Previous William Thomas Sherman Info Page postings, quotes, observations, etc.
I gave up watching television sometime in the early 1990s; so that when I first heard about 9/11, it was related to me by someone who happened to stop by and visit. This was about a little over a year after I had my own home turned into a literal haunted house for about two months (though my "ordeal" continued and was continuing otherwise.) My first reaction then to 9/11 was that as likely as not it was a hoax. The story was so absolutely crazy that it was understandable and easy to interpret it as such. Even to this day, I cannot say I am hundred percent sure 9/11 isn't all a hoax; though if it was necessary for me to assume a call on the question, as a practical matter I taken it as a given that it did actually take place.
I mention this because for the last few months I have spend a good deal of time listening to many of the reports, exposes, and documentaries on YouTube and the internet on the subject of 9/11. Some of these are quite brilliant, and if 9/11 did occur, I am astounded there has not been a formal government investigation to delve closely into the controversy and sundry mysteries related to. The list of persons and groups arguing that there is a cover up is most impressive, including professional pilots, government and military people, architects, scientists including physicists, credible and impartial activists, and more.
And yet there is a fundamental problem with all those who argue for conspiracy, and I use this word as legitimate, relevant and applicable since if 9/11 was not merely the work of supposed Muslim terrorists it necessarily was a conspiracy involving someone, and there is no reason we cannot invoke the term "conspiracy" without thinking we a are speaking in either a derogatory or sensational way (as Mark Lane and others have argued on this point.) This said, if it was governmental and corporate conspiracy that brought about 9/11, how is it possible that this conspiratorial group could plan things out decades in advance, and have organizational roots going back at least as far back as the JFK assassination? Once those who orchestrated these conspiracies designed to found a new world order or global communism run by bankers (as some have alleged), who is going to continue and resume this nefarious plan and ambition, the children of the conspirators? Even if you posit a family like the Rothschilds or Zionists, as some have done, what could possibly keep such a group together for so long, and without a clear, obvious and ostensible leader and head? Are we to understand these alleged conspirators, with multi-national connections, can be run and governed as a friendly and cooperating group without any in-fighting rivalries, and this over the span of decades or centuries?
I frankly don't know the answer myself to these questions. But inasmuch as I do know about criminal spirit people in extensive and lengthy first-hand dealing with them, my guess would be that only criminal spirit people would have the smarts, sophistication, motive and staying power to pull off such a thing, and that often times many who are blamed, say like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Mossad, Larry Silverstein, Dov Zhakeim, etc., etc. in 9/11 are themselves as likely as not largely unwitting patsys or Oswalds of a kind, but who are there to take the blame, so that the real perpetrators remain unseen. This is not to say that such alleged culprits are wholly without fault, only it is possible for people such as this to be merely pawns manipulated by much more powerful players. And who could be so powerful and simultaneously last so many decades or even centuries?
Sometimes in some YouTube efforts to get at the real powers that be, reference is made to Satan, masons, or the illuminati, but I don't things these are very helpful because they tend to sensationalize criminal spirit people. The guise of Satan or illuminati, these are costumes criminals spirit people and or their henchmen can put on to terrify and confuse people and, for practical purposes, are not really the people or things themselves, and thus are not only misleading, but as often as not intentionally so.
The way we can scientifically know criminal spirit people is by their effects, and looking into accounts and descriptions from duly rational and honest persons who’ve had dealings with them.
For starters, let's consider in what ways criminal spirit people, specifically sophisticated criminal spirit people, are powerful, and here's an off-hand list.
* They are master magicians and illusionists.
* They can impersonate God and divinity.
* They are consummate masters of psychology, and are learned in the finest and most minute details of both human behavior AND physiology.
* They have knowledge, experience and expertise going back centuries.
* It is absolutely forbidden to talk intelligently about them, even in brazen instances of their making appearances, such as (discussed recently here) Borley Rectory. (Interesting in this regard, you can talk space aliens seriously, but never or hardly ever ghosts.)
* They can and will take ANY side of ANY argument or position, and even possibly take over leadership of the same.
* They can scare, frighten and intimidate like no others.
* They can carry out crimes, including torture and murder, and if need be surreptitiously; that renders them great persuaders of the uncooperative, and are the ultimate and most highly skilled practitioners of the same methods.
* To some they are seen, not at all as criminals, but as friends and buddies to help "us" get through life, and who in addition are the experts and authority on most any and everything of consequence. BUT..."mum's the word."
It is completely amazing how people see corruption in the take over of the government and the news mass-media, but say nothing about how the various entertainment businesses are used assiduously to debase true art and corrupt people at large. Even JFK and 9/11 "truthers" talk about Hollywood directors and movies as if they represented true respectability and ordinary folk. We needed Oliver Stone to rescue the JFK movement, or "Wag the Dog" to show how 9/11 was possible. Yet who has been more prurient, salacious, viciously violent, foul mouthed, anti-free and fair competition than the entertainment industries? For a time Spielberg was treated as Pope of the movies, and Star War the cultural orthodoxy and state religion; masses will spend billions on Da Vinci Code and Harry Potter -- and all this is supposed to represent what the public really wants, and without even a whisper of protest. Honestly how stupid can people be? If anyone is suspicious of criminal ties it is the mass entertainment media. But again, not a peep. And yet the crooked government, the news media, the Rothschilds we know are all out to get us.
This is worth mentioning because no one else has done more to portray witchcraft, sorcery and criminal spirit people in an imposing and sympathetic light than the mass entertainment industries of the last some 40 years. So if you want to find possible bastions and hide-outs for criminal spirit people in our midst, at the very least I submit that here is one good place to find them, and not just the government, news media. Is "Hollywood" (or more properly neo-Hollywood) the "entertainment arm of the Pentagon?" Or is it perhaps and at last the other way around?
Now if you doubt what I claim, try to discuss the topic of spirit people scientifically. Try to find anyone else that does, and whether they are honest, truly rational, objective and legitimate. And one way you can test and find out is by trying to contact and have a conversation on the subject with me. I have tried now for over 18 years to do this, and have yet to get a single person that could or would so. So here at least, is one place to start, if you don't believe me. That I should be personally ignored does not bother me so much. I have the consolation of knowing that I did try to tell people. Yet when you consider the far greater implications of what I am asserting, it is nothing short of incomprehensibly idiotic, if not criminal, that this topic be brushed aside as inconsequential or irrelevant.
William Thomas Sherman
1604 NW 70th St.
Seattle, Washington 98117
[Later Note.] By the way and just incidentally, anybody have what is now the current BODY COUNT total, as in mysterious deaths, overdoses, suicides, etc., for "Hollywood," circa 1990-2018?
...Two hundred and fifty years, then, have not yet passed since our life began. During the interval there have been so many criminals; so many crosses have obtained immortality; so many infants have been slain; so many loaves steeped in blood; so many extinctions of candles; so many dissolute marriages. And up to the present time it is mere report which fights against the Christians. No doubt it has a strong support in the wickedness of the human mind, and utters its falsehoods with more success among cruel and savage men. For the more inclined you are to maliciousness, the more ready are you to believe evil; in short, men more easily believe the evil that is false, than the good which is true...
~ Tertullian (c.160–220 AD), Ad Nationes, Book 1.
Is it truly God's will, or is it rather someone else's will, but which God permits?
"But Sherman, if they have such powers at that, how can you say no to them?!"
I am not saying those powers are not amazing, or not necessarily amazing. But what you overlook is that even as powerful as those people are in some ways, they are are completely useless, bankrupt, and impotent in other respects.
You see, after all it is all a trick and a way of fooling people. That way it won't seem as if they really did anything wrong. As in:
"Why certainly with wealth and powers of this kind I will be able to cut quite a figure. Indeed, how can others not see me as someone interesting and important?"
Physicality is external and transitory. But the soul, which is the foundation, bedrock, and inside core of life, is eternal. And if it is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Love and honest Truth) that preside over the eternal, They, at last, are the one's to answer to and no one else.
Our List of Suspects thus far:
* King Saul
* Wicked Queen (from 'Snow White')
* Inspector Javert
...Although the name of Christian was not at that time in the world, yet truth was always suffering condemnation. Now you will not deny that he was a wise man, to whom your own Pythian (god) had borne witness. Socrates, he said, was the wisest of men. Truth overbore Apollo, and made him pronounce even against himself since he acknowledged that he was no god, when he affirmed that that was the wisest man who was denying the gods...
~ Tertullian (c.160–220 AD), Ad Nationes, Book 1.
Insofar as you and or someone else does or may go to persistent lengths to persuade others of some fact and or argument, and such as, for instance, is found routinely to be the case on the internet, it is important to remember that not everyone is concerned with the truth or being truthful. Rather there are those who see all disagreements as to fact or argument as being simply a difference of opinion; which contest of opinion is settled by brute force or by vote count. Such persons have no conception of true or false beyond these criteria when it comes to great questions of dispute; and whether wittingly or unwittingly they in effect see reality itself as a constant state of war, and thus are and will ever be quarreling; despite giving the impression that they are somehow fair and reasonable. If then you find yourself dealing with this kind, spare yourself the hopeless frustration of attempting to reform the incorrigible. Only the Holy Spirit can lead such to a proper appreciation of truth and what is truthful, and if this doesn't happen there is simply nothing you can do with them. (And Christ said as much as this, didn't he?)
One of the most common infirmities of mind one encounters in serious disagreement as to fact or argument is the presupposition that the answer to the given question must be A or B. It never occurs to such people that there may be a C, or D, etc. alternative explanation. To give you one example of this, in re-perusing the Borley Rectory story as I did recently, I as matter of course came across arguments that Harry Price and or Marianne Foyster fabricated "ghostly" phenomena or reports of the same. Well, it is assumed that if they faked these things, then there was no ghostly phenomena, and yet one possible further explanation is that they were coerced (as in blackmailed or threatened) into such "faking" by a criminal spirit person (or someone else); with the strange result that a) the event or report was true, but then they lied and said it wasn't, or b) they faked the event or report because they were pressured into doing so (say by a criminal spirit person) who desired to have covered up, obscured, or distorted what had actually taken place. (In my dealing with the ghoulish magician, he made it very plain that he didn't want me talking about what I saw and experienced as far as spirit people, and as I have related elsewhere, told me, in no uncertain terms, that if I did he in effect would give me the business. In light of this, it seems very possible to me that Harry Price was talked to in a similar way, and was permitted his career as a psychic researcher only on the condition that at least part of his efforts should be done and seen as blatantly fraudulent or should be else misleading.)
Similarly, you find the same in other cases of purported guilt when it comes to other great mysteries, you name them. It is supposed the person susceptible of blame was simply either bad or good, and yet a person can easily do wrong with good intention and for them what is a clear mind and conscience; because they were simply foolish and irrational, or because they were misled by someone else as to the nature of what they were doing, or they were threatened or blackmailed in some dire or even deadly way - or other possibilities or complication to account for their alleged bad behavior.
Browsing the YouTube as is often my wont, I found this mini-documentary by one Rebecca Brazil on Borley Rectory; that for a non-professional production is well done.
["The Legend of the Borley Nun"]
After watching which, I thought I would add some comments in response here.
I have had my own extended encounter with "ghosts," or criminal spirit people as I prefer to call those I found myself dealing with, and wrote about them in my New Treatise on Hell, my "Narrative," and over the years in posts at the website. Curiously, despite my having this website since 2003 and having written all these things regarding spirit people, including sending out mailers attaching them on many occasions to individuals, I have never once in all this while had a single letter or inquiry from anyone about them. While it is not necessary for me to assume or jump to conclusions why this should be so, nevertheless at the very least the utter non-response does seem no little strange. But even allowing that there was somehow nothing suspicious or impossible about my not receiving any response regarding my own reported first hand dealings, and seeing and experiencing spirit people on dozens of occasions, I feel there is no doubt in my mind that I can prove the truth of what I claim if only I could get someone honest, impartial, objective, duly rational individuals to even try to examine and test what I assert. Since (among other arguments that might be adduced), if I am otherwise lying and or crazy, it ought to be possible to demonstrate that I am, and if not lying and or crazy then it necessarily follows there is truth to my story. Many times since 2003 I have submitted challenges here and elsewhere for someone who is a serious and scientific minded thinker to look into and talk to me about this subject, yet, as stated, not even a single email or anything. Well, it has been long since I have last tried to get some to disprove me, and as result have as long since given up trying. This said, I take this present occasion, upon seeing doubts raised about spirit people in the above video, to relate once again that there are such things and I am convinced I can prove such (given the rationale stated.) In sum then, for anyone who thinks themself an honest, credible and rational person, who is either curious or else adamantly refuses to believe such things exist, I say once more, as I did years ago, contact me and give me a chance to prove it; and see if I can't do the same. If you can show me as lying and or crazy, then I will be disproved. If not, then does it not follow that what I claim is in fact true? What can be more simple and straightforward than this?