this is harder to spot because the camera is panned out and only shows him in profile. This interview was for me a deciding moment in my internal debate over the integrity of this testimony.

The previous day I had watched an interview on Beyond Belief with another Secret Space Program insider, Captain Randy Cramer, and on seeing the camera pan out at one point of the interview thought to myself, "that set looks great! I'd be interested to see more of it."

In the Jason Rice episode, the camera was panned out for almost the entire time that Jason Rice was speaking. It was so incredibly blatent, we saw the camera pan in for close-ups of George Noorey while he was speaking.

This takes me back to what I was saying earlier about a lie being a participation 'sport'. I believe that not only is Jason Rice fabricating his account (there may be some truths in the story), but I believe that Gaia is participating in the deception... and unfortunatley the viewer is being asked to ignore this very blatent editing and post-production in order to hold onto any further belief in the authenticity of any of the tale as it unfolds further down the line. 

Whether there are fragments of truth interspersed in there with rehashed and rephrased testimonies of yesterday, it is at best soft disclosure and a limited hangout. The main body of the testimony could be lifted directly from Corey Goode's own testimony, and even terms such as "WE ARE THE ONES WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR" - this differs vastly from what we have seen from pretty much any other Secret Space Program whistleblower or insider before him.



Other people have discussed what they specificly like or dislike from the testimony, so I won't go into that here. There hasn't been many things that Jason Rice has said which I feel would be unbelievable. I do find the whole Dark Fleet thing difficult to grapple with, but I have no intention of picking out any one individual if they WERE involved in something on that scale that I disagree with ethically - my problem there would be directed towards the Nazi and Draco overlords. So from the point of view of this article, I'm not going to attack the specific content of what Jason has said.... I don't mean to attack Jason Rice personally. The whole situation to me is incredibly suspicious though. The pictures I have included in this article are lifted from the ONLY picture of Jason Rice that I could find in public, which is his twitter profile picture.

Jason Rice miraculously for this day and age has no social media history. Who in this day and age has zero internet footprint?

Was it erased, or is the character: Jason Rice a character from a story?