----- Original Message -----
From: Patricia Beatty <pbeatty@nyc.rr.com>
To: Editor@educate-yourself.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 12:00 PM
ONLY ON THE INTERNET CAN SOMEONE ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN THEIR OWN OPINIONS
TOTALLY LED BY THE COPY AND PASTES OF OTHER'S OPINIONS FROM THEIR BOOKS
AND SITES.
TELL ME AGAIN, WHAT WAS YOUR OPINION? WHERE DID YOUR PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
AND EXPERIENCE COME FROM IN THIS MATTER? WHEN I WAS YOUNGER AND SPENT TIME
CARING, I WOULD HAVE CALLED THIS GOSSIP. WHAT DO YOU CALL IT? THE BRISK?
THERE HAS TO BE AN INDIVIDUAL SOMEWHERE IN THERE. I JUST KNOW IT.
DAVID GOT MOST OF HIS INFORMATION FROM THE INTERNET, TOO. AS I RECALL,
FROM 'CHANNELERS', A WELL KNOWN EXACT METHOD OF INTERJECTION INTO REALITY,
IN THE ONE PIECE THAT HE WROTE THAT I READ. OF COURSE I'M SURE THAT MUCH
OF IT WAS COPY AND PASTE.
CAN YOU PLEASE BE KIND ENOUGH TO WARN US WHEN YOU COPY AND PASTE, I
DO WHEN I EVEN BORROW FROM MY OWN WORKS.
THANKS FOR ALL YOUR EFFORT. AT LEAST THE SUBSCRIBER WHO SENT THIS TO
ME HAD THE DECENCY TO WRITE THEIR OWN PIECE TOTALLY RELIANT ON THEIR OWN
MIND'S, EVALUATIONS, AND THE REVERENCE FOR THE ABILITY TO THINK INDEPENDENTLY.
THANKFULLY, YOU OFFERED THEM THE PLATFORM FOR THIS.
----- Original Message -----
From: Editor <Editor@educate-yourself.org >
To: Patricia Beatty <pbeatty@nyc.rr.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 1:08 PM
Subject: Re:
Dear Patricia,
Do you always send letters without addressing the person you are writing
to and not signing your name at the end? Just wondering, since you're in
such a chastising and finger-wagging mode ( or should I say dog-wagging
? ).
So, let's begin from the beginning.
1. What are you talking about here?
2. What copy and paste are you refering to?
3. Do you know the difference between citing reference sources and stating
opinions?
4. Are you accusing me of copying other people's writings and
then claiming authorship in this poorly written diatribe?
5. When you write "David", are you refering to David Icke?
6. And finally, do you know the difference between the uses of upper
and lower case letters?
I, and my entire Letters readership, await your response (which I'm
sure will be a pillar of erudition) with tense anticipation.
Sincerely, Ken
---- Original Message -----
From: Patricia Beatty
To: Editor
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 4:47 PM
Subject: Re:
>Dear Patricia,
>Do you always send letters without addressing the person you are writing
to and not signing your name at the >end?
Obviously, you had my name; it's right in your address to me. Overwhelming
enough, that's the first problem solved, however my full name is in the
signature above. I hid nothing the first go round.
>Just wondering, since you're in such a chastising and finger-wagging
mode ( or should I say dog-wagging ? ).
Say what you would like to say, I believe that’s your God given
right on the Internet placing me in this role. Correct? You said what you
wanted and I’ve said what I wanted. It’s was then your go round and now,
it’s all back in my court.
>So, let's begin from the beginning.
I agree my platform obviously doesn’t leave me with the expectation
of always having an audience that agrees with everything I say my audience
is more discriminate. Maybe your's needs to practice a little discriminatory
>1. What are you talking about here?
I wrote this where I found it, attached to the NWO. Your address came
up with the prompt. If you aren't
>2. What copy and paste are you referring to?
Over the past three weeks, in seeking information on things like the
NOW, I’ve found the same reports over and over again. I'm very aware of
and realize that it's not the same issue at hand as the concept that George
Bush Sr. seemed to find enough to salivate over when he said the words
as though he were in the know and control of all of those standing accused
of penning this new issue that actually began in 1924 in Germany. Agreed,
there were changes and additions over the years.
He was no more versed on the subject then I've discovered from
others all over the Internet but I don’t believe anyone has ever substantiated
that his strain of inherent DNA was the main contributor for the Noble
Prize winners of America. He was another wannabe and believe me, his family
is as rejective as many others in this self-seeking group who are such
elitist. Smoke and mirrors. Things that you can throw out to mom and pop
and never worry that they will ever come back to see if you really know
what you are talking about. When you finally comprehend what you have been
doing, I would love to be available to see the flush on your faces. The
New World Order of Intelligence applauds you for doing exactly what they
expected you to do. The best cover, tell the truth, and parade it in the
muck of those who fringe paranoid fronts of potential calamity and the
hopes of total change in the future.
I've read that there are 64,000 black helicopters in this country alone
like kittens in a litter, that are being manufactured at a rate far in
excess of field mice.
Where are they when you need them? Where do they store them? Who maintains
them? My experience suggests that it's harder then any of you might suspect
to get the privilege of borrowing one of these fantasy black helicopters
that obviously are all stored underground in droves. Hope that we never
have a real emergency in which you need one as you could come up empty
handed. Where were they on 9/11? I was right here and strange enough, almost
never saw a helicopter. Were they all created with an MIB in mind? Have
you met a real MIB? Check out their tailors, believe me, you'll be amazed
at the savings. The helicopters do exist, just not in the multiples that
many of these sites suggest. Did you realize that there are sanctioned
CIA smaller airports all over the country where these helicopters fly?
There is an actual list if you dig for it.
Sure, it all hides behind the illusive screen of cloaking, I forgot.
Gosh, don't know what we would do if we didn't have that old excuse.
>3. Do you know the difference between citing reference sources and
stating opinions?
Extraordinarily enough, I'm fully aware of this sectioning and crediting
which I feel that often on the Internet takes up far more room then the
actual piece at question. However, the person that takes on the responsibility
of writing this type of documentation better have something on their own
to offer as the first step of clinching their audience. When someone writes
an entire article based on the information found in multiples of other
articles, how different are they from Bill Cooper? I'll tell you, he's
dead and they are alive or at least, breathing. I never saw a thing that
the man wrote that he wrote. Everything was old news that came from old
news that came from old news. Some of this information was available in
the early 1980's, no truer then as it is now, and he quoted it as though
it had happened yesterday. This keeps happening and it's not right. Give
us something real that's new.
>4. Are you accusing me of copying other people's writings and then
claiming authorship in this poorly written >diatribe?
Can you please tell me where you have gleaned information on these families
other then through the work of others? I asked before and I ask again.
Have you had any personal knowledge of this pact between the 13 families
who admit lineage? I have and I will tell you this, the Internet is not
a good source to find this information. What I've discovered over the few
weeks that I finally breached my own refusal to use this as a reference
is that it's all the same rhetoric, time after time.
One of the most beautiful sites on the internet that I've found today
is a conspiracy site called ConspiracyArchive.com, in which they are so
"part right, part wrong" about their information. Nevertheless, the government
should hire this developer to create his or her own sites as this one puts
theirs to shame. Moreover, it is a "he" as he does list his name once but
with no link back to thanking him for what he offered in a beautiful format.
Much of his information is correct, however, it's not apples to apples
as he’s mixing different groups under one heading that just don’t relate.
I suggest that you actually go back 3500 years to when this all began
and see if you can enlighten all of us including me with the information
that you find.
Oh, that's correct! This is a secret organization that doesn't permit
us full discovery. Well, assuming that you are what you pretend to be,
that's your job, walk right around them, utilizing your press pass and
see how well you do. Strange, in doing that, I was flooded with the real
information and I had the best of platforms in DC to verify my resource.
The difference is that my life began with these same people when they use
to help my father to move from camp to camp while he was in the OSS and
a very young man attempting to pass his Germanic looks off as a Jew imprisoned
in these camps to glean troop movement information. In my long life I've
discovered that nothing is as it appears. History must reclaim some of
the realities that it ignored and sites that only repeat what others say
owe it to their audience to at least try to find something new to say.
>5. When you write "David", are you referring to David Icke?
Yes, I've seen his site once and when it began to quote a British Channeler
for his source on Reptilians, I gave up. Great market but nothing new there,
is there? These reptilians are just another source of presented memories
in the New World Order in which all of us are being shot up with massive
doses of radiation through the variable methods of doing so as suggested
over the Internet.
These people that you wrote about are being chastised with charges of
anti-Semitic definitions, which isn't true, at all. You would be amazed
at how many Jews have been involved in the issue at hand, people who wear
their tattoos on their arms and who worked diligently to remove other Jews
and Christians from concentration camps.
Where is that in your documentation that seems to be bent on offering
the newest in sensationalism? Name names. Name dates. Name credence. Give
us something that says that your information isn't supposition, and fantasy.
If I write a chapter in a book in which I make accusations about a group
of people I had better be ready to back it up. Don't you agree? Isn't that
what I'm doing right now, defending my stance against my accusations in
your column? You've demanded it. Frankly, new to this, I had no idea that
it would be publicly aired but not for my shame but yours. I would have
forgone that if I was more aware of that reality and I'm apologizing but
as you see, I have no fear of facing and explaining what I'm suggesting.
Your group is not by any means the only doing this and I found good on
your site as I said from the beginning, but my feeling is that you and
your own have private needs and dreams in which you too can begin to write
and fill up the net with your good works.
Conspiracy can be anything, but I would like you to back it up and stop
treating it as though it's just another link in which you have added it
to make sure that you coverd all of the bases for every rant that is now
creating chaos in our world.
When you create a demigod of a cavernous embodiment of humanity, you
empower others to hide behind it making decisions for all of us. That's
called government.
Prove it to us. Prove that there is a group of elitist who want to destroy
a major part of this world to enable them to rule it by some new order
of totalitarianism.. That's where you begin or you suffer the accusations
that I've thrown at you. Each site says the same things. Over and
over again, they all sit about talking about things that they are surmising
at based on what they have read somewhere else. Why? There are far too
many wannabes on the Internet and this may get them closer to becoming
BE's, but not in my world.
>6. Finally, do you know the difference between the uses of upper and
lower case letters?
Recently, I went to a site in which I was warned that utilizing all
upper case letters suggests that I'm screaming. Taking this into account,
I screamed at the fact that if you can't prove what you are saying and
add something new, then please stop attempting to create an impact between
your "public" and your supplier of information. I will welcome anything
that you can offer by way of proof of these accusations. You have my address;
please feel free to contact me with that proof.
For many years I've been a journalist with a major news media service
that put me in the flow of information. Now, I'm writing a book about the
information that I sought out first hand. I'm establishing that I do have
valuable information each time that I write and don't expect to send a
puppy in circles chasing their own tail.
>I, and my entire Letters readership, await your response (which I'm
sure will be a pillar of erudition) with tense >anticipation.
Let me explain, your entire readership should be as offended as I am.
They could be the brunt of the next conspiracy in the minds of your masses,
and they will want the same advantages, clean and concise information that
allows the reader a chance to verify the information not the rhetoric source.
If I go to these different sources, they will in turn send me to the next
source that they relied on. Why not go to these people and squarely ask
them to tell the truth? First of all the Illuminati has nothing to do with
these people. The groups go by different lodge names, not by the Illuminati.
They are so far from followers of the occult that they must laugh daily
when they read these accusations.
For once offer us truth, not embezzlement. Facts, not rhetoric. Resourcing,
not copying. And lastly, get the information correct before you extrapolate
another false impression that only separates the masses that much more
corrupting the minds of those who may one day decide they've had enough
as they pick up their rifle to change their luck.
Apathy is the greatest of all sins; sloth is the greatest of all losses.
Very sincerely,
Patricia Beatty, it appears on the original message that you claimed
was unsigned.
>Sincerely, Ken
----- Original Message -----
From: Editor <Editor@educate-yourself.org >
To: Patricia Beatty <pbeatty@nyc.rr.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 12:34 AM
Subject: Re:
Dear Patricia,
I was thinking you might respond with a book, and voila- you did!
I'll keep my responses relatively short in order to save the reader's
energy, which they'll need to wade through your contentious verbosity,
since you write in such a 'clipped' style and aren't too particular when
it comes to completing a sentence or using verbs, nouns and adjectives
in the manner suggested in English grammar books.
I'll start from the end of your book and work towards the beginning.
1. " Patricia Beatty, it appears on the original
message that you claimed was unsigned. "
"Signing" refers to appending your name to the end of a letter. It does
not refer to the return address on the envelope or the 'From" line in electronic
mail. The only place the name Patricia Beatty appears is in the 'From'
line of the E mail message. For a few centuries now, it's been the custom
in the western world to sign mail or letters at the END of the letter.
Most people have kept up the tradition using electronic mail. Perhaps you've
noticed.
You say in the beginning of your book that I already knew your name
from the E mail address, but it is possible (and not uncommon) to use someone
else's computer to send an E mail, isn't it? So, how can I know with certainty
that the message is from the author of the letter unless the author signs
his or her name to it? I had to address my response to "Patricia"
because that's the only name I had to go on, but it's not the same thing
as signing a letter and taking responsibility for the contents of same,
despite your tortured attempts to justify yourself.
2. " Prove it to us. Prove that there is a group of elitist who want
to destroy a major part of this world to enable them to rule it by some
new order of totalitarianism.. That's where you begin or you suffer the
accusations that I've thrown at you. Each site says the same things.
Over and over again, they all sit about talking about things that they
are surmising at based on what they have read somewhere else. Why? There
are far too many wannabes on the Internet and this may get them closer
to becoming BE's, but not in my world. ."
Your book here is simply overflowing with these sophomoric baiting tactics.
For a person who claims to "know" the inside track on the Illuminati and
the NWO (not "NOW", by the way ), it's not possible that you can be this
naive or stupid. As if it's just a matter of dogged investigative reportage:
just pin Kissinger's or Rockefeller's ears to the wall and make them reveal
all before you twist their tail again. Give me a break.
Yes, you've must have been a splendid.. "journalist with a major
news media service that put me in the flow of information". Anyone
who writes with such 'convictions' as you hold, certainly writes with a
clarity, crispness of thought, and depth of perception that can only be
hewn from years of experience with mainstream corporate media. What happened,
by the way? Did they let you go because of your 'way' with English grammar?
3. Apparently, according to you, everyone who has ever written
on the NWO, from Bill Cooper to David Icke, is a fake and a hack, except
YOU, of course. You know the Real Deal. Some of your statements about Bill
Cooper are nothing short of stunning. For example,
A) "When someone writes an entire article based on the information
found in multiples of other articles, how different are they from Bill
Cooper? I'll tell you, he's dead and they are alive or at least, breathing"...Huh?
Does this come with a translation??
B) "I never saw a thing that the man wrote that he wrote"....Really?
Did you peruse the Majic 12, 'Above Top Secret Report' that
he writes about in his book, Behold A Pale Horse, while he worked for Naval
Intelligence over three decades ago? Was Bill Cooper a writer of novels
or fiction? You have this extremely odd notion that people like Cooper
or Icke are somehow disqualified by reporting the words of others in support
of their thesis. What's wrong with you? That's the nature of investigation
and reportage; reporting what others have written or said and connecting
the dots to arrive at a conclusion. You may quibble with the reporting,
or the veracity of the source, or the logic of the conclusion, but to dismiss
the very nature of investigative reporting itself is rather twisted, to
state it as politely as possible.
It's completely transparent that you've never read Bill Cooper's book
nor the books of David Icke. Nevertheless, you have the unbridled effrontery
to accuse Bill Cooper, whose life had been in jeopardy on numerous
occasions due to his "old news of old news" revelations, of being a hack,
when YOU, an unknown person without any demonstration of substantive output
such as books, articles, public lectures, or even a web site,
now sets herself up as High Priestess in charge of criticism and judgment
of Bill Cooper's courageous efforts. Patricia, you don't qualify to lick
Bill Cooper's spit off the sidewalk.
Of course, you've been to David Icke's web site ONCE and that certainly
qualifies you to dismiss his 10 years of prolific output as hacked. You
read of a channeler as "his source on reptilians" and that's that; end
of the story. ( "... I gave up. Great market but nothing new there,
is there? "). Whew! (Do you carry your six shooters low on your
hips or at mid waist?)
Here again, you've allowed your arrogance and braggadocio to surge far
ahead of the facts. David Icke devoted most of the 480 pages that
make up his SEVENTH BOOK "The Biggest Secret", to the topic of reptilian
aliens. Apparently the names of Arizona Wilder, Credo Muta, and Cathy O'Brian,
among a host of other first hand witnesses quoted in Icke's book,
hold no significance for you.
4. You keep referring to "my platform" and your "readers".
Patricia, exactly where or what is your "platform"? Where might I locate
it? Where are your fine discriminatory readers to be located? I want to
view what they are viewing. How can I do that?
5. I'm not going to write a book in response to your book. I'll let
the readers at my web site decide the merits of your arguments based on
your own words. However, I will summarize the theme of your attitude concerning
the NWO. According to you:
A) Everyone on the Internet and in print is a hack, copying and re-copying
"old news". You, on the other hand, know the inside scoop, but mysteriously
fail to inform us why or how you should be privy to such high level secrets.
B) This is an very EMOTIONAL topic for you, that's why you wrote
you first E mail in all caps. You're angry. The question is why?
You are quickly stirred up about Icke and Cooper, etc., sharply dismissing
them without ever having really studied their work carefully. Again, the
question is why ? You keep referring to me in a collective vein, as if
I'm part of a larger group. You write that you can't wait to see "your
faces". Who are the other people that you are lumping me together with?
Has it ever occured to you that you might have a psychological issue here?
C) Your said that your father worked for the OSS. It's well known that
the CIA and other intel groups, including military intel, involve the entire
family of employees in their machinations, and not just the "employee".
You DO have a lot of inside information about the NWO and Illuminati, I'm
quite sure, but you are not revealing HOW you came upon that knowledge.
And that's really the crux of the matter, isn't it?
You write in every way like another Barbara Hartwell, a former TV media
person, with a CIA family background and mind controlled to the hilt. She's
also full of anger towards the most accurate researchers who write or lecture
about the Illuminati, while lauding the disinfo boys as being her 'true
friends'.
Do you think you're ready to talk about mind control and intel family
members in your next book?
All information posted on this web site is
the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only.
It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor
can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer
of your choice for medical care and advice.