Bob Dean is a liar

page: 3
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by coastlinekid
 




when it comes to this subject maybe he was fed disinfo along the way... It is up to us to sift thru and not dismiss his whole story...imo...

It would seem to me that sifting would be his job. You know, before he starts spreading it around? That is, if he isn't just making it up himself.
edit on 10/12/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


This subject has a microscope on it 24/7...
This guy was old school...
His sifter may have gotten clogged occasionally...

I feel there may be kernels of truth with this guy... imo





posted on Oct, 13 2013 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


So he joins the Korean war. His entire company and commander was KIA. He assumes that role. Works and finishes out his 6 years and was ranked higher to First LT during that time. Then there is a RIF (Reduction In Force) and he was not allowed to keep his commission rank and was reduced to SFC Then he re-enlisted & worked up the chain again to CSM. I don't see what the big deal is.



posted on Oct, 13 2013 @ 04:11 AM
link   
That doesn't surprise me. Some of these so called experts are nothing more than attention whores. I saw an interview with John Lear where he claimed that his life had never been threatened. Then in an interview with Project Camelot claimed that yes indeed his life had been threatened as well as that of his whole family. It's easy to get confused when you lie.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 05:18 PM
link   

sean
reply to post by schuyler
 


So he joins the Korean war. His entire company and commander was KIA. He assumes that role. Works and finishes out his 6 years and was ranked higher to First LT during that time. Then there is a RIF (Reduction In Force) and he was not allowed to keep his commission rank and was reduced to SFC Then he re-enlisted & worked up the chain again to CSM. I don't see what the big deal is.


The deal is whether it really happened. For an officer to "lose his commission" is rather unusual. You either have it or you don't. For someone to agree to such a move is even more unusual. Or do you think we simply ought to accept what anyone says at face value? I'm not saying it did not happen. But it would be nice finding a source other than Dean himself to prove it did happen, and right our "proof" is what Dean has said. There is no corroborating evidence. The "research" consists of someone here quoting from a book where the author sat down with Dean at dinner at his house where he had been several times and interviewed him.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 05:26 PM
link   
And we have an answer from the National Archives. I sent them their standard form and outlines Dean's service branch, time, and full name. I (of course) could not supply his social security number. Their answer follows:


We have been unsuccessful in identifying a military service record for the above-named individual. This does not mean the subject did not have military service, only that we were unable to identify a record based on the limited information you have provided. To locate a service record, we must have the veteran's complete name, service number (if applicable), social security number, branch of service, and approximate dates of service.


Full Name: DEAN, Robert Orvel -- Check
Service number: unknown, these days it is the ss#
Social security number: unknown
Branch of service: Army -- Check
Approximate dates of service: -- Check, including year of retirement

So basically the National Archives is saying their database does not have a last name index. Or perhaps there were so many Robert Orvel Deans serving during this time period that are unable to distinguish one from another.

Result: Inconclusive.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 10:12 PM
link   

schuyler

The deal is whether it really happened. For an officer to "lose his commission" is rather unusual. You either have it or you don't. For someone to agree to such a move is even more unusual. Or do you think we simply ought to accept what anyone says at face value? I'm not saying it did not happen. But it would be nice finding a source other than Dean himself to prove it did happen, and right our "proof" is what Dean has said. There is no corroborating evidence. The "research" consists of someone here quoting from a book where the author sat down with Dean at dinner at his house where he had been several times and interviewed him.


Search out the 'stolen valor' websites to see the easy instructions to write to the military records archives for basic military service records. All you need is the guy's name and date of birth -- service number would be better, if available. I've done it a number of times for credentials-falsifiers like Hoagland's 'NASA source' Ken Johnston, it takes several weeks to get an answer.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   

FlyingTeacup
In this interview he claims that he was a Lieutenant in the U.S. Army. Not once but three times. At 11:09, 12:43 and 13:18 he says he was a Lieutenant in Korea.



This is an early video, it's one of the first Camelot videos that interviews Bob Dean, it was made before Project Camelot turned Bob Dean into the "super star" that he has become and that he brags about. So he probably thought that this was a one off event and that nobody would watch this and that nobody would notice.

It's pretty well established (by Bob Dean) that Bob Dean held the rank of Command Sergeant Major which Bob Dean or his interviewers laborously remind the public.

This first interview he claims that he was an officer, a Lieutenant. Why lie about your rank in the military like that? Clearly Bob Dean is a liar and a fraud.

Here is Bill Ryan, Steve Bassett and everybody making a big deal that Bob Dean is a Command Sergeant Major. At 5:37







I thought that was his claimed position after when he joined the UN, Command Sargent Major.

He claimed he was a lieutenant in the US army and Command Sargent Major in the UN, if memory serves me well.

Haven't heard or seen of any this geezers crap for a while now so I could be wrong.

Project Camelot is a way to fry your brain without any substance abuse,



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Dean seems a victim of the slippery slope ... and the usual human foibles. Once the patina of normalcy is pierced and the possibility of "alien intelligence" hanging around our spherical petri dish is processed, crazy can follow.

Semi- star status on the c list of ufology celebrity presents a nearly infinite opportunity for a whole lot of regrettable statements and a false sense of importance for an average idiot.

He did probably see a document about aliens once, though. Even pompous, self important cranks can see the occasional secret document.. and he's just a schlub trying to figure it out like everyone else... pony tail and all.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   

JimOberg

schuyler

The deal is whether it really happened. For an officer to "lose his commission" is rather unusual. You either have it or you don't. For someone to agree to such a move is even more unusual. Or do you think we simply ought to accept what anyone says at face value? I'm not saying it did not happen. But it would be nice finding a source other than Dean himself to prove it did happen, and right our "proof" is what Dean has said. There is no corroborating evidence. The "research" consists of someone here quoting from a book where the author sat down with Dean at dinner at his house where he had been several times and interviewed him.


Search out the 'stolen valor' websites to see the easy instructions to write to the military records archives for basic military service records. All you need is the guy's name and date of birth -- service number would be better, if available. I've done it a number of times for credentials-falsifiers like Hoagland's 'NASA source' Ken Johnston, it takes several weeks to get an answer.


What do you think I just did, Jim? Precisely that. I got a letter from the National Archives. If you guys want me to scan it and post it, I'll do that.


InhaleExhale
I thought that was his claimed position after when he joined the UN, Command Sargent Major.

He claimed he was a lieutenant in the US army and Command Sargent Major in the UN, if memory serves me well.


No. As has been stated several times previously in this thread, Dean claims to have been a Lieutenant and then, due to a reduction in forces and his lack of a college degree, was offered enlisted status, where he stayed for many years and rose to E-9, Sergeant Major. "Command" Sergeant Major is a position much like the "Chief of the Boat" in the Navy, who is still a Master chief (E-9), but represents all enlisted men to the commanding officer. There are many "Command Sergeant Majors" in the Army, and only the "Sergeant Major of the Army," a single enlisted position, outranks them.

There is no such thing as a "UN Command Sergeant Major" Furthermore, there has never been a dispute that Dean was one. The point of confusion that started this thread was the claim that Dean was a lieutenant BEFORE he was a sergeant. Since that is unusual, the OP claims Dean is a liar. Other people claim he is not, but their source for that claim is Dean himself.

After all the rhetoric died down ("Dean is a liar!" "No, he isn't!") we have simply tried to find independent corroboration that this unusual set of events happened. We already know Dean says it happened. Pointing out that Dean says it happened doesn't do us much good, so I attempted to contact the National Archives, which even has a form expressly for this purpose. It took them little more than a week to reply, which is kind of surprising for a bureaucracy that large, but there we have it.

They have been unable to locate Dean's record(s) of service, ostensibly because I did not provide sufficient information such as a social security number and "service number," which during Dean's tenure was different than the social security number.

Now, this whole situation shows up a conflict between "freedom of information" and "privacy." It's unlikely I could get Dean's social security number and if I did, that would be a clear violation of his privacy. So unless he volunteers it, or someone snoops around, it's not going to happen. Now the National Archives is claiming they can't find it BECAUSE I did not provide the relevant numbers.

To believe this you have to believe that the database that holds this information does not have a "name index." I've worked around large databases my entire career (in library card registration systems) and the first thing you do is construct a name index and a library card number index. These are no-brainers. No one knows his library card number, so when they show up and say, "I forgot my card." you have to look them up--by name. In every system I have seen the name is a "field" and any field can be indexed. It is simply inconceivable that a system would be developed that did not include a name index.

But that begs the question. is there one? I also do not know the state of the National Archives, which has records that go back prior to WW II. Obviously, computers didn't exist back then. The records were manual. If they have done no retrospective conversions of the data, they may still be manual, filed by service number, and this accounts for their inability to find the records.

My own suspicion here is that the National Archives consider these FOIA requests a nuisance, and they simply don't try very hard. They are required by law to try, but they are not required to be successful. If they type in "Dean, Robert Orvel" and it comes back with "0 hits" they just stop right there. Ten seconds tops, push a button for an automatic form letter. Done. Nobody actually gets up and spends 10-15 minutes to search the archives. It's a daily task to answer these things as fast as you can and move along to more important things. If the DoD or the FBI asked the same question, they'd do what is necessary to find the records, but for someone like me, whose reason for asking was listed as "historical research," it's simply not important enough for them to exert much effort.

Hence the conclusion: Inconclusive.

At least I tried to get the data instead of just argue an opinion.

edit on 11/3/2013 by schuyler because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join