|
|
Susan from PA - closing remarks
Subject: Re:
Susan from PA - closing remarks
From: [Salvador Astucia]
Date: 8/13/04 8:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <20040813082339.14991.00001496@mb-m02.aol.com>
Newsgroup: rec.music.beatles
>Subject: Re: Susan from PA - closing remarks
>From: [Salvador Astucia]
>Date: 8/12/2004 10:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20040812221650.04588.00002756@mb-m10.aol.com>
>
>>Subject: Re: Susan from PA - closing remarks
>>From: cropdustersal@cs.com (Salvador Astucia)
>>Date: 8/12/2004 1:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <20040812014305.14991.00001437@mb-m02.news.cs.com>
>>
>>>Subject: Susan from PA - closing remarks
>>>From: cropdustersal@cs.com (Salvador Astucia)
>>>Date: 8/11/04 10:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: <20040811223206.04869.00001237@mb-m05.news.cs.com>
>>>
>>>Comments below are related to the following link:
>>>(interview with Susan from York, PA)
>>>
>>>
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/Chapter04.htm#Susan
>>>
[DAY 1]
>>>So far
Susan has not denied the authenticity of the above interview.
>>>She has only quibbled over the means by which I made
>>>telephone contact with her, an extremely trivial point. She also
>>>continues to guess my true identity, and she acts as though her
>>>efforts to do so are comparable to solving a major crime.
>>>
>>>Susan and her friends use terms like "Salvador outted himself"
>>>when describing how they think I accidentally revealed my
>>>true identity. The term "outted" implies someone did something
>>>wrong or unethical. All I've done is use a pseudonym because I
>>>write about controversial topics, namely Jews and Israel, plus
>>>the FBI.
>>>
>>>What Susan, her friend Mister Charlie and others are doing is
>>>using trivial matters like my identity in an attempt to discredit
>>>me, because I keep finding more and more information about
>>>John Lennon's murder which they want to suppress. They claim
>>>they are not connected to the FBI or any other intelligence
>>>agency; but if this is true, why do they use such childish and
>>>unethical tactics to prevent open discussion about John
>>>Lennon's murder?
>>>
>>>They have openly encouraged people to forge my identity
>>>in an effort to confuse the issue and discredit me. If that's
>>>not suppression or oppression, then I don't know what is.
>>>And if the United States had a genuine Justice Department
>>>that truly wanted to bring criminals to justice, Mister Charlie
>>>would be arrested and prosecuted for conspiracy to cover up
>>>facts about John Lennon's murder. It is a shame that America
>>>puts people like Martha Stewart behind bars for doing NOTHING
>>>and we allow criminal thugs like Charlie and Susan to walk the
>>>streets, apparently protected by a criminal enterprise that has
>>>metastasized itself to the United States Government.
>>>
>>>The only person on this entire newsgroup to ask some intelligent
>>>questions about my research is Abe Slaney. He doesn't
>>>agree with my conclusions, but at least he provides thoughtful
>>>comments.
>>>
>>>Best regards,
>>>
>>>Salvador
[DAY 2]
>>Mister
Charlie replied (see below), but I prefer not to respond
>>directly do him because he's too unethical to engage in a
>>meaningful discussion.
>>
>>His comments contain several dishonest points.
>>
>>First, Charlie modified the name of the original thread which
>>ruins the thread if you're reading it from Google or a
>>similar search engine.
>>
>>Second, Charlie lied when he claimed Susan has "denied
>>repeatedly the transcript of your conversation." SHE has
>>never denied it directly, although she has dropped a
>>few hints here and there. On the other hand, CHARLIE has
>>denied the authenticity of the transcript, but he wasn't
>>involved in the interview at all, so he has no way of
>>verifying whether it occurred on not; however, I have
>>a tape of the interview. From what I understand, he
>>has talked to Susan and knows the sound of her voice.
>>Therefore, he could easily verify whether the tape
>>matches her voice, and whether the transcript matches
>>what she said on tape. I have offered to send Charlie
>>a copy, but he has steadfastly refused my offer.
>>
>>Third, Charlie continues to make a federal case out of the
>>manner in which I made telephone contact with Susan.
>>"The telephone thing is obviously not trivial," Charlie
>>wrote, "since you won't answer the direct and simple
>>question. WHO called WHO?"
>>
>>Why does it matter if I called Susan, if Susan called me,
>>or if the phone call was made by a third party? I can
>>see how it might be an issue had Susan denied authenticity
>>of the tape, but she hasn't done that. In fact, she publicly
>>admitted about a year ago (September 6, 2003, to be exact)
>>that the transcription "does sound exactly like me."
>>
>>Susan will not recant her statement from a year ago
>>because she can't. She knows the transcript is accurate
>>and she's afraid she will eventually be exposed as a
>>liar if she pursues the matter further herself. She's
>>stated on the public record (Usenet) that the
>>transcription does in fact seem accurate. Therefore,
>>there is no point in going through a complex effort
>>of trying to authenticate something that has already
>>been authenticated by the person who was interviewed,
>>Susan. So that's why Susan uses Charlie to claim the
>>transcript is not accurate. He gives her what is known
>>in the intelligence world as a "layer of deniability."
>>But of course, neither Charlie or Susan are part of an
>>intelligence network, right?
>>
>>If you believe that, then I've got some swamp land
>>in Florida I'd like to sell you at a very reasonable
>>price.
>>
>>Salvador
[DAY 2b]
>Today, Susan
replied in this thread and said,
>"The interview is bogus." Then she proceeded to describe
>the interview the way the transcript reflects. (See Susan's
>message below.) So Susan is making two conflicting
>assertions: that the interview is both valid and invalid
>at the same time. Plus she's still obsessed with
>trying to guess my true identity.
>
>Basically, Susan is challenging the manner in which
>I described setting up the interview; however, I never gave
>specific information other than saying I established
>telephone contact with her. For some reason she
>seems to think giving a detailed explanation of
>how the telephone call was made is relevant to the
>content of the interview itself. It is not.
>
>Susan and her friends are trying to discredit me by
>claiming I did something dishonest regarding the
>way the interview was set up. But she admits
>being aware that the conversation was being tape
>recorded, so she doesn't have much room to
>complain.
>
>That's all I have to say, except Susan should look
>up the definition of the word "bogus." I prefer the
>word "authenticate." Is the tape an accurate
>transcription of the conversation? Based on her
>comments, it sounds like she believes it is.
>
>Salvador
[Day 3]
Since Susan
started posting on this thread,
several other folks have joined in, and their primary
comments center around my true identity, an
obvious harassment technique. Again, they act as
though using a pseudonym is illegal and they are
doing a public service, or solving a crime by trying
to reveal my true name. Obviously this is nonsense.
But the group has another objective: to protect Susan
from her big mouth. During the interview, she
made lots of embarrassing comments which
I occasionally post when she gets to pushy
with me on this newsgroup. The most embarrassing
things she said are (a) she doesn't think Nazis
are so bad, and (b) she thinks the United States
government sponsored John Lennon's murder.
Part of her effort here is to try to take back her
admissions by creating a smokescreen about
the circumstances in which the interview took
place. Again it doesn't matter how it occurred,
the point is I recorded our conversation and
she has acknowledged knowing that I recorded
it. We had a discussion. Therefore, it qualifies
as an interview. End of story.
Susan makes an interesting claim though. She
claims she called me and we had a fairly long
discussion. If that is true, who paid for the
call? She claims she doesn't make much
money, a statement I believe is true, even if
she is a paid FBI informant. So either she's in
love with me or someone else was paying for
the call. This is where her logic begins to fall apart.
Again, the transcript is a true reflection of
the conversation, and I will provide a tape
(for $15) to anyone who wants to verify it.
Thanks.
Salvador
>>==========
[Mister Charlie's reply] =========
>>Subject: Re: Susan from PA - closed mind of Sally
>>From: ccmj5@aol.com (Mister Charlie)
>>Date: 8/12/04 12:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <20040812002525.12124.00003262@mb-m01.aol.com>
>>
>>Shook you up some, huh [Salvador]?
>>
>>Yes Susan has denied repeatedly the transcript of your conversation. She
>>says
>>you have inserted things she never said and changed things around.
>>
>>Big surprise.
>>
>>The telephone thing is obviously not trivial, since you won't answer the
>>direct
>>and simple question. WHO called WHO? Yopu WANT to give the impression it
>>was
>>you calling her, but that is far from the truth, and since you know it you
>>are
>>dissembling like Dick Nixon in front of Archibald Cox. A liar who simply
>>cannot stand to be shown up, hence this ridiculous post trying to justify
>>your
>>existence on the globe.
>>
>>The fact is a 'thug' like me will always be around to be a thorn in your
>>insane
>>side. Your attempts to smear people as homosexuals, Nazis (that was a new
>>stunt), FBI members, Jews etc. is transparent and pathetic. Obviously YOU
>>have
>>issues about these sorts, and your attempts to falsely brand people who
>>oppose
>>your methods has failed time and time again.
>>
>>No one here supports you, almost all abhor and denigrate you publickly,
yet
>>you
>>persist. Why?
>>
>>Because you WANT, NEED the attention. You thrive on the attention, and you
>>don't care what you have to do to get it. Just like some of your other
>forum
>>infestations (like jfkmontreal). It is trolling on an insane level. Sell
>>any
>>books? (Don't bother lying, no one will believe you). So really, it boils
>>down to a nutball who will play dirty so people will notice him.
>>
>>An asshole.
>>
>>So take your 'closing remarks' literally and go away. The ridicule here is
>>honest and true, not meant to silence you because, apparently, nothing on
>>this
>>earth CAN.
>>
>
>
>=============[Susan's comments] =======================
>Subject: Susan from PA - the truth about [Salvador]
>From: Susan susan.hwk5@verizon.net
>Date: 8/12/2004 4:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <BD414DA2.227BD%susan.hwk5@verizon.net>
>
>in article 20040811223206.04869.00001237@mb-m05.news.cs.com, Cropdustersal
>at cropdustersal@cs.com wrote on 8/11/04 10:32 PM:
>
>>
>> So far Susan has not denied the authenticity of the above interview.
>> She has only quibbled over the means by which I made
>> telephone contact with her, an extremely trivial point. She also
>> continues to guess my true identity, and she acts as though her
>> efforts to do so are comparable to solving a major crime.
>
>The interview is bogus, but, I did call [Salvador]. I used the phone
> number that is listed for [John Doe] of ... Maryland. I used a calling
card.
> He answered
the phone. [.....]
>
>At this point, [Salvador] hemmed and hawed and did actually guess who I
was.
>Then he fiddled around with the phone to turn on a recording device. It was
>pretty lame.
NOTE FROM
SALVADOR: This is a crucial part of the conversation. I told her I was
recording the conversation. Had I not told her, there is no way she would
have know I "fiddled around with the phone to turn on a recording device."
>He disclosed to me that he was [John Doe] of Maryland but much preferred
>being called Salvador. He asked me all manner of questions regarding the
>people of rmb. He was most particularly interested in Mister Charlie. I
gave
>him no information. He told me that I was uninteresting and turned off the
>recording device.
>
>A few days later, I began receiving emails from him. He thought it would be
>'so cool' if I would side with him in rmb. I told him that I wasn't
>interested. I received a few more emails, but did not respond.
>
>That was the last I heard from [Salvador].
>Except, of course, in rmb.
>
===
Ordering information for Salvador Astucia's books can be found at
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/raveningwolf/
Also see Astucia's homepage:
http://www.jfkmontreal.com
|
