"I am the webmaster for Zecharia Sitchin..."


Signs of The Times
SITE MAP

SOTT Daily News and Commentary

The Signs Quick Guide

Note to New Readers

Archives

Search

Message Board

BOOKS

The Secret History of The World by Laura Knight-Jadczyk

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 11107 since June 16, 2003.