Answering Kerry Cassidy
Kerry Cassidy (Project Camelot) asks “Who Benefits?” (Nov 2018, now password protected behind a pay wall.) The answer may be neither Mark Richards or the truth. At the time, the article led with news that self proclaimed insider SIMON PARKES CLAIMS CAPTAIN MARK RICHARDS MAY SOON BE PARDONED BY TRUMP, AND DISRUPTION OF SERVICES IN OCTOBER FROM INDICTMENTS TO DRAIN THE SWAMP. The answer to this was simple enough: a president cannot … Continue reading
Kerry raised several questions:
Ask yourself what the government of the U.S. has to lose if Mark Richards goes free. Ask what they are so afraid of, that they would go to such lengths to further discredit a man who at this late juncture has already spent over 30 years in prison? And, what is the real motivation for a psi-op aimed at discrediting one of the top journalists investigating the secret space program on the Planet? Who gains? Who loses?
It might also be asked if the US government has any control about whether Mark goes free. Mark is serving a California state term of life without parole. Although this law can and should be debated, the sentence is presumed to mean what it says and is not subject to “the government of the US.”
Cassidy has never demonstrated a very good understanding of the law. In her second interview with Richards (2014) she maintained that Mark was “one of those who qualifies” for release on good behavior. She also wrote, “The kid who originally committed the murder Mark is accused and sentenced over has gotten a high paid lawyer and gotten his sentence overturned. However, they refuse to release him anyway… What does that tell you?”
It tells the reader that Kerry did not understand a term of life without parole. Apparently she also did not know that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the magistrate’s decision five years earlier in 2009. His attorney was appointed from a federal panel — an excellent attorney — but not what most people think of when describing a “high paid lawyer”.
Mark has hardly been silent in prison, and his claims must be weighed against those matters that can be documented. The truth remains important no matter how long a person has been imprisoned. The better question is who benefits by the story of Mark Richards? Who gains by not substantiating Mark’s claimed military service, his academic degrees, his Rhodes Scholarship — all of which can be easily tested? Who benefits by stolen valor? The questions appear to be endless. We know who loses, but who gains by making claims that simply are not true?
The one person who is not benefitting from Kerry’s speculation is Mark Richards. When the verdict was announced Mark was stunned that he was found guilty of anything other than helping to dispose of the body. In the 10th Interview with Kerry he even suggests that Baldwin may not be dead. Taking personal responsibility and having a commitment to truth is the only thing that might help Mark, whether it be on the personal or legal level.
Kerry encourages him to retreat from that.
Regarding the murder, the first thing that comes to mind once you go beyond the obvious brutal nature of it with all the hallmarks of an Illuminati hit, is the incredibly stupid motive behind it. Ask yourself why would a brilliant highly successful military officer kill someone in cold blood for $2000? This story is fascinating in that the unskilled self-appointed investigators look only at the most conventional of explanations for such a heinous crime.
This is a huge problem and why the slow minded members of the population are so easy to deceive about the existence of the Secret Space Program. As Einstein said, the real measure of intelligence is the limits of one’s imagination. They, those who don’t believe in conspiracies and who are in denial about the existence of visiting alien races, chemtrails, ufos, and state-sponsored terrorism also known as false flags, have little imagination.
There is another question that Kerry overlooks: would someone who bought a boat with proceeds of the crime and then use it in a clumsy attempt to dispose of the body of his best friend, before going out on a spending spree with the victim’s checks and credit cards, be a brilliant highly successful military officer? At the time of the crime, Mark based his defense on the argument that he engaged in a misguided effort to help the teens involved with the crime. Even if his defense was true, is it something Mark would have done if he were a brilliant space captain? Given the documented story of Mark’s life, the answer is apparent.
Kerry’s premise is wrong. Mark was never in the military and his claims are simply another example of stolen valor. The issue, therefore, is whether an unlicensed contractor, facing multiple financial pressures on every side, instigated a killing for financial gain.
To review the documented record is not being an unskilled investigator as Kerry claims. That kind of review is a prerequisite for any reporting based on truth. To put it simply, you cannot investigate any kind of phenomenon unless you are willing to consider whether the underlying facts are true. Discernment, feelings, intuition, or trust in your own psychic ability does not matter if your facts are wrong. The answer to a factual question does not change no matter how many times you might wish something to be different. Total recall demands nothing less.
Kerry Cassidy’s Imagination
To challenge Kerry’s assumptions is not being unimaginative. Jack Brewer of the UFO Trail explains how rational inquiry complements imagination and creativity:
It’s unreasonable to demand people agree with something you can’t prove to be correct. Don’t expect it, and allow challenges to your proclamations. Expand horizons, explore possibilities, and be fascinated by the unknown, but be part of the solution, not part of the problem.
There are many quotes attributed to Einstein, including one that reminded us, “Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex… It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.” Kerry offers a complex world of conspiracies, false flags, and utter speculation. That there are simpler answers is not being “slow minded” but following Occam’s Razor.
For instance, those (like Kerry) who dismissed information that identified the “Roswell Slides” as a picture of a mummified body, calling it “mind contol to hide the truth,” did not lack imagination, but they lost sight of the simpler explanation. It looked like a mummy, it was documented as a mummy, there were photos showing it was a mummy, but it was not enough to satisfy Kerry.
Undoubtedly imagination is important, but it can give rise to fiction as well as truth. With enough imagination, you can think that a prisoner serving life without parole has an active military commission and is a member of the highest levels of the Republican National Committee. (Jo Ann Richards, Super Soldier Talk, Nov. 2018.) With more imagination you can also believe a president could pardon a state prisoner and that a college student can also be a lieutenant in Vietnam.
To paraphrase another quote that is sometimes attributed to Einstein, genius knows it’s limits. The real measure of intelligence is knowing the difference between speculation and reality, between fiction and truth, between total recall and fantasy or delusion.
Answering Kerry Cassidy – The Solution
The ultimate answer to might be here:
Is this really a mere coincidence? Is anything involving the New World Order a coincidence? Is it part of the psi-op? Or is an ad just an ad.
|⇧1||At the time, the article led with news that self proclaimed insider
SIMON PARKES CLAIMS CAPTAIN MARK RICHARDS MAY SOON BE PARDONED BY TRUMP, AND DISRUPTION OF SERVICES IN OCTOBER FROM INDICTMENTS TO DRAIN THE SWAMP.
The answer to this was simple enough: a president cannot pardon a state prisoner. (See U.S. Const., art. 2, sec. 2, cl. 1.) Since Kerry describes herself as a top journalist, she should have known this. Needless to say, Mark did not get a nonexistent pardon and no indictments were forthcoming. She failed to understand that someone like Parkes may have no idea what they are talking about. It’s a continuing problem for her.
|⇧2||His attorney was appointed from a federal panel — an excellent attorney — but not what most people think of when describing a “high paid lawyer”.|