So, what would you do if Danny Casolaro asked for your help?

[Percival]

I want to recommend that all those who are interested in this unfolding drama go back to the beginning of this thread and review everything that has happened here.

Whatever the ultimate outcome of this story, looking at all of what happened here is bound to be quite educational...

I just re read it all and it basically amounts to a pissing match between VM and desertfae.

The irony.

[American Dream]

That's one possible reading of what happened.

All should become clearer with time.

[chiggerbit]

You know, c2w, I got to thinking about what you said about Virginia M (sorry, not even going to try the last name, but I know how my mom would pronounce it, in the back of her throat). Anyway, what it got me to thinking is that it's too bad there isn't more personal information provided on Nick Bryant, to kind of assess whether there might be any borderline conflicts of interest, that kind of thing.. Jeff locked that thread so I can't post there.


Here's what I did find:

http://www.nutrimedical.com/news.jhtml? ... s.cat_id=1

09/08/09 - NUTRIMEDICAL REPORT SHOW --TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8TH 2009 -- HOUR ONE TOP NEWS -- -- NICK BRYANT -- TRINEDAY PUBLISHING -- THE FRANKLIN SCANDAL -- NEW RELEASE WHISTLEBLOWER BOOK -- CORRUPTION IN STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND JUDICIARY WITH NATIONAL PEDOPHILE RING ! -- -- HOUR TWO SPECIAL -- -- WAVE SHIELD -- SHELLY KALNITSKY -- PROTECT YOUR HEARING, BRAIN, MIND AND FUTURE MENTAL HEALTH WITH ELF CELL PHONE SCALAR POLLUTION ...--- -- HOUR TWO SPECIAL -- MASTERS WHERRAN -- HOODIA 2000 TR -- SUPER ACAI 12000 -- DETOX PATCH 4000 -- XTREME TESTRONE -- COLONLEAN Detox Patch 4000 Night Whole Body Detoxification !-- OmegaSupreme top Omega 3 Fatty Acid MEDICAL GRADE -- Xtreme Testrone Boosts Testosterone Production for Male Menopause or Athletic Performance Muscle Enhancement ! -- -- HOUR TWO DETOX WELLNESS ANTIAGING ENERGY SPECIAL -- NUTRIDINE -- UNIVERSAL ANTIPATHOGENIC HALIDE DETOX -- MIND AND IMMUNE BOOSTER -- ORDER NUTRIDINE TODAY ! 888-212-8871 OR SECURELY ONLINE ! -- -- HOUR THREE SPECCIAL -- TIM ALEXANDER -- DAILY BLOG -- THE MARCH TO WWIII !! -- --- SUPPORT OUR MISSION...BUY OUR NUTRACEUTICALS...GIVING THIS SHOW TO YOU COSTS 5 FIGURES IN COSTS TO BE ON AIR -- YOUR SUPPORT AND PRAYERS ARE APPRECIATED -- WE MUST HAVE YOUR SUPPORT TODAY TO STAY ON AIR ! --- ORDER ONLINE SECURELY OR 888-212-8871 !!


09/15/09 - NUTRIMEDICAL REPORT SHOW -- TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15TH 2009 -- HOUR ONE SPECIAL -- BOB CHAPMAN - FINANCIAL ANALYSIS -- THEINTERNATIONALFORECASTER.COM OR CALL FOR NEWSLETTER 877-479-8178 -- TED ANDERSON MIDASRESOURCES.COM -- BUY GOLD AND SILVER TODAY -- 800-686-2237 NOW !! -- -- HOUR TWO SPECIAL -- PURE WATER SYSTEMS 100 % PURE FLUORIDE TOXIN FREE DRINKING WATER TO DETOXIFY AND BRING CELLULAR HYDRATION AND ENERGETICS TO YOUR MAX ! -- BEV WATER 'THE WATERS OF LIFE' DR BILL'S WATER AND IT SHOULD BE YOURS ! -- HOUR TWO DETOX WELLNESS ANTIAGING ENERGY SPECIAL -- NUTRIDINE -- UNIVERSAL ANTIPATHOGENIC HALIDE DETOX -- MIND AND IMMUNE BOOSTER -- ORDER NUTRIDINE TODAY ! 888-212-8871 OR SECURELY ONLINE ! -- HOUR TWO SPECIALS -- -- INDIUMEASE -- GENE ACTIVATION SUPER WELLNESS ANTIAGING -- JOE M. -- HOUR THREE SPECIAL -- LYNDON LaROUCHE -- EIR EXECUTIVE INTELLIGENCE REVIEW -- HARLEY SCHLANGER -- Newsweek Features "The Case for Killing Granny" -- "Listen To My Words," Says The Man With Nothing To Say -- The British Monarchy Caught in a Death Scheme -- City of London-Linked Bankers Move to Perpetrate Another Gigantic Fraud -- Banking Bailout Concentrates Control of Credit in Bankrupt Banks --- SUPPORT OUR MISSION...BUY OUR NUTRACEUTICALS...GIVING THIS SHOW TO YOU COSTS 5 FIGURES IN COSTS TO BE ON AIR -- YOUR SUPPORT AND PRAYERS ARE APPRECIATED -- WE MUST HAVE YOUR SUPPORT TODAY TO STAY ON AIR ! --- ORDER ONLINE SECURELY OR 888-212-8871 !!

[Percival]

We have VM saying desertfae is an ARG actress but if she is then she is pretty damned good since she has the cops and print and newsmedia doing her gaming for her. So I find it somewhat irresponsible of VM to say that without proof.

On the other hand we have desertfae working with TG and MR, which is inexcusable IMO. Nobody in their right mind, especially those who have done some research, would put their case and reputation in to the hands of TG and MR.

So, as far as I am concerned both parties cannot be trusted at this point, HOWEVER, VM has done many years of very important work and I cannot overlook that.

To top it all off it seems that LaRouch is in the middle of all of it.


Fuck.

[American Dream]

Desertfae was in a couple of regional newspapers regarding the arrest and I guess a regional TV station or two also but this story just broke national yeasterday, after Riverside County finally put out it's press release.

In all the big news releases of yesterday and today (led by AP?), Rachel is missing, as is most all of the relevant conspiracy-related information.

Nothing to see here! Move on! Move on!

[Percival]

Desertfae was in a couple of regional newspapers regarding the arrest and I guess a regional TV station or two also but this story just broke national yeasterday, after Riverside County finally put out it's press release.

In all the big news releases of yesterday and today (led by AP?), Rachel is missing, as is most all of the relevant conspiracy-related information.

Nothing to see here! Move on! Move on!

Yea thats a good point, lets see if she can get some national news then we will know it isnt an ARG, however I still think if it were an ARG she probably wouldnt be mentioned by detectives or the local print media as she has been. But who knows. I dont have any problem believing she is who she says she is and I never questioned that in this entire thread, what I did call in to question is her relationship with TG and MR, both who I believe to be up to no good no matter what it is they have their hands in. They are likely leading her away from anything of note and down the rabbit hole.

[American Dream]

Yes- these are my biggest concerns: Ted Gunderson, Michael Riconosciuto.

These people are serious bad news and she doesn't seem to get it.

At all.

[Percival]

Yes- these are my biggest concerns: Ted Gunderson, Michael Riconosciuto.

These people are serious bad news and she doesn't seem to get it.

At all.

Yeap thats the concern I have and seemingly the main concern VM has also (further lending to her credibility) which I wish she would just say instead of calling desertfae an ARG actress because then she would at least be sticking to the facts and wouldnt appear to simply be making with desertfae personal.

[Percival]

We need to dig around and see if we can find any connections between LaRouche and Gunderson. We already have LaRouch tied to Riconosciuto through Casolaro's introduction to him by Steinberg, a close LaRcouch associate, now we need to see what the relationship between LaRouche and Gunderson may be. Have they worked together, endorsed eachother or anything like that?

Such a connection would certainly go a long way to further justify our concerns about this whole Octopus ordeal. I do think there is something to the Octopus, but as Jeff pointed out earlier, what we are being told as the official Octopus story is beginning to look more and more like controlled opposition/diversion wild goose chase to get us looking in one direction while the truth is in another.


Where is the Chiggerbitten one?

[compared2what?]

You know, c2w, I got to thinking about what you said about Virginia M (sorry, not even going to try the last name, but I know how my mom would pronounce it, in the back of her throat). Anyway, what it got me to thinking is that it's too bad there isn't more personal information provided on Nick Bryant, to kind of assess whether there might be any borderline conflicts of interest, that kind of thing.. Jeff locked that thread so I can't post there.

Nick Bryant does readers the customary favor of stating his credentials, qualifications and experience in the usual place and traditional format, so that they have someplace to start looking if they want to know more about how reliable his word is. I don't think writers are required to disclose any more personal information than they fell like sharing. Unless they have a personal conflict of interest or something.

For example, rule #1: Don't have intimate relationships with your subjects or sources unless you want to have to have parentheticals in ever story reading "(Full disclosure: Between October and December of 2003, Jack D. Subject and this writer lived together in a cozy cottage by the seaside in a state of romantic bliss that lasted three days before turning to increasingly bitter reprisals about one another's sexual inadequacies and failure to put the bar of soap back in the soap dish after using it. However, all of the material quoted in this story comes from two lengthy interviews conducted in late August and mid-September of that year, and we have neither spoken nor acknowledged each other's existence at any point during the writing process. So my belief that he's a total asshole is in no way influenced by our brief and hellish involvement from which I still haven't recovered up unto this very moment, which happens to be exactly eleven months, three weeks and four days since I first had the misfortune to lay eyes on that abusive cretin, but who's counting?)"

Actually, rule #1 is: Neither accept money and other financial/professional favors and benefits from your sources and subjects, nor offer them to your sources and subjects. Buying them dinner is probably okay as long as you expense it, though.

Also, seriously. There are common-sense guidelines wrt what kind of thing readers and reporters ought to be wary about just taking on faith. I mean, doing a real background check on someone is a very, very time-and-labor intensive undertaking. So it's not like I'm suggesting that when someone says he was born in Newark, New Jersey, you have to go hunt down all the people who lived on the same block as his or parents at the time of his or her birth in order to make sure he's not lying to you about some intrigue that happened at Cape Canaveral 42 years later, or whatever.

It's very anomalous that VM has a blank space where the "about the author" info should be. There are an infinite number of possible explanations for that anomaly, many of which might be totally benign. Until the unprofessional and manipulative email, I really didn't have any much of a brief either for or against her. It was more like in my estimation, there were enough question marks around her to....Well, as I said: To merit caution. I don't have any unconquerable doubts about her now, for that matter. That email did not reflect well on her. At all. But that doesn't mean she should be branded by it for life. If her future work is good, it's good. I'm pretty much status quo wrt her, really. There are enough question marks around her work to merit caution. None of her custom-addressed to RI comments so far have been anything other than inappropriate at best, imo. That last one was and one other had some stuff in them for which there's really not much excuse, in professional terms. But maybe she's just kind of unpleasantly eccentric, or maybe she knows something I don't, or maybe she's entitled to her standards and I to mine. And actually, that last one's not a "maybe." She is. And I am. By my standards, she's less vigilant about remembering not to appear ethically compromised than she ought to be. But those are my standards, and neither she nor anyone else has to answer to or respect them. I say: Caution is merited. Others may disregard that or regard it, as they wish.

[Percival]

You know, c2w, I got to thinking about what you said about Virginia M (sorry, not even going to try the last name, but I know how my mom would pronounce it, in the back of her throat). Anyway, what it got me to thinking is that it's too bad there isn't more personal information provided on Nick Bryant, to kind of assess whether there might be any borderline conflicts of interest, that kind of thing.. Jeff locked that thread so I can't post there.

Nick Bryant does readers the customary favor of stating his credentials, qualifications and experience in the usual place and traditional format, so that they have someplace to start looking if they want to know more about how reliable his word is. I don't think writers are required to disclose any more personal information than they fell like sharing. Unless they have a personal conflict of interest or something.

For example, rule #1: Don't have intimate relationships with your subjects or sources unless you want to have to have parentheticals in ever story reading "(Full disclosure: Between October and December of 2003, Jack D. Subject and this writer lived together in a cozy cottage by the seaside in a state of romantic bliss that lasted three days before turning to increasingly bitter reprisals about one another's sexual inadequacies and failure to put the bar of soap back in the soap dish after using it. However, all of the material quoted in this story comes from two lengthy interviews conducted in late August and mid-September of that year, and we have neither spoken nor acknowledged each other's existence at any point during the writing process. So my belief that he's a total asshole is in no way influenced by our brief and hellish involvement from which I still haven't recovered up unto this very moment, which happens to be exactly eleven months, three weeks and four days since I first had the misfortune to lay eyes on that abusive cretin, but who's counting?)"

Actually, rule #1 is: Neither accept money and other financial/professional favors and benefits from your sources and subjects, nor offer them to your sources and subjects. Buying them dinner is probably okay as long as you expense it, though.

Also, seriously. There are common-sense guidelines wrt what kind of thing readers and reporters ought to be wary about just taking on faith. I mean, doing a real background check on someone is a very, very time-and-labor intensive undertaking. So it's not like I'm suggesting that when someone says he was born in Newark, New Jersey, you have to go hunt down all the people who lived on the same block as his or parents at the time of his or her birth in order to make sure he's not lying to you about some intrigue that happened at Cape Canaveral 42 years later, or whatever.

It's very anomalous that VM has a blank space where the "about the author" info should be. There are an infinite number of possible explanations for that anomaly, many of which might be totally benign. Until the unprofessional and manipulative email, I really didn't have any much of a brief either for or against her. It was more like in my estimation, there were enough question marks around her to....Well, as I said: To merit caution. I don't have any unconquerable doubts about her now, for that matter. That email did not reflect well on her. At all. But that doesn't mean she should be branded by it for life. If her future work is good, it's good. I'm pretty much status quo wrt her, really. There are enough question marks around her work to merit caution. None of her custom-addressed to RI comments so far have been anything other than inappropriate at best, imo. That last one was and one other had some stuff in them for which there's really not much excuse, in professional terms. But maybe she's just kind of unpleasantly eccentric, or maybe she knows something I don't, or maybe she's entitled to her standards and I to mine. And actually, that last one's not a "maybe." She is. And I am. By my standards, she's less vigilant about remembering not to appear ethically compromised than she ought to be. But those are my standards, and neither she nor anyone else has to answer to or respect them. I say: Caution is merited. Others may disregard that or regard it, as they wish.

Tell Gunderson about your example number 1, seems he always ends up romantically involved with the vulnerable women he is supposed to be helping, often leaving them tens of thousands of dollars in debt when he is done with them.



All excellent points basically summed up in one easy word: professionalism.

[chiggerbit]

We have VM saying desertfae is an ARG actress but if she is then she is pretty damned good since she has the cops and print and newsmedia doing her gaming for her. So I find it somewhat irresponsible of VM to say that without proof.

Well, I've become so cynical that I don't know that we can assume anything about desertfae.. For instance, how do we know that desertfae isn't the figment of some cop's imagination? A very useful figment?

[OP ED]

(cause she has youtube videos?)

[god you people are mean]

[Percival]

We have VM saying desertfae is an ARG actress but if she is then she is pretty damned good since she has the cops and print and newsmedia doing her gaming for her. So I find it somewhat irresponsible of VM to say that without proof.

Well, I've become so cynical that I don't know that we can assume anything about desertfae.. For instance, how do we know that desertfae isn't the figment of some cop's imagination? A very useful figment?

Well I think we should tread lightly in any case, youre right, we really dont know.

[compared2what?]

I see no reason to doubt her authenticity, unless I'm really missing something. I didn't respond to this thread because it was non-issue for me, in that helping her would have been a practical impossibility for various boring reasons, and didn't have a serious reason to form an opinion one way or the other therefore. In any event, my truly from-the-heart response to the question posed by the thread title always has been and still is: "I'd tell him he shouldn't be asking for help from strangers." I hope that doesn't sound cold. I certainly don't mean it in a cold way at all. And I assume that Rachel had some personal safety protocols, or at least I hope she did. But since I also have mine, and wasn't in a position to help her, it seemed to me that asking her to meet my criteria just for the purposes of my own entertainment would be cruel. (I mean, in the event that she turned out to be on the real.) But I only ever kept an eye on this thread to see if there were any signs of mind-game-playing of a potentially insanity-provoking kind. And there never were. I mean, she never tried to elicit the kind of personal information hucksters do. She didn't do any power-tripping. And now her identity is being confirmed by media who get their news tips from state sources. Which I admit is not a proof of veracity under all circumstances. But there's a criminal case going on here. And once you're at that point, you don't suddenly start introducing ringers you've brought in to impersonate the children of murder victims to the press. Because the defense could really have a field day with that in court. I mean, come on, RigInters. I'd say that a little more Rig and a little less Int is called for here. There was a reason to be cautious about her identity back when. And it wasn't unreasonable for anyone who doubted it to do so. I'm not ashamed to say that I considered it an open question. I did. I just didn't try to answer it, there being no way for me to do that without being personally invasive to a stranger for no reason at all. Which I try not to do, on a Do-Unto-Others basis.

But as far as I can see, apart from a reluctance to let go of prior doubts, there's no real reason for continued doubt at the moment. And those prior doubts are nothing to be ashamed of, per se. It was a situation in which such questions were, as I just said, reasonable. And now it's not. Unless I'm really missing something. Am I?

Chig, I've been looking into Nick Bryant for you. More in a bit, okay?

ON EDIT: Just to clarify: I don't know her or anything about her. I also don't know what forces led to the reopening of the investigation, or anything about the investigators. Any or all players might or might not be as pure as angels, or as crazy as loons, or as innocent as newborns, or as wise as owls, or as corrupt as the criminal justice system. That last one being not a simile, but rather almost a sure bet on at least some level of reality wrt to at least some of the people involved, in at least some minor way. That's just show business, and it might or might not be meaningful. I'm not in a position to say.

The only thing that I am in a position to say is that based on the small amount of presently available credible information, I think it's reasonable to assume that she is who she says she is. So that's what I'm saying. I mean, what is the worst case scenario there? If, by some unforeseeable and bizarre twist of fate, it later turns out to have been an unreasonable assumption, I'll adjust my views accordingly then. And I don't really see why my credibility or ego or faith in myself would be affected one way or the other by that. I mean, how am I supposed to know? I have an opinion based on credible information. That's the best anybody can be expected to have, absent exceptional circumstances or higher than usual expectations or both. Right?