+ Reply to Thread
Page 29 of 37 FirstFirst 1 19 29 37 LastLast
Results 561 to 580 of 738

Thread: Problems with Mark Richards' SSP testimony to Kerry Cassidy

  1. Link to Post #561
    Avalon Member norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2010
    Location
    too close to the hot air exhaust
    Age
    66
    Posts
    6,598
    Thanks
    8,924
    Thanked 37,292 times in 5,916 posts

    Default Re: Problems with Mark Richards' SSP testimony to Kerry Cassidy

    Can anyone here tell me of a case where a serious documentary maker made this much noise in public during the process of making it?

    This fishily smells more like a campaign that's using the 'idea' of a documentary like a firearm that never actually has it's trigger pulled, or has no bullets in it.

    Shouting and screaming and waving an empty gun at people looks bad, but will we hear the trigger click of an empty gun. And if we do, are we supposed to laugh, or assume he thought it was loaded?
    ..................................................my first language is TYPO..............................................

  2. The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to norman For This Post:

    Andrew_K (28th April 2019), Bill Ryan (29th April 2019), Billy (29th April 2019), BMJ (1st May 2019), Debra (29th April 2019), Denise/Dizi (29th April 2019), geofffxdwg (28th April 2019), Iancorgi (29th April 2019), janette (29th April 2019), Mike (29th April 2019), onawah (28th April 2019), Tintin (30th April 2019), Valerie Villars (29th April 2019)

  3. Link to Post #562
    United States Avalon Member Jasmyne Emmerick's Avatar
    Join Date
    26th January 2019
    Location
    Northwest NJ
    Posts
    20
    Thanks
    91
    Thanked 187 times in 19 posts

    Default Re: Problems with Mark Richards' SSP testimony to Kerry Cassidy

    Is it possible to get a clear copy of the slide allegedly showing Mark as a "Vietnam consultant at age 16?" The image not legible, even when I zoom in on it.

  4. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Jasmyne Emmerick For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (29th April 2019), Debra (29th April 2019), Denise/Dizi (29th April 2019), geofffxdwg (29th April 2019), janette (29th April 2019), Mike (29th April 2019), Pam (30th April 2019), Tintin (30th April 2019)

  5. Link to Post #563
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    29,543
    Thanks
    152,169
    Thanked 387,356 times in 28,045 posts

    Default Re: Problems with Mark Richards' SSP testimony to Kerry Cassidy

    Quote Posted by Jasmyne Emmerick (here)
    Is it possible to get a clear copy of the slide allegedly showing Mark as a "Vietnam consultant at age 16?" The image not legible, even when I zoom in on it.
    That may be my bad. Here's a better copy of what Jo Ann sent me to share. This image is 1514 px wide, i.e. larger than the compressed version shown on the forum page. If you download it (or 'View' it), it seems to be mainly very readable.



    It says:

    _________________

    ADMINISTRATIVE REMARKS

    U. S. NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY, DANANG, VIETNAM

    27 MAY 1969:
    Authorized to wear the Navy Achievement Medal with Combat "V"
    for service in the I Corps Tactical Zone, Republic of Vietnam
    on 10 Feb 1969. AUTH: NAVFORV ltr FF5-16/112:dee of 31 MAR 69.
    RICHARDS, MARK

    ***

    (Note: I can't be certain of the section after 'AUTH:', but I think that's what's written. There's also some other very small print which is illegible or not fully clear to me.)
    Last edited by Bill Ryan; 29th April 2019 at 01:57.

  6. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    BMJ (1st May 2019), Constance (29th April 2019), Debra (29th April 2019), Denise/Dizi (29th April 2019), geofffxdwg (29th April 2019), Inversion (29th April 2019), janette (29th April 2019), Jasmyne Emmerick (30th April 2019), Tintin (30th April 2019), Yoda (29th April 2019)

  7. Link to Post #564
    United States Avalon Member Denise/Dizi's Avatar
    Join Date
    2nd July 2017
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,361
    Thanks
    20,868
    Thanked 9,921 times in 1,338 posts

    Default Re: Problems with Mark Richards' SSP testimony to Kerry Cassidy

    Quote Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
    Quote Posted by Jasmyne Emmerick (here)
    Is it possible to get a clear copy of the slide allegedly showing Mark as a "Vietnam consultant at age 16?" The image not legible, even when I zoom in on it.
    That may be my bad. Here's a better copy of what Jo Ann sent me to share. This image is 1514 px wide, i.e. larger than the compressed version shown on the forum page. If you download it (or 'View' it), it seems to be mainly very readable.

    It says:

    _________________

    ADMINISTRATIVE REMARKS

    U. S. NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY, DANANG, VIETNAM

    27 MAY 1969:
    Authorized to wear the Navy Achievement Medal with Combat "V"
    for service in the I Corps Tactical Zone, Republic of Vietnam
    on 10 Feb 1969. AUTH: NAVFORV ltr FF5-16/112:dee of 31 MAR 69.
    RICHARDS, MARK

    ***

    (Note: I can't be certain of the section after 'AUTH:', but I think that's what's written. There's also some other very small print which is illegible or not fully clear to me.)
    Does anyone know what Mark was claiming to have been doing at the date listed on this document? 10 Feb 1969..

    I looked up what this medal is actually for, and it appears the medal is given by both the Navy and the Marines for people that participated in Vietnam in the intelligence field. And it is awarded for : Meritorious service or achievement in a combat or noncombat situation based on sustained performance of a superlative nature

    So it implies that it is given to individuals working in an intelligence capacity in a wartime situation where there is either combat or noncombat happening at the time.

    Did Mark suggest that he was in the intelligence field? I don't recall his details ever suggesting that, but rather he places himself in combat situations as a pilot and actual combat soldier.. Not someone gathering and trading intelligence?

    I just want to make sure I have that right before I look further

  8. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Denise/Dizi For This Post:

    Andrew_K (29th April 2019), geofffxdwg (29th April 2019), janette (29th April 2019), Jasmyne Emmerick (30th April 2019), Joe (29th April 2019)

  9. Link to Post #565
    United States Avalon Member Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    27th February 2015
    Posts
    303
    Thanks
    1,258
    Thanked 1,595 times in 282 posts

    Default Re: Problems with Mark Richards' SSP testimony to Kerry Cassidy

    ...........
    Last edited by Joe; 10th April 2020 at 13:50.

  10. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Joe For This Post:

    Andrew_K (29th April 2019), BMJ (1st May 2019), geofffxdwg (29th April 2019), Islander12 (29th April 2019), Jasmyne Emmerick (30th April 2019), Mike (30th April 2019)

  11. Link to Post #566
    United States Avalon Member Denise/Dizi's Avatar
    Join Date
    2nd July 2017
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,361
    Thanks
    20,868
    Thanked 9,921 times in 1,338 posts

    Default Re: Problems with Mark Richards' SSP testimony to Kerry Cassidy

    Quote Posted by Joe (here)
    I believe the part pertaining to your question is here:
    Quote Mark began his military career as a teenager. At age 16 he worked on a top-secret project at Lockheed and was also a consultant in Vietnam. He was a lieutenant during the Vietnam War flying helicopters.
    So... according to Mark, in 1969 he was a 16 year old helicopter pilot in Vietnam. I have to admit, I put together a timeline of events from JoAnn’s chronologically incoherent blog post above.

    It was so unbelievably seeped in fantasy that I threw it in the trash rather than even post it here on this thread, I was too embarrassed to post it. People really need to move on from this story. Mark is a lying psychopath who will remain in prison for the rest of his life.

    He, as many psychopaths do, has snared some intellectually undiscerning people (JoAnn & Kerry) in his web. They have unfortunately given him a platform for attention that pulls in even more gullible people. It is pure fantasy, and it’s exposing some serious emotional and mental disfunction within the ufology field. It will eventually run its course like any other illness.

    Kerry has a huge problem with silver tongued charming liers who flatter her with male attention: Sean David Morton, Simon Parks, Michael Tellinger, & Mark Richards. This is nothing new from her, her influence in ufology will continue to wither to irrelevancy as she stubbornly persists.
    Thank You for that quote above about what he was doing during that time..

    The point of asking the question, was to refocus the attention of the community as a whole.. To SHOW them that he is not being honest.. Rather than to spend a ton of time gossiping about who was "pulled in" by the deceptions. And then begin to bash them merely for their own mistakes.

    I like Kerry, and while I do not have a personal relationship with her, I have watched her work for a great number of years and I do appreciate that Bill does know her and he doesn't all all think that Kerry would intentionally commit professional suicide by supporting Mark's claims deliberately. I do not want Kerry to fail because she believes his claims to be truth.. I do not know Jo Anne either, but these are Mark's lie's and our community we are dealing with..

    You wrote this, and this is your opinion, and you wrote it nicely, and it was enough said. Everyone else can read it, and note that this may be the case, and form their own conclusions..

    "He, as many psychopaths do, has snared some intellectually undiscerning people (JoAnn & Kerry) in his web."

    Fair enough.. Now people think that this may be something to watch out for. They can evaluate the evidence.. As it is checked, and presented, and decide for themselves. Yet they're NOT because of all of the fiascos and name calling going on. I find this to be sad on so many levels.

    My post was to remind people if we check the facts, they should speak for themselves. Then it isn't our problem if someone else chooses to present it as truth, eventually they will lose their audience, and they will have to figure it out for themselves. It is really that simple. There are polite ways of handling situations..

    In a nutshell, what is happening in our community is terrible (in my opinion).. and I would rather be part of the solution, than the problem itself. While we need to self regulate, I think we are doing a poor job of doing it in a manner than helps us just address things and continue forward..

    In your own assessment of the situation you yourself have suggested that you believe that Jo Anne and Kerry have been taken in by someone who is mentally ill.. Rather than continue to throw salt on that wound, back that up with some credible evidence that indeed the story "Doesn't line up"... And move along.. (As you did).. Thank you, you get it....And we all move along with you...

    Leaving behind those that just can't see it for what it is.. In that sense I agree with you... This could have been done long ago.. And rather than doing it, everyone is waiting for Kevin's video. WE ARE the community. Why wait for Kevin and just get embroiled in that drama? If it isn't happening, and it itself, is becoming it's own circus? Time someone else addresses it.

    People will see that evidence, and then realize that it can't be true.. And rather than ATTACK these people that did fall for the lies, you can let them know that you know it isn't true.. And here is the proof... So you can't support their claims. It's really that simple. I thought that is what this site was for..
    Last edited by Denise/Dizi; 29th April 2019 at 19:18.

  12. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Denise/Dizi For This Post:

    Andrew_K (29th April 2019), Mike (30th April 2019), onawah (2nd May 2019), Valerie Villars (29th April 2019)

  13. Link to Post #567
    United States Avalon Member Valerie Villars's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th November 2017
    Age
    60
    Posts
    2,882
    Thanks
    32,001
    Thanked 20,270 times in 2,842 posts

    Default Re: Problems with Mark Richards' SSP testimony to Kerry Cassidy

    Personally, I see evidence of large swaths of B.S.and wasted energy on many fronts of this DRAMA.

    In the words of my son, "I hate drama."
    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what we share with someone when we are uncool." From the movie "Almost Famous""l "Let yourself stand cool and composed before a million universes." Walt Whitman

  14. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Valerie Villars For This Post:

    BMJ (1st May 2019), Denise/Dizi (29th April 2019), Mike (30th April 2019), onawah (2nd May 2019), Star Tsar (30th April 2019)

  15. Link to Post #568
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    29,543
    Thanks
    152,169
    Thanked 387,356 times in 28,045 posts

    Default Re: Problems with Mark Richards' SSP testimony to Kerry Cassidy

    Quote Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
    Quote Posted by Jasmyne Emmerick (here)
    Is it possible to get a clear copy of the slide allegedly showing Mark as a "Vietnam consultant at age 16?" The image not legible, even when I zoom in on it.
    That may be my bad. Here's a better copy of what Jo Ann sent me to share. This image is 1514 px wide, i.e. larger than the compressed version shown on the forum page. If you download it (or 'View' it), it seems to be mainly very readable.



    It says:

    _________________

    ADMINISTRATIVE REMARKS

    U. S. NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY, DANANG, VIETNAM

    27 MAY 1969:
    Authorized to wear the Navy Achievement Medal with Combat "V"
    for service in the I Corps Tactical Zone, Republic of Vietnam
    on 10 Feb 1969. AUTH: NAVFORV ltr FF5-16/112:dee of 31 MAR 69.
    RICHARDS, MARK

    ***

    (Note: I can't be certain of the section after 'AUTH:', but I think that's what's written. There's also some other very small print which is illegible or not fully clear to me.)
    ~~~

    I have a simple question about this apparently very real military document. If it's been asked and answered before, then do please forgive me.

    There must have been many men called Mark Richards in the US Navy. It's a common name. The Service Number here is redacted. How do we know which Mark Richards this is?

  16. The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    anandacate (30th April 2019), Andrew_K (30th April 2019), BMJ (1st May 2019), Debra (1st May 2019), Denise/Dizi (30th April 2019), geofffxdwg (30th April 2019), ichingcarpenter (2nd May 2019), Islander12 (30th April 2019), Ivanhoe (30th April 2019), Jasmyne Emmerick (30th April 2019), Joe (30th April 2019), Mike (30th April 2019), onawah (30th April 2019), Tintin (30th April 2019), Yoda (30th April 2019)

  17. Link to Post #569
    United States Avalon Member Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    27th February 2015
    Posts
    303
    Thanks
    1,258
    Thanked 1,595 times in 282 posts

    Default Re: Problems with Mark Richards' SSP testimony to Kerry Cassidy

    ...........
    Last edited by Joe; 10th April 2020 at 13:50.

  18. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Joe For This Post:

    anandacate (30th April 2019), Andrew_K (30th April 2019), Bill Ryan (30th April 2019), BMJ (1st May 2019), Denise/Dizi (30th April 2019), geofffxdwg (30th April 2019), Islander12 (30th April 2019), Jasmyne Emmerick (30th April 2019), Mike (30th April 2019), onawah (30th April 2019), Pam (30th April 2019), Tintin (30th April 2019)

  19. Link to Post #570
    Avalon Member Pam's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th June 2012
    Posts
    2,782
    Thanks
    32,495
    Thanked 20,810 times in 2,714 posts

    Default Re: Problems with Mark Richards' SSP testimony to Kerry Cassidy

    Quote Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
    Quote Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
    Quote Posted by Jasmyne Emmerick (here)
    Is it possible to get a clear copy of the slide allegedly showing Mark as a "Vietnam consultant at age 16?" The image not legible, even when I zoom in on it.
    That may be my bad. Here's a better copy of what Jo Ann sent me to share. This image is 1514 px wide, i.e. larger than the compressed version shown on the forum page. If you download it (or 'View' it), it seems to be mainly very readable.



    It says:

    _________________

    ADMINISTRATIVE REMARKS

    U. S. NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY, DANANG, VIETNAM

    27 MAY 1969:
    Authorized to wear the Navy Achievement Medal with Combat "V"
    for service in the I Corps Tactical Zone, Republic of Vietnam
    on 10 Feb 1969. AUTH: NAVFORV ltr FF5-16/112:dee of 31 MAR 69.
    RICHARDS, MARK

    ***

    (Note: I can't be certain of the section after 'AUTH:', but I think that's what's written. There's also some other very small print which is illegible or not fully clear to me.)
    ~~~

    I have a simple question about this apparently very real military document. If it's been asked and answered before, then do please forgive me.

    There must have been many men called Mark Richards in the US Navy. It's a common name. The Service Number here is redacted. How do we know which Mark Richards this is?
    I already addressed this but it becomes more apparent with the enlarged "document". Why is the name MARK RICHARDS so much larger than any other word in the document, including other capital letters? The typist would have continued to type USN right after typing his name and the size of the capital letters don't match. This would have been typed out. You would have to use a different type writer to get the larger print?

    If a service number was generated for him, why cover it up? If this was really top secret no one would have the document to share online. If this is redacted by the government for security reasons it should now be a public record that we should be able to order a duplicate, right? If this is real the service number could vindicate him. Also, why not use his middle name on a official document? I have seen other documents of this general type that uses the middle name.

  20. The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to Pam For This Post:

    anandacate (30th April 2019), Andrew_K (30th April 2019), Bill Ryan (30th April 2019), BMJ (1st May 2019), Debra (1st May 2019), Denise/Dizi (30th April 2019), geofffxdwg (30th April 2019), Islander12 (30th April 2019), Ivanhoe (30th April 2019), Jasmyne Emmerick (30th April 2019), Joe (30th April 2019), Mike (30th April 2019), onawah (2nd May 2019), Tintin (30th April 2019)

  21. Link to Post #571
    Avalon Member The Moss Trooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    21st May 2017
    Posts
    653
    Thanks
    921
    Thanked 4,561 times in 626 posts

    Default Re: Problems with Mark Richards' SSP testimony to Kerry Cassidy

    Nobody goes straight from civilian street and into 'Special Forces"........... NOBODY.

    A 16 year old in an active war zone, without relevant training or experience, is a danger to all around them, in whatever capacity they are said to be there for. Where did he glean his experience that made him so important to be an advisor? An advisor in what field, and in what capacity?

    Are we to believe that a teenage Mark Richards had more combat information, or intelligence information than combat intel, or the CIA, or the I-Corp?

    If he was military, at all, then he will have a DD 214. This can easily be shown publicly without breaking any security oaths as any attachments to clandestine outfits or regiments (companies) will not be shown. It is THE basic form upon retirement, discharge or separation from ANY and ALL active duty, this should be no problem as, I believe, both Mark and Jo Ann have stated that he was involved in combat.

    Jo Ann, for dogs sake, either show the DD 214 or stop with this s**t show.
    Last edited by The Moss Trooper; 30th April 2019 at 15:37.

  22. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to The Moss Trooper For This Post:

    anandacate (30th April 2019), Andrew_K (30th April 2019), Debra (1st May 2019), Denise/Dizi (6th May 2019), geofffxdwg (30th April 2019), ichingcarpenter (2nd May 2019), Islander12 (30th April 2019), Jasmyne Emmerick (30th April 2019), Joe (30th April 2019), Mike (30th April 2019), onawah (2nd May 2019), Pam (30th April 2019)

  23. Link to Post #572
    Avalon Member Pam's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th June 2012
    Posts
    2,782
    Thanks
    32,495
    Thanked 20,810 times in 2,714 posts

    Default Re: Problems with Mark Richards' SSP testimony to Kerry Cassidy

    Quote Posted by The Crimson Horse Blanket (here)
    Nobody goes straight from civilian street and into 'Special Forces"........... NOBODY.

    A 16 year old in an active war zone, without relevant training or experience, is a danger to all around them, in whatever capacity they are said to be there for. Where did he glean his experience that made him so important to be an advisor? An advisor in what field, and in what capacity?

    Are we to believe that a teenage Mark Richards had more combat information, or intelligence information than combat intel, or the CIA, or the I-Corp?

    If he was military, at all, then he will have a DD 214. This can easily be shown publicly without breaking any security oaths as any attachments to clandestine outfits or regiments (companies) will not be shown. It is THE basic form upon retirement, discharge or separation from ANY and ALL active duty, this should be no problem as, I believe, both Mark and Jo Ann have stated that he was involved in combat.

    Jo Ann, for dogs sake, either show the DD 214 or stop with this s**t show.
    Interesting that you should mention the DD 214 form. I had a relative that recently died and wanted to be buried in a military cemetery which required the DD 214. No one could find his military discharge papers so I checked out getting copies of the papers and was surprised to find out just how easy it was for a relative to get copies of this. Jo Ann, being his wife, should be able to provide this document within weeks. They are rather zippy on turn around time because they are needed before the military will accept veterans for burial.

  24. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Pam For This Post:

    anandacate (30th April 2019), Andrew_K (30th April 2019), Debra (1st May 2019), Denise/Dizi (30th April 2019), geofffxdwg (30th April 2019), Jasmyne Emmerick (30th April 2019), Joe (30th April 2019), Mike (30th April 2019), onawah (2nd May 2019)

  25. Link to Post #573
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    29,543
    Thanks
    152,169
    Thanked 387,356 times in 28,045 posts

    Default Re: Problems with Mark Richards' SSP testimony to Kerry Cassidy

    Quote Posted by peterpam (here)
    Quote Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
    I have a simple question about this apparently very real military document. If it's been asked and answered before, then do please forgive me.

    There must have been many men called Mark Richards in the US Navy. It's a common name. The Service Number here is redacted. How do we know which Mark Richards this is?
    I already addressed this but it becomes more apparent with the enlarged "document". Why is the name MARK RICHARDS so much larger than any other word in the document, including other capital letters? The typist would have continued to type USN right after typing his name and the size of the capital letters don't match. This would have been typed out. You would have to use a different type writer to get the larger print?

    If a service number was generated for him, why cover it up? If this was really top secret no one would have the document to share online. If this is redacted by the government for security reasons it should now be a public record that we should be able to order a duplicate, right? If this is real the service number could vindicate him. Also, why not use his middle name on a official document? I have seen other documents of this general type that uses the middle name.
    Yes, many thanks: when you posted that the first time about the enlarged typeface, I'd missed the point.

    I reproduced the typeface here, using Courier (not identical, but very similar) with the width compressed at 73%, to see what the font size comparison was.



    ...and, with exactly the same sized screenshot:



    The first line was recreated using font size 32, and the second was 46. That's quite a difference.

    It equates to the first being 12 (one standard typewriter font size), and the second being 17. (Or the first being 10, the other standard size, and the second being a little over 14.) These are approximations, of course, but you'll get the idea.

    I'm certainly not an expert in typewriters used by the US military in the Vietnam era. But I have to say, I'd be surprised if typewriters with font size 14 or 17 existed. Some research may be needed to see if it's absolutely possible this entire document was created using two (different) real typewriters — as opposed to, of course, the name 'RICHARDS, MARK' being Photoshopped in later at an implausible and accidental larger size.

    I'm NOT making any accusation that this the document was created (or re-created) in the modern era. But I do suggest a bit more investigation may be needed if anyone has a bit of time to spare, as this seems like a legitimate document research question.

    ***

    Meanwhile, here's a reply from Jo Ann, as of 13 hours ago. (Note: that means she's not yet addressed the most recent posts here, just earlier ones.)

    ~~~
    To the members...I assure you that I am intelligent and discerning. I've known Mark for 21+ years. I would never have stayed with him this long if I felt like I was being duped.
    There seems to be some confusion about the 1969 Vietnam medal and the bio I posted on my blogsite.
    For clarification:
    Mark went to Vietnam in 1969 as a consultant. I don't know how long he was there. He never said he was chopper pilot at that time.
    He served in Vietnam as an Army chopper pilot after high school. He was there for 6 months, starting in the summer of 1972 I believe.
    Please remember, I cannot post directly to the Forum. If you want to ask me something, post on my blogsite https://dragonhillnews.wordpress.com...-space-program or email me at ecochicks@edhca.org.
    Thanks,
    Jo Ann Richards
    Last edited by Bill Ryan; 30th April 2019 at 16:42.

  26. The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    anandacate (30th April 2019), Andrew_K (30th April 2019), BMJ (1st May 2019), Debra (1st May 2019), Denise/Dizi (30th April 2019), geofffxdwg (30th April 2019), ichingcarpenter (2nd May 2019), Islander12 (30th April 2019), Jasmyne Emmerick (30th April 2019), Joe (30th April 2019), Mike (30th April 2019), onawah (2nd May 2019), Pam (1st May 2019), ThePythonicCow (1st May 2019), Yoda (30th April 2019)

  27. Link to Post #574
    Avalon Member Sky Matters's Avatar
    Join Date
    21st November 2018
    Posts
    13
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 111 times in 13 posts

    Default Re: Problems with Mark Richards' SSP testimony to Kerry Cassidy

    A lot has unfolded while I have been tracking down petroglyphs in the Southwest. I don't want to get into matters pertaining to Kevin or Geoff. The documentary will eventually speak for itself and I wish well for them both.

    There are other Mark Richards - including one who was in the military. Several months ago I submitted a request to the National Archives using Mark's birthdate and the years of claimed service in both the Army and Navy. No records were found. JoAnn has also claimed that all records are classified, but this is hardly an answer to those portions of Marks claims that are subject to verification.

    The chronology is important:

    1971 - Graduated from high school
    1972 - Attended the local community college and was on the honor role.
    1973 - Arrested while going to classes in Marin County (fall term) relating to an incident that had occurred during the summer. His future attorney in the Pendragon trial got the charges dismissed, but it demonstrates Mark was very much at home.
    1974 - Transferred to Dominican College, where he started a student newspaper, was active in school affairs, and housesat for a professor during summers.
    1976 - Graduated as a history major. Announced plans for a movie about Tristan and rented space at a Theological School to start a school of future studies.

    This does not leave any room for having been a helicopter pilot in Vietnam and participating in the evacuation of Saigon.

    At the height of Mark's claimed career as a space captain, he was editing an Ecotopian magazine and looking for land to pursue his vision. He married, started a business as an unlicensed contractor, and was facing deep financial problems by 1982. There is simply no room for a military career, multiple advanced academic degrees or, for that matter, current membership at the highest levels of the Republican National Committee.

    If JoAnn can release a photo of Mark in uniform, correspondence between Mark's father and the Dalai Lama, and airship plans developed by Mark's grandfather, I would be more impressed.

    My website - The Story of "Captain Mark Richards" is a work in progress that now includes specific articles related to recent claims and attacks on his trial attorneys. But if a picture is worth a thousand words, then do the attached photos from 1976 and 1978 show Mark as a military officer?

    As always I am more than willing to look at anything JoAnn offers or to meet with her at the Dragonhill Research Center. If I am wrong, she should welcome the opportunity to clarify matters.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_2364.JPG
Views:	20
Size:	1.21 MB
ID:	40493   Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_2974.JPG
Views:	17
Size:	112.7 KB
ID:	40494  

  28. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Sky Matters For This Post:

    Andrew_K (30th April 2019), BMJ (1st May 2019), Debra (1st May 2019), Denise/Dizi (30th April 2019), geofffxdwg (30th April 2019), happyuk (30th April 2019), Jasmyne Emmerick (1st May 2019), Joe (30th April 2019), Mike (30th April 2019), onawah (2nd May 2019), Pam (1st May 2019)

  29. Link to Post #575
    United States Avalon Member Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    27th February 2015
    Posts
    303
    Thanks
    1,258
    Thanked 1,595 times in 282 posts

    Default Re: Problems with Mark Richards' SSP testimony to Kerry Cassidy

    ...........
    Last edited by Joe; 10th April 2020 at 13:49.

  30. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Joe For This Post:

    BMJ (1st May 2019), Denise/Dizi (30th April 2019), ichingcarpenter (2nd May 2019), onawah (2nd May 2019), sunwings (30th April 2019)

  31. Link to Post #576
    Avalon Member Sky Matters's Avatar
    Join Date
    21st November 2018
    Posts
    13
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 111 times in 13 posts

    Default Re: Problems with Mark Richards' SSP testimony to Kerry Cassidy

    Quote He served in Vietnam as an Army chopper pilot after high school. He was there for 6 months, starting in the summer of 1972 I believe.
    That alone is interesting. A helicopter pilot had to go through two levels of training, similar to boot camp. The accounts of people who went through it make clear it's intensity and length, which was longer than 6 months. Add to that the one year tour of duty and reassignment for the period of enlistment. It was not a summer job.

    Mark could not have done that and returned to the College of Marin where he made the honor roll.

    As to duty in Vietnam at the age of 16, Mark has previously stated that at that age he was given an Army "operational commission" to consult with the Stanford Research Institute. (Cassidy, 6th Interview.). Although there are separate problems with the, having to do with the dates the SRI programs operated, it is a different story than what is now being claimed.
    Last edited by Sky Matters; 1st May 2019 at 17:54.

  32. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Sky Matters For This Post:

    Andrew_K (30th April 2019), Billy (1st May 2019), BMJ (1st May 2019), Debra (1st May 2019), Denise/Dizi (30th April 2019), geofffxdwg (30th April 2019), ichingcarpenter (2nd May 2019), Islander12 (1st May 2019), Joe (30th April 2019), onawah (2nd May 2019), Pam (1st May 2019)

  33. Link to Post #577
    United States Deactivated geofffxdwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    8th March 2012
    Location
    Mt Shasta
    Posts
    153
    Thanks
    648
    Thanked 1,233 times in 135 posts

    Default Re: Problems with Mark Richards' SSP testimony to Kerry Cassidy

    Quote Posted by peterpam (here)
    Quote Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
    Quote Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
    Quote Posted by Jasmyne Emmerick (here)
    Is it possible to get a clear copy of the slide allegedly showing Mark as a "Vietnam consultant at age 16?" The image not legible, even when I zoom in on it.
    That may be my bad. Here's a better copy of what Jo Ann sent me to share. This image is 1514 px wide, i.e. larger than the compressed version shown on the forum page. If you download it (or 'View' it), it seems to be mainly very readable.



    It says:

    _________________

    ADMINISTRATIVE REMARKS

    U. S. NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY, DANANG, VIETNAM

    27 MAY 1969:
    Authorized to wear the Navy Achievement Medal with Combat "V"
    for service in the I Corps Tactical Zone, Republic of Vietnam
    on 10 Feb 1969. AUTH: NAVFORV ltr FF5-16/112:dee of 31 MAR 69.
    RICHARDS, MARK

    ***

    (Note: I can't be certain of the section after 'AUTH:', but I think that's what's written. There's also some other very small print which is illegible or not fully clear to me.)
    ~~~

    I have a simple question about this apparently very real military document. If it's been asked and answered before, then do please forgive me.

    There must have been many men called Mark Richards in the US Navy. It's a common name. The Service Number here is redacted. How do we know which Mark Richards this is?
    I already addressed this but it becomes more apparent with the enlarged "document". Why is the name MARK RICHARDS so much larger than any other word in the document, including other capital letters? The typist would have continued to type USN right after typing his name and the size of the capital letters don't match. This would have been typed out. You would have to use a different type writer to get the larger print?

    If a service number was generated for him, why cover it up? If this was really top secret no one would have the document to share online. If this is redacted by the government for security reasons it should now be a public record that we should be able to order a duplicate, right? If this is real the service number could vindicate him. Also, why not use his middle name on a official document? I have seen other documents of this general type that uses the middle name.
    Just to clarify Mark Richards has no middle name.

  34. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to geofffxdwg For This Post:

    Billy (1st May 2019), BMJ (1st May 2019), Debra (1st May 2019), Denise/Dizi (30th April 2019), onawah (2nd May 2019), Pam (1st May 2019)

  35. Link to Post #578
    United States Deactivated geofffxdwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    8th March 2012
    Location
    Mt Shasta
    Posts
    153
    Thanks
    648
    Thanked 1,233 times in 135 posts

    Default Re: Problems with Mark Richards' SSP testimony to Kerry Cassidy

    Quote Posted by Sky Matters (here)
    A lot has unfolded while I have been tracking down petroglyphs in the Southwest. I don't want to get into matters pertaining to Kevin or Geoff.
    Well, I know for a fact the extremely slanderous post Jennifer made attacking myself and my 3 and 5 year old daughters here was made while Kevin and Jennifer were staying at your home. Furthermore I know Jennifer cannot even tie her own shoes without Kevin's approval when it pertains to this 3 ring Jerry Springer circus Kevin has turned this in to. Kevin gave his approval when the lovely Jennifer Eisner (whom I have never met in my life) posted here in a failed and sad attempt to discredit me. Kevin also laughs at me for attacking my daughters in private on face book.

    These are the two people you let into your home. I know you told them some ground rules for your home and I was to understand both you and your wife would not be there either. I have already talked to the police about filing a criminal complaint against both Kevin Moore and Jennifer Eisner for their vicious lies and online harassment and from what I have been told they are crimes.

    Your home and your router provided them the opportunity to attack me. I know you would have never condoned these activities. BTW are you aware Kevin Moore secretly recorded your phone call between him and you? If not I'm sure you are aware by now.
    Last edited by Bill Ryan; 1st May 2019 at 18:40. Reason: Sky Matters' name and general location edited out by his request

  36. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to geofffxdwg For This Post:

    Andrew_K (1st May 2019), Billy (1st May 2019), BMJ (1st May 2019), Debra (1st May 2019), onawah (2nd May 2019)

  37. Link to Post #579
    United States Avalon Member ThePythonicCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Language
    English
    Age
    74
    Posts
    28,268
    Thanks
    30,064
    Thanked 135,200 times in 21,174 posts

    Default Re: Problems with Mark Richards' SSP testimony to Kerry Cassidy

    Quote Posted by peterpam (here)
    I already addressed this but it becomes more apparent with the enlarged "document". Why is the name MARK RICHARDS so much larger than any other word in the document, including other capital letters?
    As someone who was quite familiar with U.S. military documents of that era, I share this doubt.

    It is almost beyond my imagination that the clerk typing this up would have had a second, large font, typewriter on his desk, next to his regular typewriter, and would have pulled the form out of one typewriter, into the other, just to type the name RICHARDS, MARK on a fairly routine looking ADMINISTRATIVE REMARKS form.
    First Lieutenant Paul Jackson
    United States Air Force 1970-1974
    ===

    P.S. -- That large font typewriter made remarkably clear and uniform impressions as well ... better than his regular typewriter. The letters of his name are less "blotchy." That was not easy to do on such typewriters.
    Last edited by ThePythonicCow; 1st May 2019 at 15:38.
    My (sometimes rather dormant) blog: theMooster.net

  38. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to ThePythonicCow For This Post:

    Andrew_K (1st May 2019), BMJ (2nd May 2019), Constance (1st May 2019), Debra (1st May 2019), Denise/Dizi (6th May 2019), Mike (1st May 2019), onawah (2nd May 2019), Pam (6th May 2019)

  39. Link to Post #580
    United States Avalon Member ThePythonicCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Language
    English
    Age
    74
    Posts
    28,268
    Thanks
    30,064
    Thanked 135,200 times in 21,174 posts

    Default Re: Problems with Mark Richards' SSP testimony to Kerry Cassidy

    Quote Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
    I'm certainly not an expert in typewriters used by the US military in the Vietnam era. But I have to say, I'd be surprised if typewriters with font size 14 or 17 existed.
    Good point.

    I suppose such could have been made, but the "basket" of type bars would probably have had to have been larger, as each letter was wider. This would have made for a seriously expensive and custom typewriter ... quite unlikely to be sitting on desk of a U.S. Navy staff clerk.

    See right in the middle of the following image for this basket of some 40 or so type bars, each of which has one letter (both upper and lower case) or one pair of a number and a symbol. Almost all the typewriters important parts would have been redesigned and remanufactured to get a significantly larger font. I don't recall ever seeing such a typewriter.
    Here's a close-up of the basket, in which you can see that the little blocks of metal with the letters are quite closely spaced. There would be no option to put a larger font on an ordinary typewriter.
    Notice above that the keys on the keyboard are directly in line with the corresponding bar with those numbers and symbols. You can see the black upside down top row keys for the numbers and corresponding symbols, at the top of the above image, such as the 8 and apostrophe ('), or the 7 and the ampersand (&), and you can see the corresponding type bar for them, right side up, directly in line below their corresponding keys. A wider basket would have required connecting the keys to the left and right side type bars at increasingly large angles, as the basket would have been wider than the keyboard. This would have been an engineering challenge to design and manufacture. I seriously doubt any such "big font" typewriters were ever produced on a scale suitable for the volume of a military contract that would place such typewriters on the desk of many clerks.

    ===

    P.S. -- I also worked as a repair technician for Friden for four years in the 1970's. I was not repairing Friden typewriters, such as below, but the guys next to me were.
    Last edited by ThePythonicCow; 1st May 2019 at 16:32.
    My (sometimes rather dormant) blog: theMooster.net

  40. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to ThePythonicCow For This Post:

    Andrew_K (2nd May 2019), BMJ (2nd May 2019), Bob (1st May 2019), Constance (1st May 2019), Debra (1st May 2019), Denise/Dizi (6th May 2019), Mike (1st May 2019), onawah (2nd May 2019), Pam (6th May 2019), Valerie Villars (1st May 2019)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 29 of 37 FirstFirst 1 19 29 37 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts