I (Bill) am being impersonated on Facebook.

[Poly Hedra]

Are you sure? How do you know? It's getting messy.


Edit: "8 page long thread" so is this person reading this thread? Is this thread private or public? How is this info available to her?

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by sigma6 (here)
I have to say Paul, I don't think you fully comprehended what I just wrote above...

Perhaps I didn't comprehend ... or perhaps I don't agree.

Posted by sigma6 (here)
The relationship between you and your NAME is very powerful, and there is NO EXCEPTION.

No exception, in your view.

But I'm not going to debate that legal subject here (or anywhere else, for that matter.)

[Daughter of Time]

Posted by conec (here)
Are you sure? How do you know? It's getting messy.


Edit: "8 page long thread" so is this person reading this thread? Is this thread private or public? How is this info available to her?

If you read the name next to the facebook posts ridiculing Bill, the name is Chelley Parks, which is 9eagle9's name. Also, her facebook photograph is most definitely a most likely resemblance to her avatar photograph on PA. So unless someone is doing a brilliant job of hacking into her facebook account (which is not impossible) and who knows exactly how she feels about Bill, then it must be her.

And no, I don't think she started the fake page. She probably learned about it the way we all did, by reading this thread.

And yes, this is a public page, visible to visitors.

She's probably one of the regular guests, reading this page right now and having a very good laugh.

[Poly Hedra]

Ok thanks for clearing that up. Makes me feel uneasy that this thread is public for the simple fact that what is written here can be used for a mud slinging match by this person and others.

I just think the only way to deal with this is for there to be an actual official fb page for PA. my opinion only
I don't think that writing on this profile is going to do much good anymore. If fb have refused to take it down then the person responsible must feel like they can carry on with this, because realistically we all cant just keep leaving comments, plus it's adding fuel to the fire.

[Anchor]

If Bill Ryan can be faked then so can other people, including perhaps 9eagle9 and other "commenters" too.

Remember what Facebook is. Remember who it works for.

Don't yank that drama chain - seriously this is no big deal. Some comments on this thread make like something awful has happened.

Like Bill said, its nothing more than a mosquito buzzing in the room.

[RMorgan]

Hey folks,

Right, we know the page is fake. Facebook probably will not do anything about it.

Anyway, I´m just curious here; Is there any truth about what he/she is saying regarding Henry Deacon´s name being used to promote Project Camelot´s event without his proper authorization?

I know some people here are close to Kerry and Project Camelot, so I would really like to hear the other side of this story.

Cheers,

Raf.

[Kristin]

Posted by RMorgan (here)
Hey folks,

Right, we know the page is fake. Facebook probably will not do anything about it.

Anyway, I´m just curious here; Is there any truth about what he/she is saying regarding Henry Deacon´s name being used to promote Project Camelot´s event without his proper authorization?

I know some people here are close to Kerry and Project Camelot, so I would really like to hear the other side of this story.

Cheers,

Raf.

Sounds like a simple PM to Bill to ask Raf. (or at least another thread )

[Anchor]

Posted by Daughter of Time (here)
If you read the name next to the facebook posts ridiculing Bill, the name is Chelley Parks, which is 9eagle9's name. Also, her facebook photograph is most definitely a most likely resemblance to her avatar photograph on PA. So unless someone is doing a brilliant job of hacking into her facebook account (which is not impossible) and who knows exactly how she feels about Bill, then it must be her.

Your logic has some big gaps; and your conclusion "then it must be her" is actually wrong.

Someone could set up a facebook account and use the avatar of anyone here (or who was here). It does not require "hacking" to do that.


-- Update --

I apologize for my wording. I don't know one way or the the other if the posts where made by 9eagle9 or not - they may well have been. I was simply taking issue with the conclusions drawn based on the evidence available - I am sorry if this was misinterpreted.

[Hervé]

Posted by Anchor (here)
[...]

... your conclusion "then it must be her" is actually wrong.

Care to expand on that with some data? Or substantiated logic?

[Flash]

Posted by Anchor (here)

Posted by Daughter of Time (here)
If you read the name next to the facebook posts ridiculing Bill, the name is Chelley Parks, which is 9eagle9's name. Also, her facebook photograph is most definitely a most likely resemblance to her avatar photograph on PA. So unless someone is doing a brilliant job of hacking into her facebook account (which is not impossible) and who knows exactly how she feels about Bill, then it must be her.

Your logic has some big gaps; and your conclusion "then it must be her" is actually wrong.

Someone could set up a facebook account and use the avatar of anyone here (or who was here). It does not require "hacking" to do that.

Chelley has no time nor is she at that level to play low life games like this. This is not her, I am sure.

It looks much much more like GW style of doing things. My opinion only.

Or, paid shills, or three letters agencies (which GW may have been paid by in the past anyhow).

So, it is someone which has the same inner attitude.

As sigma6 said, lauch a libel lawsuit to facebook for hosting it. And demand for the name of the owners. It will come down fast enough.

[Daughter of Time]

Posted by Anchor (here)

Posted by Daughter of Time (here)
If you read the name next to the facebook posts ridiculing Bill, the name is Chelley Parks, which is 9eagle9's name. Also, her facebook photograph is most definitely a most likely resemblance to her avatar photograph on PA. So unless someone is doing a brilliant job of hacking into her facebook account (which is not impossible) and who knows exactly how she feels about Bill, then it must be her.

Your logic has some big gaps; and your conclusion "then it must be her" is actually wrong.

Someone could set up a facebook account and use the avatar of anyone here (or who was here). It does not require "hacking" to do that.

I imagine it is possible (I am not a tech expert) that someone who knows about her experiences on Avalon and who knows how she feels about Bill (as stated on the posts of the fake page) could open a facebook account with her name and photograph. But it is rather unlikely.

My conclusion "may be wrong" but you don't know if it "is actually wrong".

"Then it must be her" should probably have been phrased "it's probably her".

So apologies for my misuse of semantics. I didn't mean for my post to be accusatory. It was just an observation after reading those posts.

[Arc]

A couple thoughts on the topic...

1) If you become an icon, brand, organization, or personality, as Bill and Avalon have become in this niche, you may generally face issues with counterfeiters, libelers, hoaxers, etc. Look at even large corporations like Nike, Apple, Prada, and so forth who are continual targets of counterfeit products flooding markets from unscrupulous knock-offs, putting their brand logos on inferior products. Unfortunately, I think that this requires the frustrating and perhaps energy draining need to defend against these attacks and thefts.

2) At best this is a hoaxer or other attempt to just impersonate Bill and Avalon for the thrill of it by some mischievous sort. At worst, it is a simple and elegant means by "agencies/governments/cointel-pro" to divert the attention of the Project Avalon forum off from real topics. Once again, they stir up some controversy (the bait), the impassioned forum bites - starts madly posting and putting majority of energy into this thread instead of on more constructive truth seeking and spiritual topics. It's been done over and over here. In part, it is even why I have been discouraged to post as frequently here at times.

Now, I am not downplaying the seriousness of this attack on Bill and PA's identity (I would even explore the legal copyright lawsuit possibilities if I were Bill - at least explore them). I am just saying, what if there are a couple jerks from some letter agency high-fiving each other right now, gloating about, "look how easy this was to undermine them again! we can distract and troll them so easily...let's stir up another emotive argumentive thread or topic again soon!"

3) I have also not opted in to the whole social media movement, seeing it as one step closer to losing our privacy and in-our-face spying, with the cleverness of our granted consent (again! - gosh how do these diabolical forces keep tricking us into consent!?). Some may argue, that you don't have privacy anymore anyway, and someone who wants your info can get it. And, further that you might as well use the current technology anyway, even knowing all of this because often we can turn the tools of the oppressors and controllers against them if we try.

But, still facebook, twitter, and such has no appeal to some segment of us. I would ask, is this how they finally goad us into it? Basically, making a statement to the opt-out crowd, that if you do not enroll and set up your true identity on these sites, that you will subject yourself to being impersonated? and with little recourse to stop it once it happens, as they seem to care little about this. Is this how they finally coerce us to opt-in to the spy system? Effectively saying, "If you don't opt in, we (or our trolls and agents) will smear you, and naive society at large will believe those impersonations are you!" This is truly another disturbing development, Indeed!

[sigma6]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by sigma6 (here)
I have to say Paul, I don't think you fully comprehended what I just wrote above...

Perhaps I didn't comprehend ... or perhaps I don't agree.

Posted by sigma6 (here)
The relationship between you and your NAME is very powerful, and there is NO EXCEPTION.

No exception, in your view.
But I'm not going to debate that legal subject here (or anywhere else, for that matter.)

Not sure how you are defining "opinion"
Someone can provide information based on study, research, discussion and consensus,
even try it out in the real world and then share their experience as an "opinion"
And someone else could just negate it based on (their uncertainty of the topic matter?)

I hope people can differentiate the difference between those two types of "opinions"

When it comes to research and application vs intellectual predilection,
that makes a world of difference to those who actually intend to use it.

Just my opinion (lol) and I better rephrase that last quote.
The RELATIONSHIP between YOU and your NAME is very powerful IF you understand it.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by RMorgan (here)
Hey folks,

Right, we know the page is fake. Facebook probably will not do anything about it.

Anyway, I´m just curious here; Is there any truth about what he/she is saying regarding Henry Deacon´s name being used to promote Project Camelot´s event without his proper authorization?

I know some people here are close to Kerry and Project Camelot, so I would really like to hear the other side of this story.

Cheers,

Raf.

Isn't that odd that someone randomly happening upon that page would come to such a conclusions? Where is she supposedly getting such inside knowledge?... Isn't that without basis right there...?

[Anchor]

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)

Posted by Anchor (here)
[...]

... your conclusion "then it must be her" is actually wrong.

Care to expand on that with some data? Or substantiated logic?

I did explain one scenario that breaks the conclusion.

I think Daughter of Time knew what I meant and I appreciate her later elaboration.

It seems to me there are two axes being ground - one for Bill, one for 9eagle9.

I know it would be nice to get this to unravel quickly, but who ever did this was clever enough to make sure it takes time to bring to an end.

The best we can do is stop hurling slings and arrows and jumping to conclusions - which all feed the fire.

Speculate if you want, but make sure its clear you are speculating and try not to state something as fact when you are not sure - or we are being no better than any other manipulative media source.

[Wind]

Someone is playing games...

[Hervé]

Posted by Anchor (here)

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)

Posted by Anchor (here)
[...]

... your conclusion "then it must be her" is actually wrong.

Care to expand on that with some data? Or substantiated logic?

I did explain one scenario that breaks the conclusion.

I think Daughter of Time knew what I meant and I appreciate her later elaboration.

It seems to me there are two axes being ground - one for Bill, one for 9eagle9.

I know it would be nice to get this to unravel quickly, but who ever did this was clever enough to make sure it takes time to bring to an end.

The best we can do is stop hurling slings and arrows and jumping to conclusions - which all feed the fire.

Speculate if you want, but make sure its clear you are speculating and try not to state something as fact when you are not sure - or we are being no better than any other manipulative media source.

I understand the answer; however, the "actually" implies there are actual data available to sort out speculations. If not then you are making someone wrong by "uttering" (writing) one more speculation.

I am not speculating whether or not DoT knew what you meant on the psychic airwaves.

What I am interested in is: what are those data that allowed you to conclude her speculation based on Chelley's Facebook page is "actually wrong"?

[gigha]

I kinda have to go with Flash on this one. I also like what Anchor says "I know it would be nice to get this to unravel quickly, but who ever did this was clever enough to make sure it takes time to bring to an end."
9eagle9 certainly believes in the unknown, where as GW seemed to have an aversion to the unknown.
Sometimes I think with good reason.
In saying that it seems to me that anyone involved with PA or PC especially
Bill and Kerry the last couple of years it must have been hard.
Many knocks and accusations
But why and who would of been lying in wait since 12/18/2009

peace and harmony to all gigha..

Posted by Anchor (here)

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)

Posted by Anchor (here)
[...]

... your conclusion "then it must be her" is actually wrong.

Care to expand on that with some data? Or substantiated logic?

I did explain one scenario that breaks the conclusion.

I think Daughter of Time knew what I meant and I appreciate her later elaboration.

It seems to me there are two axes being ground - one for Bill, one for 9eagle9.

I know it would be nice to get this to unravel quickly, but who ever did this was clever enough to make sure it takes time to bring to an end.

The best we can do is stop hurling slings and arrows and jumping to conclusions - which all feed the fire.

Speculate if you want, but make sure its clear you are speculating and try not to state something as fact when you are not sure - or we are being no better than any other manipulative media source.

[sigma6]

I am feeling inspired. So this will be a memorable place to put another post on my continuing extrapolation of my "opinions" on trust interpretation. from the example at the previous link #128

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post647557

There are two important points here... establishing immediately Revocation of POA (presumed or otherwise) and specific instruction... now why do you think they "jumped"? because they KNEW they were liable. They could not deny evidence of being informed of MY INTENTION what they were to do with MY NAME (Title/Property)

UPDATE:

Title is property right, Trustee is liable, Superior Interest is Control

What makes this more then just "telling somebody what to do"? I first made effort to contact them by phone and then by email. Fortunately, their system automatically creates and delivers a copy of all email correspondence (bonus!) i.e. proof of receipt and record of all correspondence (huge bonus for me) Based on that, they were legally notified by Declaration (one of four ways to create a trust) In this case I was expressing a "particular" trust relationship that I wanted. In the process of doing that, I negated or rebutted an automatic or "default" trust relationship that comes into existence when you are unaware of it, or completely clueless...(regardless of your "opinion") What is known as a "constructive" or "construed" trust. Trust is just a way of explaining relationships. And the rules of how those relationships operate.

Now I am sure many people have tried to inquire about or acquire "records" relating to their NAME, or forms they put signature to, etc. And what happens? you get railroaded... right? It's "as if" you don't have control over documents that are clearly related to you! The "relationship" is BIGGER then you think! In fact legally every document you put a signature too has legal value and technically becomes a form of property. And that "property" (as in legal right or title) belongs to you! as per research done by Christian Walters. So that begs the question even more. How can someone tell you what to do with what should be your property right by definition? (created by your NAME)

The short answer. Because you are 'incompetent' You created a property, the paper is the property and the title, (and you didn't create a copy in many instances, and you allowed (and thus agreed to) let someone else "hold it" for you.
Then "automatically" (as an operation of LAW) they became trustee. And you are completely unaware of that. (further proof of your 'incompetence') So the type of relationship is construed according to their liking. And just as a baby that is being "looked after" in a trust relationship has no say, neither do you. They are many possible interpretations of how they are operating as trustee, or as POA regarding your account. But it is definitely not one where you are in control.

But trusts are designed so that when you want to "come of age" and decide you want to take control... YOU CAN! And why can you, because everything discussed so far revolves around your NAME. The most important "property" and the linchpin that ties to everything RELATED to you. And the only 'party' with the superior interest in that is YOU. And the "proof" is the certificate that was ISSUED to you. An analysis of the BC and trust interpretation (which we will 'skip' here) would determine that you can be the SETTLOR. (Very similar to the Trustor, or Grantor) What does the Settlor do? In a nutshell, the INTENT of the Settlor is the LAW of the TRUST. So when you step in and determine that you want certain things done a certain way in a particular trust relationship, then it MUST BE SO.

The most grievous crime in trust is BREACH OF TRUST! Now getting back to "everyday" reality, so why don't they listen? Because somewhere in their contracts and interpretation, they are acting as with POA, and construing you as agreeing by acquiescence and/or incompetence. How do you remove POA? YOU TELL THEM! And until you do, they presume they have it...

Again in order to appreciate this, just think in terms of simple physical property. Someone else can be holding it, but as long as you have proof or evidence of your interest. Then in equity that party (you!) has UNDISPUTED superior interest. This isn't about "ownership" or "possession of title" "Ownership has over a dozen interpretations that can only be differentiated using trust terminology. (now there's a clue) The simple rule- I avoid using the word, ie. I NEVER say I am the owner, that can be, and is misconstrued every time. Instead speak in terms of interest and possession.... Possession of title doesn't necessarily mean controlling interest, as much as liability. Thus, the Government is holding the title. (the original SoLB document) that is proof of the existence of a record which is used as evidence of title (meaning proof of controlling interest in a thing) and then issued you a certified 'copy'. So now you have evidence ("proof in fact") that the State is HOLDING evidence of your title. Those records would also show that the "property" (the NAME) was intended to be "given" to you. Title transfer by purchase, inheritance, or through "giving" all require proof in the form of some kind of paperwork. In this case the BC is your proof, which is why it was issued to you. It is proof you are the party with superior interest, the 'intended' referred to in the record. The registration information is "proof" that the State/Province is holding the original signature Title (legal title doesn't transfer with a copy). That document is indisputable, court admissible, proof positive of these facts. One of the rare times you can prove facts in court! This is what they are making reference to the Vital Statistics Act when they say "...evidence of the facts so certified..." (how cryptic is that?!)

This means the State/Province is YOUR TRUSTEE (holding your property). And the only reason everyone (including myself, but not for long) suffers is because, in this context of trust interpretation, we ARE ALL 'incompetent' Nor have we come forward and exercised that superior claim. They are "holding" it. And they are always considered some form of trustee (what kind depends...)

This is as much as I can articulate for now. On the substance of extrapolation above, that is why the MOST IMPORTANT THING is understanding your relationship to YOUR NAME, It's about control of your life. How much is that worth to you? Yes, we are in a matrix. And we may have been dumbed down, information and knowledge has been "hidden". But there are options. I personally am going to keep digging (researching) like the Count of Monte Cristo, 'cause I for one am not happy with the status quo. And I encourage everyone else to make the decision that if you want to take control of your life. You want to learn about the "title" that controls everything that you put "NAME" to. Your the only one who can demand how others manage it. Because you are the only contributing beneficiary! It's your trust! (as a potential waiting to be 'realized')

As an interesting aside from another great thinker in this movement, Rod Class of Talkshoe fame. He has an incredible knowledge of US Statutes and Codes and has been sharing freedom principles for over 11 years. If you check his most recent 3 audios, 13.03.06 (and the two previous) - he is just now starting to talk about the BC!!! From a Trust interpretation!! I thought I would never live to see the day! (CW started this awareness about 3 1/2 years ago - Aug 2009)

Trust is created by interpreting ACTIONS, not paperwork, what do I have title to? or what was intended for me to have title to?
(since I never received the record/title, the State/Province interceded and is holding it for me)
who is holding my "property"? (the NAME/Title/property) is held by the State/Province
Who is therefore considered in the trustee position? the State/Province
POA is a big part of this equation and starting to be recognized.
Regarding my credit card example... "someone" understood very clearly what I was getting at... and was 'compelled' to act immediately.


links for my own reference:

previous:
TV Licence Man and Policeman are educated to what the LAW is
THE JURISDICTION GAME

following:
Re: The Potentiality Of Love- A letter from Bill - Posted 19th March 2012 by Eva Moore.
Bill and Commercial Redemption Interpretation?

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by sigma6 (here)
I am feeling inspired. So this will be a memorable place to put another post on my continuing extrapolation of my "opinions" on trust interpretation. from the example at the previous link #128

This is feeling to me like a bit of a digression from the central topic of this thread, and also like not the best place to further pursue your analysis of trust interpretation.

Can you think of a better place for this ... perhaps a new and separate thread, or perhaps an existing thread, either way leaving behind a link and a few inviting words on this thread, for those who find, as you do, the connection in topics to be especially relevant?

I'm willing to do the thread split and post moving, if I knew where best to put things.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
I understand the answer; however, the "actually" implies there are actual data available to sort out speculations.

I read things the other way around.

I read Daughter of Time's earlier post as making the claim that barring exceptional hacking skills, this Chelley posting on Facebook must be the one we knew as 9eagle9.

I read Anchor as observing we don't actually know that this is so, given what facts are available so far.

Had that been all that had been said (it wasn't) then the burden of providing actual data would have been on Daughter of Time, as it was she who made the strong claim, not on Anchor, who only noted the absence of sufficient data so far to support that claim.