"I repeat again that Casper is a reporter of only a fraction of the activity of this Quiet Revolution. He, through his contact network, work totally on a voluntary basis to report the "news" to you. Without his reports, what would you know? Yet, you discount his efforts and are critical of his reports, with no basis for such claims."
When I read this, I think it's true that many of us appear skeptical, cynical and critical at times. It is also true that most of time we have no facts or evidence on which to dispute his claims, or the claims of others. The problem is that there are usually no facts, or evidence or ways for us to check on the validity of his claims. So Casper is just another of those anonymous people who claim to have some kind of inside knowledge of secret events, but can only reveal so much.
If we are to read and process all of this kind of information with a "discerning eye and heart" in order to figure out what might be true or at least partially true, what do you expect? Without facts or evidence, it's just one person's opinion of another person's unsubstantiated claims passing each other in psychological space.
So when we read that the packets were supposed to be delivered, but the bad guys intervened again with secret chips and blah, bl