Hi, All -
I had a call from Zep Tepi earlier this evening saying that ATS had gone mad and I should really get back online quickly. I've just arrived in
Switzerland (late evening here) and can see what he meant.
1) Re Chapman's second message on p.143 (disregarding his grandson's): I'd prepared something to post anyway, pointing out his unprofessional
spelling errors (“apoligise”, “signitory”, “pernecious”, “opticions”, “usefull”)... and the highly unlikely sign-off with a happy
smily, a significant give-away considering that this gentlemen professed to be elderly and not at all internet-savvy.
So now we know why. If chelseafan1 was banned for deception, then the chapman and serpiansurfer logins certainly should be also. If I was a moderator,
this is not the kind of reputation I'd want to have sticking to ATS. The thing to remember, in my personal opinion, is that if members are allowed to
get away with that posting strategy, it only encourages others to their own deception. This is not how debate should be conducted and is not helpful
2) To state what I hope should be obvious, I do not know who chapman / serpiansurfer is and have no connection with him.
3) The rumor “SERPO may be a Scientology Plot!”
first surfaced two or three weeks ago – first promoted, I believe, by Jack Sarfatti. Here
again is my response at the time, which I also circulated on Victor's list.
From: Bill Ryan
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 11:52:21 +0000
To: John Lundberg
Cc: Jack Sarfatti, Caryn Anscomb, Dan Smith
Subject: Re: SERPO may be a Scientology Plot!
Hi, John -
Thanks for this and your other. I know quite a lot about Scientology and this seems a far-fetched theory to me... I didn't see any connections in the
report that Jack posted below. I believe Victor Martinez is rabidly against the Church of Scientology, and my own claim to fame is that I'm on the
infamous Church of Scientology's “Enemies” list:
I also know personally the head of the International Freezone Association (IFA) - his name is Michael Moore, in Australia (not THE Michael Moore!),
and also the head of the independent “Ron's Orgs”, whose name is Max Hauri, based in Switzerland. They're both fine people of the highest
integrity. No way would they be involved in Serpo. They don't engage in scams or dirty tricks (if this should eventually turn out to be one). But I
have no contacts within the Church of Scientology and would have no means to check anything out if they're up to no good.
It's hard to imagine why the Church of Scientology would want to set up anything like this... although they have immense resources and a sizeable
“spook” department with which they fight both the Powers that Be and also inconvenient individuals (Werner Erhard was ruined by a Church of
Scientology sting, for instance). With a significant stretch of the imagination it could conceivably be a mechanism to embarrass Victor Martinez
(Anonymous started his postings before I arrived on the list) but if so, what a huge hammer to crack a tiny nut! Their standard mode is to dream up
dirt on people, or set people up with stings. Victor would probably be far more vulnerable in other ways.
[Hi, Jack - my regards to all there in SF. I may be over there after 24 Jan for a couple of weeks and maybe we can catch up then.]
Best wishes, Bill
From: John Lundberg
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 11:04:16 +0000
To: Bill Ryan
Subject: SERPO may be a Scientology Plot!
Sarfatti thinks there's a link between serpo and
scientology, do you have any further information
All the best,
4) Serpo is not a hoax
. A hoax means it's 100% deception. I'm personally certain this is not. In my opinion, if I may say so, this is a less
than fully responsible word for the moderators to use – it's emotionally loaded, may be a premature conclusion, tends to lead and influence
members' and visitors' thinking, and may put filters and fixed ideas in place.
ATS has a responsibility as an internet opinion leader. If it were up to me, I would relabel this thread, with rather more intellectual rigor:
Serpo: now is the time to re-examine all the evidence to date.
I presume that there's no intention to close the debate. But judging the account as a hoax and promoting the label prominently may be seen by some as
a attempt to end the thread. This is premature. See the questions drafted below.
5) As per my last post, I suggest that a profitable way to focus the debate is to consider that if this is disinformation, then:
a) Which parts are true?
b) What might be the purpose?
6) I close by releasing this significant snippet of information, which came to light just last Friday. I received this message below on the contact
form on 20 December. The e-mail address supplied was an LANL (Los Alamos National Laboratories) address, but every version of it (including possible
typos) bounced when I attempted to reply. It said simply:
From: [lanl.us.gov formatted address]
Date: 20 Dec 2005 02:37:08 -0000
About 80% of this info is fact, the remaining 20% is fiction. The US Gov is in the process of releasing info on Alien contact. This is the first
(Bold emphasis mine.)
The IP address seems to be the same as Anonymous's
I'm not going to release any other details at this stage. I want to see what happens next, and intend to keep that powder dry for the moment. Others
are helping me look at this issue, but we already know that the IP address question can be fraught with pitfalls and possible incorrect conclusions
unless handled with significant expertise. It's really not for inexpert speculation, which I think we've all learned.
If was sent from the same computer (which, as I understand it, an identical IP address does not necessarily imply) I have no idea what to make of this
apart from assuming the possibility that he was offering a heavy hint... possibly without his superiors being aware.
80/20 could be about right. As I said in an earlier post, one doesn't have to fiddle with too many parts of a smooth-running engine to make it
misfire badly and make one feel like junking the whole thing.
If so, as per my (5a) above, which parts are the 80% and which are the 20%?
Best to all, Bill