Problems with Mark Richards' SSP testimony to Kerry Cassidy

[Clear Light]

Oh, not that I have any "skin in the game" (so-to-say) nor am I "taking sides" (one way or the other) however in my brief "research" on this thread I have a couple of points I'd like to highlight. Please see below.

Earlier as I read Deux Corbeaux's post above about Kevin in Amsterdam I was reminded of his appearance on the "I'm Spiritual Dammit" radio show (here) in which he declared there was a very particular reason he went to Amsterdam (at around the 14 minute mark) although the host jumped in and cut him off with the subsequent discussion moving off on a tangent so Kevin never did say what it was [1] ...

Point 1 : As far as I can make out, the alleged "sexually related" company in question was named "Just 18 Limited" and from online records (here), its two directors (back in 2001) were "Jonathan David Simon Warnes" and "Kevin Daniel Moore". I found mention of this subject here, here and here although it only seems to be non-verifiable information unless the purported YouTube videos are still in circulation somewhere eh ?

Point 2 : There is a very interesting comment made in Kerry's latest interview video with Mark Richards (MARK RICHARDS INTERVIEW 10 - CASE & SPACE COMMAND - SOUND CORRECTED) as follows :

DISCLAIMER: I [Chad Mensan] have been a fan and supporter of Project Camelot for some time, and in general I consider Kerry to be the foremost source of reliable information in this field. This shall be my third attempt to comment on this video... I deleted the previous ones because they turned out to be too negative(not my intention). To the point... In the commentary thus far, regarding the Mark Richards story, it has been maintained that he was "off-planet" when the murder occurred. This is reiterated in the description of this video(which is also displayed on screen at the beginning of it). At approx. 26:00 Kerry says that Richards' alibi was that he was eating lunch with his parents at the time of the murder. Later she reveals that there is a lunch receipt(provided by a person identified as the "chimney sweep") from that day that was used by the prosecution to place Richards with his employees at that time(he says that he payed and left). BOTH accounts assert that he was in fact upon the planet Earth when the murder occurred. This is not possibly a slip up or an oversight; it is a mid-stream change in the narrative that she is providing(which I now believe that she is being DIRECTED to provide - at least certain details are added or omitted). Throughout the previous nine interviews, and the several years during which they were conducted, the story was ALWAYS "off-planet"; it was never vague and never varied. Now we're told that there is physical evidence to the contrary, and it's presented without even an acknowledgement of its contradiction. I still have confidence in Kerry's intent and integrity(and more than ever trust Richards' bona fides), but just look at how confused and befuddled she appears to be in this video! That's not what I'm used to seeing. She actually looks nervous to me, and she's constantly losing her place while reading prepared lines about things that she's covered so many times that I could present it from memory just from watching her. I think that there's something seriously rotten behind the scenes on this issue. Most importantly I hope that Kerry's okay.

I'd be interested in hearing Kerry's explanation for this significant Narrative divergence ?



[1] If you want to listen to it but you're not in the United States you'll have to use a VPN to fool the website into giving access, although I've downloaded the Audio file and can email it if requested.

[geofffxdwg]

Posted by Strat (here)
It would be neat if records could be attained regarding how much money is put in his commissary since his revelations.

I personally know of just over 16000 UK pounds that I have verified. 15000 of those pounds need to be paid back. It was a loan.

[Agape]

Well, what about “fighting the windmills”?

I am not sarcastic, it’s rather sad to see how much of valuable research time is being poured into case like this that sits behind steel walls of federal prison.
I’m not saying not to fight for truth, justice and freedom ..

but think if your research experience there- in resonance of utter gravity of the topic - quote: top secret military research program buried in one of the most watched prisons , now leaking out through whistleblower projects “uncensored” .
Where’s the smiley

What’s next, what’s next, logically , asks local shaman ?


Is there Kerry or Kevin with laser guns breaking to the top secret most planetary facility, joining the flight to Andromeda that’s IF the captain can actually steer the timetable even a little bit.


I wanted to say, “ask yourself where are you going with this, what do you really hope or foresee to be the true purpose and result of your investigations”.


My best perspective I’ve acquired over last couple of years dealing with some unprecedentedly quirky and dangerous entities worldwide is no matter what’s being offered to you, if your strength and knowledge are not bigger than theirs don’t go for it.
In brief , if ET has something too important to let us know we will get to know of it. It’s not so difficult these days.


As Bill himself said many times and on another occasion, “just another story”.


Maybe -Mark maybe quite real to what are hundreds or thousands of people attesting to who don’t sit in prison. Military and ET “space program”.
Sounds good. I know of handful of great guys and gals who are extraordinary people living ordinary lives who go for space and other missions, including members of PA.

Can they prove it ? Does majority of people who actually got some knowledge of what’s going on even try to prove it?
I dare to say no.

We all have to prove ourselves in what we know the best.

[Deux Corbeaux]

Posted by Kryztian (here)

Posted by Deux Corbeaux (here)

Posted by kevin Moore (here)

1) I do not own, nor have I ever owned a shop of any kind, sex or otherwise, in Amsterdam, or anywhere else. Stop lying.

Hi Kevin. I'm sure I heard you talking about your "sex-toy business" in Amsterdam (that wasn't a success) in an interview not so long ago - and I think it was on the Fade To Black Show with Jimmy Church on April 22nd.

Selling sex toys is not the same as having as having a retail location. Many people do this from home, kind of like people who sell Tupperware®. In fact, I knew someone who sold these goods at parties others would throw in their homes and she was known as the "F*ckerware Lady."

Also, I don't think Kevin stated that this was in Amsterdam on the interview.

Because I was born and raised in Amsterdam, I’m “lightened-up” every time the town is mentioned. So yes, it was Amsterdam he was talking about.

ADD

From post #626 https://www.offshorealert.com/Forums...=posts&t=59245

[kevin Moore]

Heres my response video made back in November 2018

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=AxPqbsDWbgo

[Sky Matters]

Everytime I go back to this thread I end up taking a deep breath and wanting others to do the same thing. I first began to look at Richards in 2012 after a friend asked if there was anything I could do. The story was fascinating - both as something that combined true crime and adventures in space and as a lesson illustrating the importance of providing documentation to support claims. I began my website on that basis and it continues to be my interest in the matter.

I can understand Geoff's frustrations if the documentary took a different turn than he expected. It happens, particularly in a story that is complex as this one. Ultimately, Kevin's documentary will have to stand or fall on its own merits. If it turns into a hatchet job on other people then it can be judged at that time.

As to other allegations, I am not interested in whether Kevin had a sex business in Amsterdam unless it somehow becomes relevant in light of what he eventually produces. Until then, matters like that are a distraction.

Those interested in the saga owe Kevin a great deal for the court records he obtained (with Geoff), interviews with many of the principals, and even the attention he has focused on the story. He obtained things that I wanted to review, but never had the time to do so. He spurred me to obtain other documents and to seek further information - and I still have things on my "to do" list that I might not have considered but for his work. My website certainly never attracted the attention that his announced documentary has produced.

Mark has encouraged people to do their own research. Kevin took him up on that. I know he has some amazing material. What he does with any of what he finds is yet to be seen.

Similarly, Jo Ann's and Mark's story has to stand or fall on whether the claims that can be proven are validated. I think I can say that Jo Ann has been cordial and even helpful in recent correspondence, but if there are other things going on, then the relevance has to be shown. Even assuming that Jo Ann used multiple names, does it disprove Mark's claims? We might or might not see.

Jo Ann remains in control of the narrative, however. She recently wrote that she will not fully provide full information because "it is not the defendant’s job to prove innocence, but the prosecution’s task to prove guilt." I disagree with that.

The trial is long over. Mark has advanced numerous things that are now part of the public record, including some claims that are contradictory. The burden to support matters that can be proven is upon him. Credibility must be based on more than trust.

I could go through a long list of specific matters, but my website has always asked for validation. So where does that leave us?

The easiest way to silence Kevin is to show that Mark is credible. As I recently wrote on another blog, "If [JoAnn] invites me over to look at the evidence and Mark's claims are shown to be true, I will retract what I have written on my web site, tell Kevin that he should abandon his film, and support Mark's bid for clemency."

Let's cut through the rhetoric.

In the meantime, I have felt almost honor bound to respond to Paul Collin's assertion that court records establish that the victim, Richard Baldwin, was a pedophile - nothing he has written about that is accurate. I have been astounded to read from Kerry and Simon that Trump might pardon Mark - we still have a constitution. And I have been saddened to read accusations from the 10th interview that one of Mark's trial attorneys was a mob associate who was in a unique position to help frame Mark - I will defend Carl's reputation to anyone. As Kerry has, I asked who benefits?

Those are the kind of things that have kept the story growing for me.

But if someone looks at the documentation that both Kevin and I have posted and decides that Mark really was both a lieutenant in Vietnam and a very busy college student at the same time; that Mark was able to combine work on an Ecotopian vision with being a space captain or Rhodes Scholar; that Richards could have numerous advanced degrees; or that none of it matters because Mark is a friend with Prince Naga and a member of the Republican National Committee, then so be it.

[geofffxdwg]

Am I allowed to say who loaned Kevin Moore the 15000 pounds for this project or does that fall under the new doxxing guidelines for this thread?

[Kryztian]

Posted by geofffxdwg (here)
Am I allowed to say who loaned Kevin Moore the 15000 pounds for this project or does that fall under the new doxxing guidelines for this thread?

If Catherine Austin Fitts can discuss secret financing and paper trails, I think you can do that to. As long as no personal contact information is released.
(Note: I am not a moderator, so this is just my two cents worth of hot air on the issue, so this is not an official go ahead.)

[Hervé]

Posted by geofffxdwg (here)
Am I allowed to say who loaned Kevin Moore the 15000 pounds for this project or does that fall under the new doxxing guidelines for this thread?

It all depends if it's coming from some document that's in the public domain/record and readily available to anyone to verify; or if it involves a breach of confidentiality... like leaking some confidential, classified, top secret document... In any case, it's better to avoid publishing non-public personal data on anyone.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by geofffxdwg (here)
Am I allowed to say who loaned Kevin Moore the 15000 pounds for this project or does that fall under the new doxxing guidelines for this thread?

Geoff, many thanks for asking the question. I had to think for just a moment about that.

If the financier didn't want his name revealed, and it was a private arrangement, then I think we need to respect that. For instance, if he had asked Kevin Moore not to reveal his name, and Kevin had promised his name would be kept confidential, we have no right to overrule that agreement and breach that promise.

It would come under the category of 'harming' someone, exactly as if we publicized a private message — or (for instance) publicized your own financial dealings with anyone at all.

It's different from the kinds of financial investigations that Catherine Austin Fitts deals with, as those concern the dealings of either public companies or governmental institutions. In both of those situations, the public has a broad right to know (although of course there will be some exceptions). And here, with Kevin Moore's projects, there's no allegation or suggestion of any kind of financial impropriety.

So here, it's all rather different. We, the public reading all this, do not have a right to know.

However:

You (or anyone) can ask Kevin Moore to please reveal the details. If he chooses to share those in the name of transparency, then of course that's fine, and he'd be respected for it. But if he chooses not to, then he can be asked, as a simple straight question, why those details are being kept private from the other stakeholders.

And anyone else mentioned in or connected with the documentary is a stakeholder, as it were, inasmuch as they're possibly affected parties. In other words, they have a direct personal interest in all this.

Their reputation might be harmed, for instance — and arguably, this is Kevin's definite intention with some people. So while they might not have a formal right or need to know, they might well strongly feel that they should know — and I think that they probably do.

[kevin Moore]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by geofffxdwg (here)
Am I allowed to say who loaned Kevin Moore the 15000 pounds for this project or does that fall under the new doxxing guidelines for this thread?

Geoff, many thanks for asking the question. I had to think for just a moment about that.

If the financier didn't want his name revealed, and it was a private arrangement, then I think we need to respect that. For instance, if he had asked Kevin Moore not to reveal his name, and Kevin had promised his name would be kept confidential, we have no right to overrule that agreement and breach that promise.

It would come under the category of 'harming' someone, exactly as if we publicized a private message — or (for instance) publicized your own financial dealings with anyone at all.

It's different from the kinds of financial investigations that Catherine Austin Fitts deals with, as those concern the dealings of either public companies or governmental institutions. In both of those situations, the public has a broad right to know (although of course there will be some exceptions). And here, with Kevin Moore's projects, there's no allegation or suggestion of any kind of financial impropriety.

So here, it's all rather different. We, the public reading all this, do not have a right to know.

However:

You (or anyone) can ask Kevin Moore to please reveal the details. If he chooses to share those in the name of transparency, then of course that's fine, and he'd be respected for it. But if he chooses not to, then he can be asked, as a simple straight question, why those details are being kept private from the other stakeholders.

And anyone else mentioned in or connected with the documentary is a stakeholder, as it were, inasmuch as they're possibly affected parties. In other words, they have a direct personal interest in all this.

Their reputation might be harmed, for instance — and arguably, this is Kevin's definite intention with some people. So while they might not have a formal right or need to know, they might well strongly feel that they should know — and I think that they probably do.

Hi Bill Kerry will listen to you as a voice in this community. You know the Mark story is not true! Your ex partner, Kerry’s top whistle blower, Mark Richards, is not who he says he is! Can you help Kerry to see the light Bill ? – Mr Baldwin was not a pedo. For the sake of the community, will you speak to her to help her see sense for once, or is she just too lost in Mark's fantasy? You say you stand for truth, Bill, will you make a stand now with this story and help your ex partner Kerry - or is this all just one big disinformation party?

[norman]

Kevin, at risk of getting myself shoved off this forum I'll say:

Why don't you get on with being the best possible documantary maker you can be, rather than a sloppy low grade forum poster?

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by kevin Moore (here)
Hi Bill Kerry will listen to you as a voice in this community. You know the Mark story is not true! Your ex partner, Kerry’s top whistle blower, Mark Richards, is not who he says he is! Can you help Kerry to see the light Bill ? – Mr Baldwin was not a pedo. For the sake of the community, will you speak to her to help her see sense for once, or is she just too lost in Mark's fantasy? You say you stand for truth, Bill, will you make a stand now with this story and help your ex partner Kerry - or is this all just one big disinformation party?

Kevin, you already asked this question.

Posted by kevin Moore (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by kevin Moore (here)
Bill, you wrote, "We have no horse in the race, save that we support the truth — whatever it is." I am extending a request to include you in the documentary. I am curious, where do you stand on the Mark Richards story?

1. Not a chance.
2. I've already very clearly stated where I stand. Nothing has changed. Almost everyone reading this will be fully aware of my position. If that's somehow not been understood, there's nothing more I can do to clarify it.

Hi Bill,
Thanks! I just wanted to clarify that, but here’s the thing, Bill. Kerry will listen to you as a voice in this community. You know the Mark story is not true! Your ex partner, Kerry’s top whistle blower, Mark Richards, is not who he says he is! Can you help Kerry to see the light Bill ? – Mr Baldwin was not a pedo. For the sake of the community, will you speak to her to help her see sense for once, or is she just too lost in Mark's fantasy? You say you stand for truth, Bill, will you make a stand now with this story and help your ex partner Kerry - or is this all just one big disinformation party?

... and Paul beat me to an excellent reply.

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by kevin Moore (here)
Thanks! I just wanted to clarify that, but here’s the thing, Bill. Kerry will listen to you as a voice in this community.

From what I've observed of Bill and Kerry over the years, neither one of them will listen to (grant authority to) the voice of the other, or for that matter the voice of most anyone else, when that would override their own well considered conclusions.

That's one strength they share in common.

[kevin Moore]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by kevin Moore (here)
Hi Bill Kerry will listen to you as a voice in this community. You know the Mark story is not true! Your ex partner, Kerry’s top whistle blower, Mark Richards, is not who he says he is! Can you help Kerry to see the light Bill ? – Mr Baldwin was not a pedo. For the sake of the community, will you speak to her to help her see sense for once, or is she just too lost in Mark's fantasy? You say you stand for truth, Bill, will you make a stand now with this story and help your ex partner Kerry - or is this all just one big disinformation party?

Kevin, you already asked this question.

Posted by kevin Moore (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by kevin Moore (here)
Bill, you wrote, "We have no horse in the race, save that we support the truth — whatever it is." I am extending a request to include you in the documentary. I am curious, where do you stand on the Mark Richards story?

1. Not a chance.
2. I've already very clearly stated where I stand. Nothing has changed. Almost everyone reading this will be fully aware of my position. If that's somehow not been understood, there's nothing more I can do to clarify it.

Hi Bill,
Thanks! I just wanted to clarify that, but here’s the thing, Bill. Kerry will listen to you as a voice in this community. You know the Mark story is not true! Your ex partner, Kerry’s top whistle blower, Mark Richards, is not who he says he is! Can you help Kerry to see the light Bill ? – Mr Baldwin was not a pedo. For the sake of the community, will you speak to her to help her see sense for once, or is she just too lost in Mark's fantasy? You say you stand for truth, Bill, will you make a stand now with this story and help your ex partner Kerry - or is this all just one big disinformation party?

... and Paul beat me to an excellent reply.

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by kevin Moore (here)
Thanks! I just wanted to clarify that, but here’s the thing, Bill. Kerry will listen to you as a voice in this community.

From what I've observed of Bill and Kerry over the years, neither one of them will listen to (grant authority to) the voice of the other, or for that matter the voice of most anyone else, when that would override their own well considered conclusions.

That's one strength they share in common.

well that reply Bill Sucks as you have the power to sort Kerry out

[PurpleLama]

Posted by kevin Moore (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by kevin Moore (here)
Hi Bill Kerry will listen to you as a voice in this community. You know the Mark story is not true! Your ex partner, Kerry’s top whistle blower, Mark Richards, is not who he says he is! Can you help Kerry to see the light Bill ? – Mr Baldwin was not a pedo. For the sake of the community, will you speak to her to help her see sense for once, or is she just too lost in Mark's fantasy? You say you stand for truth, Bill, will you make a stand now with this story and help your ex partner Kerry - or is this all just one big disinformation party?

Kevin, you already asked this question.

Posted by kevin Moore (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by kevin Moore (here)
Bill, you wrote, "We have no horse in the race, save that we support the truth — whatever it is." I am extending a request to include you in the documentary. I am curious, where do you stand on the Mark Richards story?

1. Not a chance.
2. I've already very clearly stated where I stand. Nothing has changed. Almost everyone reading this will be fully aware of my position. If that's somehow not been understood, there's nothing more I can do to clarify it.

Hi Bill,
Thanks! I just wanted to clarify that, but here’s the thing, Bill. Kerry will listen to you as a voice in this community. You know the Mark story is not true! Your ex partner, Kerry’s top whistle blower, Mark Richards, is not who he says he is! Can you help Kerry to see the light Bill ? – Mr Baldwin was not a pedo. For the sake of the community, will you speak to her to help her see sense for once, or is she just too lost in Mark's fantasy? You say you stand for truth, Bill, will you make a stand now with this story and help your ex partner Kerry - or is this all just one big disinformation party?

... and Paul beat me to an excellent reply.

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by kevin Moore (here)
Thanks! I just wanted to clarify that, but here’s the thing, Bill. Kerry will listen to you as a voice in this community.

From what I've observed of Bill and Kerry over the years, neither one of them will listen to (grant authority to) the voice of the other, or for that matter the voice of most anyone else, when that would override their own well considered conclusions.

That's one strength they share in common.

well that reply Bill Sucks as you have the power to sort Kerry out

He really doesn't. Don't you get that?

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by PurpleLama (here)

Posted by kevin Moore (here)
well that reply Bill Sucks as you have the power to sort Kerry out

He really doesn't. Don't you get that?

It's very hard to believe Kevin's actually disappointed. If Kerry were to somehow change her view about the Mark Richards case (and of course, she won't), then he'd have no documentary.

Sounds like I'm being set up here to be criticized (again). I'll have no part of that.

@Kevin: please understand this. Again, I state it on public record. None of this has anything at all to do with me.

[geofffxdwg]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by PurpleLama (here)

Posted by kevin Moore (here)
well that reply Bill Sucks as you have the power to sort Kerry out

He really doesn't. Don't you get that?

It's very hard to believe Kevin's actually disappointed. If Kerry were to somehow change her view about the Mark Richards case (and of course, she won't), then he'd have no documentary.

Sounds like I'm being set up here to be criticized (again). I'll have no part of that.

@Kevin: please understand this. Again, I state it on public record. None of this has anything at all to do with me.

After watching Kevin Moore for several months do smash jobs on several people time and time again, It amazes me that anyone will talk to him. I don't understand how he does not realize this or how he would think anyone from the UFO community regardless of whether they are frauds or the real deal would want to come on his documentary.

Its self destructive behavior. Moore seems to be on self destruct mode and I feel somewhat personally responsible because I started all of this last June.

I want to apologize to everyone here on Avalon and in the UFOlogy field either as a spectator or a public personality. I had no idea the seeds I sewed would ever lead to this.

Sorry everyone..........

[Strat]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Sounds like I'm being set up here to be criticized

I would've used the term 'exploited'.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by geofffxdwg (here)

I want to apologize to everyone here on Avalon and in the UFOlogy field either as a spectator or a public personality. I had no idea the seeds I sewed would ever lead to this.

Sorry everyone..........

Kudos.

Posted by Strat (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Sounds like I'm being set up here to be criticized

I would've used the term 'exploited'.

Made me laugh. Yes.

A metaphysical interlude: to play a game, one has to have opponents. (Or, at least, difficulties against which one strives to achieve a goal.)

Some people, determined to play a game (and the term is not meant trivially), need to manufacture or seek out opponents. Or else.... there'd be no game for them to play.

I'm not going to be Kevin Moore's opponent. And I never have been.

So I play no part in this game.

To clarify more specifically: if my name, or that of Project Avalon, appears in this documentary without my consent in any form, then having given this notice, if this is violated, I'll have the video removed from YouTube for breaches of privacy, a request and warning having been formally given in public.

[Jad]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by geofffxdwg (here)

I want to apologize to everyone here on Avalon and in the UFOlogy field either as a spectator or a public personality. I had no idea the seeds I sewed would ever lead to this.

Sorry everyone..........

Kudos.

Posted by Strat (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Sounds like I'm being set up here to be criticized

I would've used the term 'exploited'.

Made me laugh. Yes.

A metaphysical interlude: to play a game, one has to have opponents. (Or, at least, difficulties against which one strives to achieve a goal.)

Some people, determined to play a game (and the term is not meant trivially), need to manufacture or seek out opponents. Or else.... there'd be no game for them to play.

I'm not going to be Kevin Moore's opponent. And I never have been.

So I play no part in this game.

To clarify more specifically: if my name, or that of Project Avalon, appears in this documentary without my consent in any form, then having given this notice, if this is violated, I'll have the video removed from YouTube for breaches of privacy, a request and warning having been formally given in public.

I still don’t think you explained it enough Bill.. 😉