|
Signs
of The Times |
| SITE MAP |
SOTT Daily
News and Commentary |
The
Signs Quick Guide |
Note
to New Readers |
Archives |
Search |
Message
Board |
| BOOKS |
|

Discover
the Secret History of the World - and how to get out alive!
|
|
Studies
in Psychopathy |
| The
Psychopath: The Mask of Sanity Special Research by
Quantum Future School |
| Discussion
of Psychopathy Traits
From The Mask of Sanity by Hervey Cleckley |
| A
Basic Hypothesis of Psychopathy From
The Mask of Sanity by Hervey Cleckley |
| Official
Culture - A Natural State of Psychopathy? by Laura
Knight-Jadczyk |
| The
Inner Landscape of the Psychopath
- Hervey Cleckley |
| "Stanley,"
a chapter from Hervey M. Cleckley's classic study of psychopaths,
The Mask of Sanity |
| How
Psychopaths View Their World |
| Retreat
from Zaca - (3 files) |
|
Dr.
Strange, New Age Grifter or COINTELPRO? |
|
"Dr.
Strange" - Psychotherapist or Hacker and Thief? |
|
Is
Truth Defamatory? |
| Maynerd
Most's Rebuttal |
| "I
am the webmaster for Zecharia Sitchin..." |
| The
Psychopath As Physician The Mask of Sanity -
Hervey Cleckley - Excerpts |
| Adventures
with Cassiopaea by Laura Knight-Jadczyk |
| Ark
and Laura's Correspondence 1997 (8 files) Supplement
to Adventures |
| Reader's
Comments on Adventures With Cassiopaea |
| Mirror,
Mirror On The Wall - Quantum Future School |
| Alvin
Wiley's Letter |
| Alvin
Wiley's subsequent letters to the public |
|
the
"Alvin Wiley" correspondence (10 files)
|
| Letters
from Readers About Jay Weidner |
| Dear
Webmaster: - (2 files) |
| What
is Laura Hiding? The Cassiopaeans Answer |
|
Reader's
Comments on "Is Laura Hiding Something?" |
| Transcript
of direct channeling via "Frank Scott" on
computer, July 22, 1994 |
| Statement
by Terry and Jan Rodemerk |
| Maynerd
Most's post to the Cassiopaea Guestbook |
| Death
Threat? |
| Organic
Portals: The Other Race Quantum Future School (2 files) |
| Montalk.net
Disclaimer |
| Vincent
Bridges, Jay Weidner: Magickal Mystery Tour Scam |
| Is
Cassiopaea a Cult? |
| The
French Connection by Laura Knight-Jadczyk Censored!
|
| Mask
of Sanity by Hervey Cleckley PDF - book download FREE! |
| |
| Kubrick's
Psychopaths Society and Human Nature in the Films of Stanley Kubrick |
| |
| The
common problem with psychopaths... “Is they don’t see a problem with their
behavior.” |
| Psychopath
Support Group |
| |
| “Non-victims
can’t understand this, but the psychopath really does suck the life out
of a caring person. I try to think of them now as a slimy suckerfish right
out of the swamp, vacuum-lips out and prowling for someone vibrant and
attractive to con and eviscerate.” |
| |
|
If you
are a good person you will
meet many evil people in your life, you need to recognize them and
their actions. More importantly you need to recognize which evil behaviors
you have been conned into accepting as reasonable and to reject those
behaviors - both in yourself and in others - as unacceptable.
The English
language has a variety of terms for psychopaths, of which "bastard"
is perhaps the most polite. They
have always been with us, and despite their corrosiveness and rejection
of social mores, they show no signs of going away. |
| |
| Think
you can spot one? Think again. In general, psychopaths aren’t the product
of broken homes or the casualties of a materialistic society. Rather they
come from all walks of life and there is little evidence that their upbringing
affects them. |
| |
| Most
of the two million psychopaths in North America aren’t murderers. They’re
our friends, lovers and co-workers. They’re outgoing and persuasive,
dazzling you with charm and flattery. Often you aren’t even aware they’ve
taken you for a ride – until it’s too late. |
| |
| The
problem of plausible
lies is the most serious problem facing humanity today....Most good
people are only aware of the least intelligent part of the evil distribution;
those are the people who are obviously evil: criminals. The
normal and intelligent ends of the evil distribution totally escape
most good people's understanding. |
| |
|
Only
as of late, with all the Enron scandals and related crimes, people are
waking up to the fact that the most dangerous psychopath of all is the
educated, socially adept psychopath, in fact, Dr. Hare recently said
that he would probably be able to find many psychopaths involved in
the stockmarket. It is time for American to "wake up" says Dr. Wolman,
because we are being threatened by a serious epidemic of psychopathy.
The
Psychopathic or Sociopathic Personality
Based
on twenty-five years of groundbreaking research, WITHOUT
CONSCIENCE is a fascinating journey into the minds of these dangerous
individuals. Are they born unable to feel empathy, or are they created
by circumstance? How and why do they get away with cheating, conning,
and murdering? Are they mad or simply bad? In what Dr. Hare calls our
"camouflage society," how can we recognize and steer clear of these
predatory people?
WITHOUT
CONSCIENCE explores their shocking patterns- and exposes one
of the most frightening, often-hidden social problems affecting our
lives today. |
| |
|
The
Psychopath is much more successful than you and I because he is not
hemmed in by all sorts of impediments or worries.
A
discussion with Adolf Guggenbuhl-Craig & James Hillman |
| |
| “We
fall prey to the seduction, it is irresistible. Then the nightmare of
horror begins. The shabby treatment, the avoidance. I couldn’t believe
it was happening to me. He had been so sincere, so kind. It was Jekyl
and Hyde.” |
| |
| “They
go for the strongest and the best, but preferably those who are something
of rebels within the group...the LEAST controllable. Because if they can
crush them, they crush most of the rest at the same time. If they start
at the bottom, with the weakest, it’s a long way to work their way up…The
ideal target is therefore, strong, smart, rebellious and vulnerable
through previous abuse.” |
| |
| “A
favored technique is to debilitate your identity [personally, I hate the
term self-esteem] by levelling false accusations and/or questioning your
honesty, fidelity, trustworthiness, your “true” motivations, your “real”
character, your sanity and judgement.” |
| |
| “They
are absolutely the world’s best manipulators, liars, and fabricators of
truth. They do so convincingly because they believe their own lies. After
all their life is nothing but a lie, a sham, how can we possibly assume
they know anything different.” |
| |
| “Others
around me would get so tired of the whole thing and insinuate that I was
perpetuating things. All I wanted was for him to leave me alone. Part
of the hurt and damage was done because others could but would not see
what was actually happening. He would always try to ingratiate himself
to others it was sickening. Usually psychopaths put on the nicest act,
and you look like the harpy and bitch, and so everyone takes their side,
it is a horror story, a psychopath can be very charming, and manipulative
and manipulate the smartest of people.” |
| |
| “My
biggest frustration and source of anger, is at those who have refused
to take a stand when they see the abuse . No matter how outrageous his
behavior others often stood by and inadvertently fuelled his grandiosity
and denial... although denial is too mild a word for it. |
| |
| “If
a psychopath throws the “bad childhood” stuff at you, keep in mind he
might be trying to get sympathy and make an excuse for his atrocious behavior
towards you and/or others. If we let these people make us feel sorry for
them, we ultimately end up in the submissive position again...just what
they want. I can “pity” them yes...but I refuse to shed another tear over
the tragedies suffered by who is now, only a shell of a person.” |
| |
|
Regarding
a psychopath: Considering a longitudinal section of his life ...it is
hard to avoid the conclusion that here is the product of true madness
- of madness in a sense quite as real as that conveyed to the imaginative
layman by the terrible word lunatic.
With
the further consideration that all this skein of apparent madness has
been woven by a person of (technically) unimpaired and superior intellectual
powers and universally regarded as sane, the surmise intrudes that we
are confronted by a serious and unusual type of genuine abnormality.
Not merely a surmise but a strong conviction may arise that this apparent
sanity is, in some important respects, a sanity in name only. We find
instead a spectacle that suggests madness in excelsis, despite the absence
of all those symptoms that enable us, in some degree, to account for
irrational conduct in the psychotic.
Only
very slowly and by a complex estimation or judgment based on multitudinous
small impressions does the conviction come upon us that, despite these
intact rational processes, these normal emotional affirmations, and
their consistent application in all directions, we are dealing here
not with a complete man at all but with something that suggests a subtly
constructed reflex machine which can mimic the human personality perfectly.
So
perfect is this reproduction of a whole and normal man that no one who
examines him in a clinical setting can point out in scientific or objective
terms why, or how, he is not real. And yet we eventually come to know
or feel we know that reality, in the sense of full, healthy experiencing
of life, is not here.
|
| |
| “Leaving
is hard because of all that goes along with the going. It is not just
the person you have to give up but your hopes and dreams and fantasies.
It only happened for me in increments and I cried UNCLE often thinking
if I gave it one more go I’d break through. It wasn’t until I really knew
that no matter what I said or did or didn’t do this person could never
love me or anyone.” |
| |
| “The
fantasy was exactly that, a FANTASY, that he created for himself, and
presented to me as reality. My head said the fantasy wasn’t valid. I kept
reminding myself: if the fantasy was real, I wouldn’t be treated like
dirt, and feel like shit!” |
| |
| “I
have finally come to the conclusion that they cannot change, so all we
can do is to refuse to participate in their sick drama and leave the stage.” |
| |
|
Cleckley:
[T]he familiar tendency to disintegrate, against which life evolves,
may be regarded as fundamental and comparable to gravity. The climbing
man or animal must use force and purpose to ascend or to maintain himself
at a given height. [...] Whether regression occurs primarily through
something like gravity or through impulses more self-contained, the
backward movement (or ebbing) is likely to prompt many sorts of secondary
reactions, including behavior not adapted for ordinary human purposes
but instead, for functioning in the other direction. The modes of
such reactivity may vary, may fall into complex patterns, and may seek
elaborate expression. [...] People with all the outer mechanisms of
adaptation intact might, one would think, regress more complexly. [...]
In a movement (or gravitational drift) from levels where life is vigorous
and full to those where it is less so, the tactics of withdrawal predominate.
[...] The psychopath as we conceive of him in such an interpretation
seems to justify the high estimate of his technical abilities as we
see them expressed in reverse movement.
Organic
Portals: The Answer to Psychopathy? |
| |
| "Alien
reaction machines" in human form describes individuals with Anti-Social
Personality Disorder (APD), Sociopaths, and Psychopaths. |
| |
| The
material presented in the linked articles does not necessarily reflect
the views or opinions of the editors. Research on your own and if you
can validate any of the articles, or if you discover deception and/or
an obvious agenda, we will appreciate if you drop us a line! We often
post such comments along with the article synopses for the benefit of
other readers. As always, Caveat Lector! |
| |
| |
|
|
From:
http://www.crystalinks.com/sitchen.html
Mr.
Sitchin and I lectured together at NYU in 1993. He does discuss
the return of the planet Nibiru and its inhabitants at this time.
|
|
In
order to fully understand this sequence of emails, the reader
may wish to read the article on Planet X.
To:
ark_at_cassiopaea
From: erik@sitchin.com
Subject: Bad Quote
Hello,
I
am the webmaster for Zecharia Sitchin. I am writing to tell you
that your opening statement that you attribute to Zecharia is
incorrect.
The
statment I am referring to is the one that says I prophecize the
return of Nibiru at this time. This is not a correct quote.
I
found the lady who originated this quote on the internet and she
removed it from her site. Another person who also used it has
removed it from his advertising.
I
hope that you will be the third person to remove this quote. I
am attempting to make the internet a respectful and honest place
to discuss ideas. Two important aspects is to #1 quote correctly,
and #2 not to mis-quote.
If
you wish to contatct me please do so by phone or email if you
prefer.
Thank
you,
Erik
Parker
Webmaster for Z. Sitchin
Los Angeles
|
|
Cassiopaea
responded:
Could
you please give the exact web page and the exact quote that you
have in mind?
ark
Date:
Sat, 01 Dec 2001 18:12:32 -0800
From: eparker <erik70@pacbell.net>
Subject: Bad Quote
When
you are quoting Zecharia as saying "I prophesize the return
of Nibiru at this time", this is incorrect. He never made
that statement in the past and that is not what he is saying now.
Mr. Sitchin's comments on the return of Nibiru are very specific
and leave no room for doubt. What he says goes something like
this. He can't determine the returning date with any accuracy
for many astronomical reasons. Such a large orbit as Nibiru may
deviate by as much as 3 - 5 % per revolution, translating into
hundreds of years. Also there is no way to know specifically when
it will be at it closest point to the sun or to Earth or when
it happened in the past. I have seen him answer this way many
times and most recently in Sedona during the first week of November.
Zecharia Sitchin's official comment on the returning date of Nibiru
is that he has no comment on it.
My
own personal calculation shows many hundreds to more than one
thousand years to go.
This
is the web page that has the quote.
http://cassiopaea.org/cass/sitchin.htm
I
hope that I can count on you to change and edit the page.
|
|
Cassiopaea
responded:
>
On 1 Dec 2001 at 18:12, eparker wrote:
>
> > When you are quoting Zecharia as saying "I prophesize
the return of
> > Nibiru at this time", this is incorrect.
>
> Hi, you are not reading carefully. The paragraph says:
>
> "The email forwarded to me said:"
>
> We are NOT quoting Zecharia, we are quoting email about Zecharia.
>
> And we clearly state so. You must have skipped over this
line.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> ark
Date:
Sun, 02 Dec 2001 09:50:58 -0800
From: eparker <erik70@pacbell.net>
Subject: Bad Quote
This
is just as bad. I talked to the woman who initiated this statement
on email and she agreed that she made a mistake.
Are
you going to change the quote or not?
My
intention is to help all the internet to become a source of honest
and truthful discussion. If you quote an email that is incorrect
that does not make the quote more correct. It makes it more incorrect.
Zecharia
never said this statement in the past. Zechaira does not make
this kind of statement in the present.
Why
would you continue to spread an incorrect quote around the internet?
Then the next person will pick up this incorrect quote and claim
well I was copying an email, which was copying an email.
When
will it stop? I will tell you that the first two people I found
using
the incorrect quote have stopped using it. That is my first success
in
getting honesty to prevail on the net.
Are
you going to participate in keeping the internet honest?
|
|
Cassiopaea
responded:
On
1 Dec 2001 at 18:12, eparker wrote:
>
> > When you are quoting Zecharia as saying "I prophesize
the return of
> > Nibiru at this time", this is incorrect.
>
> Hi, you are not reading carefully. The paragraph says:
>
> "The email forwarded to me said:"
>
> We are NOT quoting Zecharia, we are quoting email about Zecharia.
>
> And we clearly state so. You must have skipped over this
line.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> ark
Date:
Sun, 02 Dec 2001 10:19:28 -0800
From: eparker <erik70@pacbell.net>
Subject: Bad Quote Originator
I
would like to track down the original person who sent you the
email. If
you can assist in this I would appreciate it. I want to confirm
or deny if
that was the person I have already talked to.
I
find it very hard to believe that a man claiming to be a doctor
would take a quote from an email without checking it first. And
I mean a thorough investigation. You write a very long article
with the incorrect quote at the top of the page as your eye catching
phrase line. But the premise is incorrect if the quote is incorrect.
Can
you explain this to me, because I can't understand how a doctor
could use hearsay that now you know is incorrect.
I
would greatly appreciate it your explanation so I could understand
how and why you would and could do this. You see for me I would
never use a quote from anybody anywhere where my name was attached,
that I did not check. If my name is on something I want to make
sure that everything is perfect, including misspelled words, grammar
and especially the data gathered for the story. The most important
part is actually that the premise is sound and scientific. If
you are responding to someone's statements they have to be correct.
How
can a person trust the text of the web page if the opening quote
and statement is false? It reduces your credibility in everything
you say. And if you are a real Doctor then you worked extremely
hard and long for that title. And I for one appreciate the effort
in getting the degree and the distinction it gives you.
That
is why I can't understand. I am trying to be completely honest
and open with you about my misunderstanding.
Please
clarify this issue.
|
|
Cassiopaea
responded:
>
On 2 Dec 2001 at 10:19, eparker wrote:
>
> > I would like to track down the original person who sent
you the email.
> > If you can assist in this I would appreciate it. I want
to confirm
> > or deny if that was the person I have already talked
to.
>
> I can't tell you that. It is private.
>
> > I find it very hard to believe that a man claiming to
be a doctor
> > would take a quote from an email without checking it
first.
>
> I tried to explain in the previous email. Write your short,
perhaps
> two paragraphs, statement of Sitchin on the subject, if you
add a line of
condemnation of attackers - that would be nice, and we will
> change the page accordingly.
>
> ark
Date:
Sun, 02 Dec 2001 10:44:25 -0800
From: eparker <erik70@pacbell.net>
Subject: Bad Quote Originator
I
will write the short paragraph, which you said will go next to
the one I
have the problem with.
P.S.
I
just received an email from someone that originally told me about
your web page. They quoted you as saying in the email
"I
don't care if I use incorrect quotes from anonymous email sources.
If people get angry, who cares, the more the better. The purpose
of my web page is to get attention and recognition, I don't care
if it's true or not." from Arkadiusz Jadczyk <lark1@ozline.net>
on December 2, 2001.
Is
this a correct quote from you that I can post? I am checking with
you first because I would not want to slander your good name by
posting dishonest testimony. Perhaps maybe one line or two is
your true words but the rest the person made up.
Please
advise.
Cassiopaea
opinion: Cassiopaea is being stalked
by a psychopath. Please note the above claim that an email
was sent from Ark. Aside from the complete absurdity of the remark,
everyone who knows Ark, and who corresponds with Ark, is aware
that English is NOT his first language. The slang expression "the
more the better" would never be used by him. When he does
use slang, it is always entirely unique to the Latin based Polish
language formation. The question Cassiopaea would like to ask
is this: did Mr. Parker REALLY receive an email from someone pretending
to be Ark?
|
|
Cassiopaea
responded:
>
On 2 Dec 2001 at 10:44, eparker wrote:
>
> > I just received an email from someone that originally
told me about
> > your web page. They quoted you as saying in the email
"I don't care
> > if I use incorrect quotes from anonymous email sources.
If people get
> > angry, who cares, the more the better. The purpose of
my web page is
> > to get attention and recognition, I don't care if it's
true or not."
> > from Arkadiusz Jadczyk <lark1@ozline.net> on December
2, 2001.
>
> Get from this person the date of the purported email, and
I will send you
the exact copy. I am keeping copies of all my emails.
>
> ark
Date:
Sun, 02 Dec 2001 11:08:29 -0800
From: eparker <erik70@pacbell.net>
Subject: Bad Quote
You
are not getting it. It is my personal responsibility to check
the validity of any quote that I use. If I choose to do sloppy
or no work than I can use whatever I want. I can even make up
something, which I can believe that is what the person did in
sending me the quote from you, just exactly as the person who
sent you the email did by incorrectly quoting Zecharia. They made
up the statement and passed it onto you and you are using it as
the headline on your web page. Now everyone who reads your page
and sees that you are a doctor also thinks that you did your research
to the best of your ability and assumes that the quote and everything
your wrote is correct and the facts checked. But, both you and
I know that is not true. So now you are making this incorrect
quote propagate around the world. As a doctor, this is troublesome
to me.
Now
I am contemplating what to do with the quote attributed to you.
I am very careful about what I post and what my name is attached
to; I so wish that you would be too.
Get
back to you later on ...
p.s.
Please rewrite the beginning of your web page and throw out the
incorrect
quote. Not for my sake, but for the sake of truth, justice and
honor to
yourself.
-
|
|
Cassiopaea
responded:
>
In fact it also here:
>
>
http://web.archive.org/web/20000711032201/
http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.com/sitchin.html
>
> which means it was on the web since at least July last year!
>
> How come you didn't know about it?
>
Date:
Sun, 02 Dec 2001 11:19:21 -0800
From: eparker <erik70@pacbell.net>
Subject: Finding the Roots
Thank
you. You are so helpful. This is the first person I spoke to who
relied on someone else for the quote. They are big Sitchin fans
and didn't want to propagate any falsehoods about him, they were
very helpful. When I talked to the original source we figured
out that an honest mistake was made by misquoting Zecharia and
I helped remove the quote from the page and rewrite the statement.
After the original source removed it, the webmaster of surfing
the apocalypse also changed his web page.
If
you check the web page now you will see that they removed the
incorrect quote. http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.com/sitchin.html
So
now the original source and the first copy have been removed from
the net. I hope that your third copy will also be soon removed.
Please
let me know what your wise decision will be.
|
|
Date:
Sun, 02 Dec 2001 11:20:46 -0800
From: eparker <erik70@pacbell.net>
Subject: Bad Quote
Crystalinks
was the original source of the incorrect quote. She was very
helpful and I helped her to remove it and rewrite the statement.
|
|
Cassiopaea
responded:
>
On 2 Dec 2001 at 11:20, eparker wrote:
>
> > Crystalinks was the original source of the incorrect
quote. She was
> > very helpful and I helped her to remove it and rewrite
the statement.
>
> How come you didn't know about the quote for three years?
> It was on many newsgroups, it was widely discussed, and
> looks like you are retracting only now....
>
> Now, before I do anything, please get from this person who
> sent to you about my email, get from this person
> the date of the email. I want this story to be fixed.
>
> > > I just received an email from someone that originally
told me
> > > about your web page. They quoted you as saying
in the email "I
> > > don't care if I use incorrect quotes from anonymous
email sources.
> > > If people get angry, who cares, the more the better.
The purpose
> > > of my web page is to get attention and recognition,
I don't care
> > > if it's true or not." from Arkadiusz Jadczyk
<lark1@ozline.net> on
> > > December 2, 2001.
>
> ark
Date:
Sun, 02 Dec 2001 11:50:40 -0800
From: eparker <erik70@pacbell.net>
Subject: Bad Quote again
Right
now I am concerned with the present. From the time I found out
about the quote I have worked with the original source and the
first copier to remove this incorrect statement. They have done
so, it does not matter how long the quote has been around. They
removed the quote from their current pages. The archive pages
that still record and store these old web pages can't be changed.
Those pages did exist in the past and so will be in the archives
of the past.
But
in the present and going into the future you are now the source
of the incorrect quote. If it gets picked up again it will be
from your current web page not the archives of those other pages.
Your source was a second copy, and the original made a specific
mistake. Please rewrite the page and I won't care what other crap
I have heard. It does not matter to me. I want to help the internet
get honest, truthful and be respected.
Look
I am asking you to make your web page more accurate and consistent
with the truth. My point I think is simple to understand. If you
maintain the page as is, knowing that your source and their source
have changed their own pages and don't exist in the present. Then
you are maintaining an incorrect quote. That means it can also
be done to you; I mean misquoting you and maintaining it even
with the knowledge that it is false. Maybe you can understand
it with either Karma, or you reap what you sew or the universe
is a mirror and what you put out you get back.
If
your page is honest and everything is accurate and consistent
with the truth that you are free from anybody's attacks and claims.
If you change the page then I know what kind of man you are. You
found out the truth and adjusted yourself accordingly. If you
don't change the web page then I know what kind of man you are.
The
future actions and decisions are now yours to make.
I
have to go now and will look for your response when I get back
and inform you of my decision later.
|
|
Cassiopaea
responded:
> On 2 Dec 2001 at 11:20, eparker wrote:
>
> > Crystalinks was the original source of the incorrect
quote. She was
> > very helpful and I helped her to remove it and rewrite
the statement.
>
> And can you tell me which Sitchin's speech was it. I can
trace it anyway,
>but you certainly know the date and the place. I want to
> check with other people who were there.
>
> ark
Date:
Sun, 02 Dec 2001 12:00:51 -0800
From: eparker <erik70@pacbell.net>
Subject: Bad Quote
The
problem is that the lady from Crystallinks made up the quote from
a time when she was speaking at a conference with Zecharia about
5 years ago. She admitted to me that she did not record the event,
she just tried to recall from memory the gist of what Zecharia
was saying and posted it as a quote. She did not even notice the
ramification of her inaccurate quote until I talked to her.
She
likes Zecharia and as soon as she knew the mistake we changed
her web page with me on the phone with her. She did not insist
that it was correct, she knew she was incorrect. Once she realized
the mistake, she apologized to me and that was fine and she changed
it. In fact when she changed it she still kept the paragraph as
a quote on her web page. Her own accuracy leaves a lot to be desired.
So even though she is typing from memory of being at one conference
with Zecharia many years ago she still posts it on her page as
a quote. That is the woman that is your source, quoting from 5
years ago changing text and maintain it as a quote.
And
from there surfing the apocalypse picked it up and newsgroups
and other pages and you.
Now
what are you going to do?
p.s.
I do my research as well as I can and am very fair.
|
|
Cassiopaea
responded:
-----
Original Message -----
To: "eparker" <erik70@pacbell.net>
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: Bad Quote again
>
Eric,
>
> 1) There are two possibilities:
>
> a) Sitchin has a memory problem
> b) The author of the quote has a memory problem
>
> The fact that the quote was on the web for three years, and
Sitchin did
not notice it, is suggestive of a), but the, let's say, both
> possibilities are equally likely.
>
> So, we need a proof, and Sitchin's statement is not a proof.
> We need something more. That is a recording, or we need to
ask other
> people who were there, right?
>
> But to do the check I need to know when/where was the speech
> given, so that I can contact these other people and ask what
they
remember.
>
> Can you provide me with this information?
>
> 2) I am asking you the third time: give me the date of the
purported email
that wrote to me about:
>
> > > > I just received an email from someone that
originally told me
> > > > about your web page. They quoted you as saying
in the email "I
> > > > don't care if I use incorrect quotes from
anonymous email
> > > > sources.
> > > > If people get angry, who cares, the more the
better. The
> > > > purpose
> > > > of my web page is to get attention and recognition,
I don't care
> > > > if it's true or not." from Arkadiusz
Jadczyk <lark1@ozline.net>
> > > > on December 2, 2001.
>
> GIVE ME THE DATE, PLEASE!
>
> ark
Date:
Sun, 02 Dec 2001 12:06:09 -0800
From: eparker <erik70@pacbell.net>
Subject: Bad Quote again
Sitchin
does not have a computer and is not on the internet and never
has been beyond his grandson's computer to check his own page.
Sitchin was never around to see the quote. When I became his webmaster
people started to send me incorrect statements and then I started
researching them.
You
see I pointed out to you that you could start off with a bad premise
and get things mixed up. You stated in #1 a, Sitchin has a memory
problem. That is so ridiculous when you read what I wrote above.
Your
reasoning to #1 b is the correct answer and that is answered in
a previous email to you.
For
now I am keeping my source a secret until I see what your decision
is.
|
|
Cassiopaea
responded:
>
On 2 Dec 2001 at 12:00, eparker wrote:
>
> > Now what are you going to do?
> >
> > p.s.
> > I do my research as well as I can and am very fair.
>
> Now I am waiting for you to provide me with the date of my
purported
email. I want to fix this problem. We can't be friends until this
> is fixed.
>
> ark
Date:
Sun, 02 Dec 2001 12:07:32 -0800
From: eparker <erik70@pacbell.net>
Subject: Bad Quote
I will check your page later to see how you fixed the problem.
|
|
Date:
Sun, 02 Dec 2001 14:07:54 -0800
From: eparker <erik70@pacbell.net>
Subject: my history
I
am the one informing you what Mr. Sitchin has said in the past.
First I am his webmaster and his friend. I am also his event coordinator
for seminars that we have been doing during the past year. I have
traveled with Zecharia to 4 countries on tours, including England,
Malta, Italy and Mexico. I have read all of his books and have
asked him many questions during the years I have known him. I
have seen hundreds of questions given to him at different seminars
in fact I help him organize which ones he will answer.
I
have been in public with him more than a dozen times and have
heard him personally answer the question "When will Nibiru
return" like this.
This
is what Zecharia Sitchin IS saying on the returning date of Nibiru
for many years.
Zecharia
can not calculate the returning date of Nibiru with any accuracy
for several reasons. First, astronomically the orbit of a body
that has a large orbit as the estimated 3600 years for Nibiru
can deviate 3 -5% per revolution. Meaning it can change plus or
minus as much as aprox. 200 years per orbit. Which means sometimes
the orbit may be 3400 years or 3800 years at the extreme.
Second
we don't know the last time Nibiru was near the sun. Even if we
assume that Nibiru was nearby in 3760 B.C. when Anu arrived for
a visit. We don't know if he jumped off Nibiru when it approached
our sun with the intention of jumping back after it was on its
way back. Perhaps Anu went through the Mars station first and
then waited to get to Earth. Perhaps Anu jumped off Nibiru on
its way away from Earth, stayed on Mars awhile and then got back
on when it came nearby.
All
these variables is why Zecharia Sitchin has never made a comment
indicating why he can with any accuracy predict the returning
date of Nibiru.
Do
you see that I am the authority that you need to satisfy yourself
that Zecharia has never made the comment that the original source
has already said was never said.
Are
you going to correct your web page or not? I am ready to delete
the email I received about you and I am ready to delete it from
all my archive files. Even I won't know who sent it after I delete
it.
What
I am waiting for is for you to modify your web page to conform
with the truth.
|
|
Cassiopaea
responded:
>
On 2 Dec 2001 at 12:06, eparker wrote:
>
> > For now I am keeping my source a secret until I see
what your decision
> > is.
>
> I am waiting. I was trying to help you. You refuse to help
me.
> What can I say?
>
> ark
Date:
Sun, 02 Dec 2001 15:47:39 -0800
From: eparker <erik70@pacbell.net>
Subject: You are really strange
What you have done is a great disservice to truth and honesty
on the internet. You made a link to an ancient web site where
the original source has been retracted and the wording changed.
You
are now the one person propagating this incorrect quote and incorrect
statement attributed to Zecharia. You knowingly are contributing
to ignorance and disinformation. The exact opposite point of the
internet. You are not being at all honest with your readers.
If
you live by the sword you die by the sword.
Well
if I know the Universe, then I am sure you can expect the same
from it as you have put out there.
Cassiopaea comments: It sounds like Mr. E. Parker is threatening
us.
|
|
Cassiopaea
responded:
On
2 Dec 2001 at 11:08, eparker wrote:
>
Please rewrite the beginning of your web page and throw out the
> incorrect quote. Not for my sake, but for the sake of truth,
> justice and honor to yourself.
Done.
Let
the truth prevail.
Best
wishes,
ark
|
|
Date:
Sun, 02 Dec 2001 19:32:02 -0800
From: eparker <erik70@pacbell.net>
Subject: for the sake of truth
I
have deleted the inappropriate email about you and the file from
my
archives as well. I have forgotten it.
Thank
you for your honest efforts.
Can
you insert this, as we agreed?. If you want it on my section of
emails
please put it at the top, if possible.
Zecharia
Sitchin has made many public comments with regards to Nibiru and
a
possible returning date to an area of the solar system nearest
the Sun.
The most important statements are that you cannot predict the
returning date
with any accuracy and the following two points. Any comment attributed
to
Zecharia Sitchin stating a specific date or time of return is
incorrect.
1)
The normal deviation of an orbit of 3600 years (estimated average
for
Nibiru) could be between 3 - 5 % per revolution. Meaning the orbital
time
could change as much 180 years per revolution.
2)
No one knows that last time Nibiru was nearest the Sun. Ancient
catastrophes and visitations don't give us an accurate enough
date.
These
astronomical variables make an accurate estimate of Nibiru's return
impossible. The best we can do is to estimate within the hundreds
of years.
Erik
Parker
Webmaster for Zecharia Sitchin
Los Angeles
|
|
Cassiopaea
responded:
On
2 Dec 2001 at 19:32, eparker wrote:
>
I have deleted the inappropriate email about you and the file
from
> my archives as well. I have forgotten it.
This
was not "inapropriate". That was criminal. Forgery of
somebody's
email is a criminal act. You deleted a criminal evidence. Thus
you are
helping in criminal activieties. Do you agree?
ark
|
Date:
Sun, 02 Dec 2001 21:29:50 -0800
From: eparker <erik70@pacbell.net>
Subject: This is the End
No I don't, the ethical thing to do was get rid of it. I don't want
any
part in name calling, blaming or misquoting. I just wanted to correct
a
misquote attributed to a great author that I work with and admire.
Like
I said when I started the many conversations with you. I can't
confirm
it so I won't use it or post it.
I
appreciate you posting all the words as I wrote them.
Thank
you.
|
|
Cassiopaea
responds:
On
2 Dec 2001 at 21:29, eparker wrote:
>
I appreciate you posting all the words as I wrote them.
Notice
that in this way you associated the term "criminal activity"
with Sitchin. It is there, it is posted, it is documented.
You
are right. It is the End.
ark
|
|
Opinions
from our readers:
I realize that I am belaboring the obvious, but consider:
1. you repeatedly ask eric for the date of the supposed e-mail,
without avail
2. he repeatedly insists on "misunderstanding" you and
refuses to send you the e-mail, when all you have asked for is
the date.
3. he continues to insist that you are quoting Sitchin, when you
point out to him that you are quoting someone else and making
no claim of attribution to Sitchin.
4. he comes up with this e-mail as retaliation for your "misquote"
and to force you to do his will regarding removing the quote.
5. it is not until he realizes that he has no legitimate reason
to require you to remove the quote that he suddenly comes up with
the supposed e-mail from a forger which puts you in a bad light,
and uses it to blackmail you into removing the quote.
Conclusion: The forged e-mail never existed, "Eric"
invented it to force you to remove a quote which was not OF Sitchin,
but ABOUT Sitchin, and was not in any way unappropriate. His accusation
of misquoting, which he wrongfully lodges against you, also lends
support to the idea that this guy doesn't understand the difference
between quotes about someone and quotes of someone--more evidence
that "Eric" is the type of person to invent a fictitious
e-mail if it would serve his purposes.
Another
consideration has been nagging at me, but I couldn't pull it into
focus until just a minute ago. "Eric" asked Ark for
the identity of the e-mailer who was quoted about Sitchin. Ark
of course refused as that correspondence was confidential. When
Ark asked "Eric" for the date of the e-mail he quoted
in the exchange, "Eric" pretended that the same conditions
of confidentiality obtained and consistently refused to divulge
any information about it.
But
the supposed e-mail that "Eric" was quoting purported
to be FROM ARK. Giving Ark information about an e-mail from Ark
is no violation of confidentiality. "Eric" fails to
notice this. The likeliest explaination of this blind spot is
that "Eric" knew the e-mail wasn't from Ark so that
consideration never occurred to him. Either "Eric" knew
the author of the e-mail, or there was no e-mail and "Eric"
made the whole thing up.
Hi
Another
possibility is also that the "header" of the email was
hand made at the keyboard of the originator or eparker's computer,
completely faked; a fake of a fake, hence his keeness to destroy
it, as Ark noted, it was surprisingly easy for him to do, especially
if it never existed. In which case, the blackmail and threat would
be
astonishingly callous. That is the impression I got from the text
through and through. I thought that kind of stuff was only in
movies.
Noted
that the correspondent could not be persuaded to corroborate the
correction he was seeking. Anxiety seems to produce different
results in different people. I never knew the internet was like
this.
If
there's some technical point that makes the email forgery seem
a real possibility can you share that too - I can check with my
internet skilled friends just how it could possibly be done.
Learning.
Thanks for posting the whole exchange (small consolation, but
cheer up if possible :)
|
FAIR USE NOTICE This site
contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in
our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights,
economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe
this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for
in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section
107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research
and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your
own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.
The owners and publishers
of these pages wish to state that the material presented here that is the product
of our research and experimentation in Superluminal Communication is offered
with the caveat that the reader ought always to research on their own. We invite
the reader to share in our seeking of Truth by reading with an Open, but skeptical
mind. We do not encourage "devotee-ism"
nor "True Belief." We DO encourage the seeking of Knowledge and Awareness in
all fields of endeavor as the best way to be able to discern lies from truth.
We constantly seek to validate and/or refine what we understand to be either
possible or probable or both. We do this in the sincere hope that all of mankind
will benefit, if not now, then at some point in one of our probable futures.
Contact Webmaster at cassiopaea.com
Cassiopaean materials Copyright © 1994-2004 Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk.
All rights reserved. "Cassiopaea, Cassiopaean, Cassiopaeans," is a
registered trademark of Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk.
Letters addressed to Cassiopaea, Quantum Future School, Ark or Laura, become
the property of Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk
Republication
and re-dissemination of our copyrighted material in any manner is expressly
prohibited without prior written consent.
You are visitor number 10843 since June 16, 2003.
|