Note: The following is a profile of Mike Ruppert, the man. It should not be taken as an indictment of his book, Crossing the Rubicon (released last week), which I have not yet had an opportunity to review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Sometimes pointing out that one was right is not about ego”
                                                                                     Mike Ruppert

On this date – Friday, August 6, 2004 – the world was the same as it was any other day – filled with allegations, suspicions, criticism and threatening lawsuits. Even crazy old Dick Eastman entered the fray. Yes, this was the world of Mike Ruppert – king of the conspiratologists, perpetual center of attention, and legend in his own mind.

So, I figured: it’s time to figure out what makes Mike Ruppert tick – to see what he’s all about. Sure, I already knew the basics --- LAPD cop quits the force, enters a mental institution, chases some crazy broad around the country, struggles through tough times, turns whistleblower, confronts CIA Director John Deutsch in South Central L.A., begins From the Wilderness, and releases his Truth and Lies of 9-11 on video.

But there had to be more, especially when the Internet was buzzing with so many rumors about Ruppert – the whispers developing into deafening echoes. From my perspective, there were only two courses of action. I could either unquestioningly buy into all the gossip, or investigate this matter for myself.

Mind you, I had never spoken directly to Mike Ruppert, nor had I ever even corresponded with him via e-mail. The only “contact” I ever had with Ruppert was via a review that I had written about his 9-11 video, which later appeared in my book, The New World Order Exposed.

All this changed on Friday, August 6, 2004 when I noticed that Ruppert was threatening to sue 9-11 researcher Dick Eastman. (I can’t remember exactly what this lawsuit entailed, but I’m pretty sure it revolved around an argument they were having about whether or not a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on the morning of 9-11.) Anyway, my first thought was: how many people has Mike Ruppert threatened to bring lawsuits against now? But then an even better idea popped into my mind: why don’t I invite Ruppert and Eastman onto WING TV and get both sides of the story.

So, without further delay, I reeled off an e-mail to Ruppert inviting him to appear on WING TV. In addition, I also addressed some of the innuendo and outright accusations surrounding him:

     “We have been receiving tons of e-mail in the past few months that are seriously calling into      question your validity and honesty as a 9-11 researcher. Some of the claims being made      are that you are a PATRIOT FOR HIRE (in other words, just in it for the money), and that you      have sold out (i.e. a cop on the take). Finally, others are saying that you are deliberately      covering up what actually happened on 9-11 by steering people away from it toward peak      oil. These things are definitely not going unnoticed, and we would like your take on these      matters.”

Before proceeding any further, I would like to make a few things perfectly clear. First, this was a private e-mail from me to Mike Ruppert, and was not posted in any other forums. In fact, I have never criticized Mr. Ruppert on any Internet group or in any discussion rooms. Thus, my note remained solely between him and me.

Well, about two hours later, right before Lisa Guliani and I were about to eat supper, the phone rang. I answered it, only to hear Mike Ruppert on the other end. After introducing himself in a very surly fashion, Ruppert growled that he was RECORDING this conversation for legal reasons; and that if I didn’t cease-and-desist in my threats and slander toward him, he would proceed to take immediate legal action! Yup, you guessed it – my name was now added to an already lengthy list of people Mike Ruppert was threatening to sue.

Anyway, after listening to Ruppert rant, rave, and swear about Dick Eastman and how sick he was of people questioning his motives, I assured him that I didn’t even remotely slander or threaten him. Rather, I repeated some of the charges being leveled against him; then invited him onto our show to address these issues. That, I explained, was what responsible reporters and journalists do instead of simply shooting from the hip like a cowboy. I even went on to say that it would be real easy for us to appear on WING TV and repeat these rumors, but such tactics would be unfair to him; thus, the invitation.

Well, after somewhat calming Ruppert down (twenty minutes later), I asked him once again if he would like to appear on our show; to which he responded that I would have to contact his representative, Ken Levine. I agreed to do so, and after hanging up the telephone, I commented to Lisa, “That’s the angriest and most paranoid man I’ve ever spoken to.” This ended chapter one of my interaction with Mike Ruppert.

Shortly thereafter I turned on my computer to find an e-mail from Ruppert where he once again threatened to sue me:

     “I sent out the following statement to Eastman yesterday. If you or he represent my position      in any other way than what I say here, you can rest assured that legal action will follow, and      quickly.”

[As a sidebar, I have never spoken directly to Mr. Dick Eastman in my life, and have e-mailed him less than half-a-dozen times. Thus, any implied relation is non-existent.]

Ruppert then went on to explain his views on the 9-11 terrorist attacks, specifically where he stood in regard to what hit (or did not hit) the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001. He only did so, though, after telling me, “This is addressed on my website, if you are intelligent enough to find it.” I mention this point because, as you will see later in this essay, it is indicative of Mike Ruppert’s modus operandi where he feels compelled to take nasty, abusive pot-shots at those who he views as detractors.

Anyway, for the next three weeks I periodically spoke with Mr. Ken Levine and tried to schedule Ruppert for WING TV. The results, though, were less than optimal, for Levine kept “fluffing me off” and running hot-and-cold with me. Even after hearing how we were booking the hottest names in the 9-11 field (including Dave von Kleist, John Kaminski, George Humphrey, Eric Hufschmid, Phil Jayhan, Jim Hoffman, Michael Elliott and Ian Barksdale), along with numerous presidential candidates, Levine wouldn’t commit; instead telling me he’d keep working on it. (This point is important to remember, as you’ll soon see.)

Finally, on August 31, 2004, I decided to go directly to the source once again, and thus sent the following e-mail to Mike Ruppert:

                                                          ********************************

     Mike,

     Victor Thorn here from WING TV (http://www.wingtv.net). I spoke with you on August 6,      2004 about appearing on our television show (via telephone), and you referred me to Ken      Levine.

     Over the past 2-3 weeks I have been trying very diligently to set-up a date for you to speak      about your new book, but thus far have not been able to get a commitment from Mr. Levine.

     This is puzzling to me, because without trying to sound boastful, we have the hottest TV      show on the Internet (bar none), and have been interviewing everyone who’s anyone in the      alternative research field, including Jim Marrs and David Ray Griffin; along with seven      different presidential candidates and a variety of other heavy-hitters.

     In addition, there is not an organization in existence that wants to uncover the truth about      what really happened on the morning of 9-11 more than we do, along with uncovering other      examples of government dirty-dealings, such as CIA drug trafficking, etc.

     In other words, we have a custom-made audience that would be very receptive to Crossing      the Rubicon: 9/11 and the Decline of American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil. On      top of that, I devoted an entire chapter of my book The New World Order Exposed (now in      its eleventh printing) to your videotape, The Truth and Lies of 9/11. I would also like to      distribute your new book from our WING TV bookstore, and also plan on reviewing it as      soon as it is released. (Needless to say, I would welcome a pre-release copy to create      some advanced publicity.)

     So, what I’m doing is coming directly to you to say: let’s set-up a date for you to appear on      WING TV. We’ll give you a huge number of viewers all across the ‘Net, and will promote this      appearance to the hilt. Considering the explosive nature of what you’ll be presenting in your      book, many people from both inside and outside the 9-11 truth movement will be gunning      for you. What we are offering you is a fair shake with maximum coverage and no bullshit.

     As I told you earlier this month during our telephone conversation, we’re not cowboys or      bomb-throwers. Rather, we play it straight and want only one thing – to expose the truth.

     With all of this in mind, Mike, let’s arrive at a date for you to appear on our show. I realize      you’re busy, but all we’re asking for is 20-25 minutes of your time on the telephone. That’s      it. Surely within the next month or so you can arrange that. Whether intentionally or not, Ken      has been giving me the run-around – fluctuating between hot and cold – and in all honesty      we haven’t had this much trouble EVER getting a guest! So I’ll lay it all out to you straight:      you pick the time and date (Friday, October 1 would be ideal), and we’ll do whatever we      can to accommodate you. All we’re asking for is 20-25 minutes – that’s it.

     To close, we plan on doing a Mike Ruppert show in late September/early October, and we      would very much like you to be a part of it. Considering all the benefits outlined in this letter,      we don’t know how a sweeter deal could land in your lap. WE’LL SELL BOOKS FOR YOU      AND GET THE WORD OUT!!!

     Mike, those in the alternative research field (not the mainstream media) have been your      core supporters for years, and WING TV stands at the forefront of this audience. Please      keep this in mind as your book goes to press and you start booking interview dates. We’re      on your side, and we’ll do anything we can to help. Work with us, okay.

     Victor Thorn
     WING TV
     Sisyphus Press

                                                          ********************************

Ruppert’s response on Wednesday, September 1, 2004 was truly bewildering. He began his e-mail by stating: “We have tried to be polite. It didn’t work.” Well, actually, Mike, you weren’t polite in the least, as I have shown. Levine was, but on two different occasions you threatened to sue me. That’s polite?

Ruppert continued in the e-mail’s second line: “I will not now or ever be on your television show. There will be no discussion.” Again, more of Mike’s politeness.

He then goes on to say: “The reason is that you are an extremely careless researcher. Your book contains a number of errors which could have caused me and my business harm. I evaluated your book almost a year ago and decided then that I would never have any association with you.”

Ruppert then proceeds to list all of the “errors” in my book, but not before once again trying to bully me with this completely absurd threat: “Please cease and desist all attempts to contact either me or Ken Levine. If you do not respect this request then I may ask you to reimburse us for all the trouble you have caused with your errors.”

Take a moment now to think about the totally unfounded and, in all honesty, irrational nature of this statement. Ruppert wants to “charge” me for trying to schedule him for our show – to pay his personnel costs! It’s ludicrous.

The situation gets even worse, for one of the supposed first “errors” that he cites in The New World Order Exposed is this passage: “Mike Ruppert begins his Truth and Lies of 9-11 videotape by offering a $1,000 cash reward to anyone that can disprove the information contained within this presentation. To date, the money still stands.”

I checked this quote, and that is indeed what I wrote. But Ruppert continues, “Problem number 1: the offer was only for information contained in the “Oh Lucy” timeline and never for the entire tape. Problem number 2: the offer expired more than a year ago. (It has now been expired for more than two years, yet there are still people calling our office based on your book, making unfounded misrepresentations of my offer. Your book has cost my staff about 60 man-hours over two years. I pay the salary for that.)

The stupendous inanity of this statement is so mind-boggling (and, quite frankly, embarrassing to Ruppert) that I don’t know where to begin. First, Ruppert prides himself on being an “accurate reporter.” How did he figure the 60 man-hours? Does he have a formula? Did he actually sit down and calculate over a two-year period exactly how many phone calls he received, then trace them directly to my book? How can we take this guy seriously? Secondly, he says the offer expired more than a year ago, then immediately – in the very next sentence – says it expired more than two years ago. Which one is it? Is this accurate reporting? It almost sounds as if Ruppert has a standard form-letter which he sends out to people whenever this issue arises. (More on Ruppert’s “form letters” later.)

Thirdly, The New World Order Exposed has only been in print for 1 ½ years, and if anyone does a quick Google search, they’ll find numerous sources quoting his $1,000 reward offer (more inaccuracies). I would love to take credit for having such an influential book, but once more Mike is being overly dramatic and disingenuous. Plus, here we see Mike Ruppert yet again bellyaching about paying his employees and trying to place the burden on someone else.

Continuing his criticism of The New World Order Exposed, Ruppert points out a GLARING error where I say that “six of the first seven CIA Directors came from Wall Street,” when in fact it should be six of the first seven DEPUTY Directors. Is it because of this oversight that he wouldn’t appear on our television show? Plus, Ruppert also found one misspelled word in my book - one, in a 567 page tome. Well, I hate to inform Mr. Ruppert, but when I read the transcript of his speech at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, I certainly found more than one typo. So, if we used Ruppert’s rationale, his entire speech should thus be discredited. I hope everyone can see how ridiculous these tactics are.

But none of the above examples truly reflect Ruppert’s pettiness, obfuscation, and true motives more so than does the following: Mike Ruppert said that the reason he wouldn’t appear on WING TV is because I am a careless researcher, and The New World Order Exposed is filled with errors. But let’s look at the reality of this matter. First, this book is now in its eleventh small press run, and has sold this well with an advertising budget of zero dollars. That means people have found out about it via the ultimate form of advertising: word of mouth. In addition, The New World Order Exposed is being distributed by First Amendment Books in Washington, D.C., along with Adventures Unlimited in Illinois – two of the most respected booksellers in the business. It has also been reviewed in nearly twenty venues, including The American Free Press, the highly-respected Midwest Book Review, Black Diamond Books, and nationally distributed Clamor magazine (not to mention blurbs and endorsements from Jim Marrs (Rule by Secrecy), Gordon Thomas (Seeds of Fire), Michael Collins Piper (Final Judgment), Paul Walker (Aftermath News), Meria Heller, and Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Marvin (Expendable Elite)). Lastly, the Japanese publisher, Tokuma Shoten, purchased the rights to The New World Order Exposed, and will release a translated version later this year.

Now, please understand; I’m not mentioning all these points to blow my own horn. Instead, I want to ask the reader one very important question --- can all of the above people be wrong about this book, or is Mike Ruppert simply copping-out and searching in vain for a scapegoat? Ironically, the answer can be found directly from Mike’s own From the Wilderness website, for shortly after my review of Ruppert’s 9-11 video appeared in such respected publications as Bank Index and others, I was contacted by HIS people and congratulated for doing such a superb job. Now, keep in mind – I didn’t contact them – they contacted me. Plus, they were so pleased with this review – the same one that Mike Ruppert is now criticizing – that they actually gave me a free one-year subscription to his From the Wilderness newsletter. Does it sound like they would do something like that for a sub-standard, error-prone review? Hardly. The thing I’m most curious about is: how did these glowing accolades which emanated from FTW itself suddenly turn so negative and bitter? Do you think it had anything to do with Mike Ruppert needing an excuse not to appear on WING TV?

As I’ve come to learn, though, these types of tactics (and his behavior in general) are typical of, and fit part-and-parcel with, Mike Ruppert’s standard operating procedure. But before moving on to show you more of what I mean, I would like to bring one more point to bear. After receiving the above-quoted e-mail from Ruppert, I spoke once again with Ken Levine, who revealed to me a very interesting bit of information. He said that when Mike Ruppert sat down to decide which interview forums he would like to participate in after Crossing the Rubicon was released, he also created a list of shows he refused to do. And guess what show Mr. Levine said was on that list: WING TV! Now, considering that I had never spoken to Ruppert until last month, how conciliatory I was to him in my lengthy e-mail, and how I even gave his 9-11 video a glowing review; I wonder how he came to put me on his J. Edgar Hoover-like “black list.”

The big question now is: if Mike Ruppert won’t appear on WING TV, what types of shows and/or interviews is he going to do? Ponder this point very carefully, for his decisions are quite telling. If his first speech is any indicator (at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, frequented by the very ruling elite that he is supposedly rebelling against), I think we should all wonder where Mike Ruppert’s loyalties really lie.

                                                          ********************************

Before anyone jumps to conclusions and proclaims that I’m the only person who harbors the above-mentioned misgivings about Mike Ruppert, what I will proceed to show in this section is that Ruppert’s irrational behavior, questionable decision-making process, and his abusive modus operandi have been written about by many others in the alternative research field. As you will see, the preponderance of evidence is so overwhelming that all of us have to seriously consider whether we want this man to be our “self-appointed” spokesman, for at what point does one’s negatives begin to outweigh their positive strides.

One of the most repellent traits that Mike Ruppert exhibits is the way he lashes out at people who criticize his work. As you saw in part one of this article, Ruppert took a swipe at me at every turn, and seems to be especially prone to such behavior whenever anyone is perceived to be a threat, or in opposition to his views. What results is an ugly display of arrogance and supposed mental superiority toward his detractors that ends up making him look foolish at best, and downright asinine at worst. What follows is just one example of these “flames,” but believe me, many more exist on various discussion groups and forums on the Internet.

Response to Jerry Russell’s article: Peak Oil? Don’t Buy Into the Hype! – Posted on 911-strike.com: “Listen, let’s take the passive-aggressive gloves off here you asshole.” [Very classy, huh. I wonder what former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney and all of Mike’s petro-buddies would think of this intellectual retort?]

NOTE: If you have any other examples of "Mike at his finest," forward them to me. Maybe we could put together a "Mike Ruppert Hall of Fame" of nasty e-mails and bulletin board postings.

Quite possibly the finest example of Ruppert’s tactics are provided by Dave McGowan on his Center for an Informed America website, newsletter # 54 (March 18, 2004). In this lengthy exchange, Ruppert’s conceitedness, intimidation tactics, character assassinations, obsession with money, and agenda become perfectly clear. Of special interest are Ruppert’s views on POPULATION REDUCTION, and McGowan’s phenomenal response to it. Classic reading, and quite frightening in its implications.

                                                          ********************************                                                           ********************************

NEWSLETTER #54
Dave McGowan
March 18, 2004
Ruppert Responds!

The official response is now in from Michael Ruppert, and it is a doozy. Although Ruppert's missive is filled, as was Chin's, with juvenile insults, misrepresentations, and completely unfounded accusations, I will, out of respect for my readers (though certainly not for Ruppert, who has earned no measure of respect from me), make every effort to take the high road here (several of you have written to caution me not to let these people provoke me into losing my cool, and that seems to be sound advice).

I will first present Ruppert's formal reply in its entirety (another suggestion from some of you), so that readers can get the full flavor of how this man operates. In many ways, his missive requires no commentary from me, for he has done a fairly respectable job on his own of revealing what he is, how he operates, and what his agenda is. Nevertheless, there is much here that I cannot let pass without comment.

Here then, exactly as it was received, is Ruppert's formal response to my counter-proposal for a public debate. I have added only a bit of subtle emphasis, because I felt certain that Ruppert would want to ensure that one point in particular gets across loud and clear:

Mike Ruppert Letter

Mr. McGowan:

How interesting and how revealing that in posting your onerous rebuttal and pseudo-acceptance of my debate challenge, you sent it out to everyone but me. This is quite revealing as I sent my challenge directly to you personally. I guess you were assuming that either: a), I am an avid reader of your web site, or; b) that I would be unaware of your postings so that you could then misinterpret my non-response as some kind of evasive behavior. The psychology of your move is quite revealing. It shows that you have no faith in your own arguments and that you are interested only in holding a public stage and my time for as long as you possibly can or until your apparently insatiable ego is gratified. You know what my email address is.

In the two-plus years since 9/11 an increasingly sophisticated body of researchers has become aware of tactics intended to stall and distract, rather than educate. Your recent postings seem to indicate that this argument is to be won by the sheer number of words that can be thrown at the subject as opposed to arguments addressing an issue of the utmost importance to mankind. Not only have I, but a great many others, become wise to such tactics, we have learned to counter them. The debate you have assumptively proposed (as opposed to the one I challenged you with) is one which will allow you to occupy center stage for endless hours while engaging in the most insidious and duplicitous kinds of sophistry which would never be permitted in a courtroom or in a properly moderated debate, governed by rules of critical thinking and analysis.

You have employed dishonesty, straw arguments, and libelous character assassinations instead of addressing the only question that matters to anybody.

That question – is abiotic petroleum and natural gas readily available and making its way into commercial use in sufficient quantities to establish that there is no imminent energy shortage? – is rightly the only question any of us should give a damn about. That is the question for debate.

Instead you are dancing around the issue with falsehoods which are typified (as only one example) by your statement that I and a number of petroleum scientists argue that oil is derived from dinosaurs. Neither I nor any reputable scientist – especially those who are warning of Peak Oil -- has ever made such a claim. We all gagged as you put these words in our mouths. Yet it suits your purpose to falsify our statements and then defeat words which we never uttered to prove a point and thus boost your ego. You remind me of Norman Solomon. I don’t participate in these kinds of debates. The Arabs have a saying that one should never argue with a fool or a liar because people might not be able to tell the difference.

You have also attacked me and others as being part of some kind of covert operation intended to promote infinite war, yet you ignore several facts:

1. Instead of advocating war I oppose it. Anyone who has attended any of my more than 35 lectures in eight countries (more than 15,000 live audience members) will know, of a certainty, that my position on solutions is absolutely clear. I advocate an immediate cessation of all military conquest and imperialism by the US government and industrialized powers; an end to the war on terror. I advocate an immediate convening of political, economic, spiritual and scientific leaders from all nations to address the issue of Peak Oil (and Gas) and its immediate implications for economic collapse, massive famine and climate destruction (partially as a result of reversion to coal plants which accelerate global warming). This would, scientifically speaking, include immediate steps to arrive at a crash program – agreed to by all nations and in accordance with the highest spiritual and ethical principles – to stop global population growth and to arrive at the best possible and most ethical program of population reduction as a painful choice made by all of humanity. It would also include arrival at a painful, but absolutely necessary, plan to implement a global program of “contraction and convergence” whereby consumption, rampant economic growth based on globalization, and corrupt economic practices is reversed in favor of a planned and executed program intended to reduce the size of a world economy which is inherently linked to the consumption of hydrocarbon energy. In stating this position I have made it clear that nothing of any real significance will be changed at all until a complete revision is made in the way money works -- on a global and local scale -- because it is financial activity and monetary policy which will dictate how any contingency plans are implemented and paid for.

You have attacked those who have warned of the dangers of Peak Oil as being employees of oil companies. Yet you ignore the fact that Heinberg, Darley, Deffeyes, Aleklett, Klare and Goodstein – to name only a few – are academics. Yes, Deffeyes once worked for Shell but he got out when he saw what was coming many, many years ago and his long tenure at Princeton and the fact that his income is derived from there speaks volumes. Neither Heinberg, Darley, Klare, Goodstein (Vice Chancellor of the California Institute of Technology), Dale Allen Pfeiffer or I have ever worked for the petroleum industry in any way, shape or form.

You also ignore the fact that peer review is only one of nine critical questions FTW has posed. If one paper has received peer reviews supporting it that does not, in fact, prove that the subject matter is true. It only states that the science is theoretically sound and that it may or may not be accurate when applied. Another peer reviewed paper was published in the late 1890s by Professor Langley who proved mathematically that man could never fly in heavier-than-air craft. That was a fine example of peer reviewed science, wasn’t it?

The fact is that the advocates of abiogenic oil and gas keep refusing to appear in public to defend their work. No one has produced verifiable production data (even in the papers you cite) proving the theory. Nothing has been produced anywhere showing that any significant quantities of abiogenic hydrocarbons have ever entered productions streams. Thomas Gold’s fabled Eugene Island is today a dry hole. (See below) In fact, the best scientific data available has just confirmed that for more than twenty years, mankind has consumed more oil than has been discovered and that last year – for the first time since the 1920s – there was not a single discovery of a field over 500 million barrels. The supposed increases in Mid-East reserves which occurred in the 1980s were the result of pencils and erasers rather than any actual change in oil in the ground. Those restatements came as the US sought a way to bypass OPEC production quotas (based on reserves) so as to flood the markets with cheap oil and destroy the Soviet economy. What the reserve figures show is that all Mid-East nations revised their reserve estimates upward except Abu Dhabi which remained constant (because they were already selling all they could produce). Argue this point and then you will have to prove that God and science somehow partially refilled everyone else’s tank but that the laws of your science were somehow suspended in the case of poor Abu Dhabi.

As for “Peak Groceries” you again distort because groceries can be located by a mere phone call or internet order. Oil must be found at great cost and developed at even greater cost. Why then is the oil industry laying off its exploration geologists and why are these curricula being phased out of academic instruction?

I am certain that you will find some point in your last diatribe that I did not respond to and state that this is proof that I am defeated. Not true. I never agreed to debate you on your terms. I never said that I was handing you an open microphone and unlimited amounts of my time. You are not worth it. I handed you a challenge which is clearly spelled out below. Either accept it or reject it.

TERMS OF DEBATE

I am more than willing and happy to engage in a face-to-face debate. It should take no longer than 90 minutes in a public forum to settle the question. I do not have time for the months and endless hours you intend to suck out of me and the poor readers to keep us from focusing on important work. I am willing to put my money and my reputation on it. However, in order to avoid your unethical argumentative protocols, distortions, and sophistry I will insist upon several conditions. They include:

1. You and I will both put into escrow the sum of $1,000 before the debate. Your refusal to do this indicates that you do not believe you can win by ethical means. I want you to put a personal piece of you into this, as I am willing to do, immediately if you agree to the other terms set forth below.

2. The live debate will be judged and moderated by a panel of three. This panel will also determine the winner of the debate according to standard debating procedure and rules and award the prize. They will also enforce penalty points for ad hominem attacks, obfuscation, evasion of the issues and straw-man arguments. This panel of three can be selected from high school or college debate coaches or lawyers in the area. I am also willing to pay half of the expense for their compensation.

3. I am assuming that you live in the Bay Area. I will come to the Bay Area at my own expense for the debate, which will be well publicized and open to the public.

4. The panel of judges mutually agreed to by you and me, can be selected from the Bay area. There is a large pool from which to choose and this should not be a difficult prospect.

5. The sole question to be debated will be: “Is abiotic petroleum and natural gas readily available and making its way into commercial use in sufficient quantities to establish that there is no imminent energy shortage?”

I have too much respect for my readers’ time – apparently more so than you for yours – to believe that they would be interested in reading hundreds of pages of back and forth, especially when you resort to such childish and uncritical tactics. I also refuse to let you invade and occupy my productive hours when this is a question that can be settled in ninety minutes of direct, face-to-face, ethical and well-policed discussion.

I have attached below a response I posted earlier today to another kindred spirit of yours on the subject of abiotic oil. As far as I am concerned this ends my participation with you until such time as you show the integrity to accept the challenge as I have laid it out for you.

Sincerely,
Michael C. Ruppert

Dave McGowan's Response

Mr. Ruppert,

There is quite a bit of ground to cover here, so it is difficult to know where to begin. One thing, however, really seemed to jump out at me, so I suppose we should begin there. Obviously, I was mistaken when I said that you offered little in the way of solutions. I stand corrected. Thank you very much for clarifying that. And thanks for removing any doubt about what your true agenda is. I am sure that many readers will appreciate that.

I believe very strongly that you need to get that message out there more prominently. It appears that some of your readers aren’t getting it. I believe that to be the case because one of them just wrote to me with the following comments: “Thank you so much for the 'peak oil' rant. I subscribed to FTW for one year and never could get a line on what he's saying.” The reader (thanks, Joan!) explained that she got the ‘we're running out of oil’ concept, and she understood the ‘there are no alternatives’ part, but she didn't really understand what comes next. The problem, clearly, is that she did not pick up on the program of “ethical” population reduction.

You really need to pound away at that one. Why do you limit such critical information to just the 15,000 people in eight countries that have attended the lectures that you never tire of mentioning? Why not splash it across your home page in bold print? Or better yet, you might consider renaming your website The Center for the Study of Ethical Population Reduction – or something along those lines.

Before we move on, I have a few quick questions that maybe you can answer for me, when you can find the time: do you have a specific eugenics program in mind at this time, or are you still working out the details? Do you think we should start with all the non-white people? Will getting rid of the non-white people be enough, or will some of 'us' have to go as well? What exactly is your target population level? What do you think the criteria will be? My driver’s license says that I have blond hair and blue eyes, but I am still wondering: is there anything more that I can do to increase the chances that I will be a 'keeper'? And one last question: have you considered showing true leadership in these troubled times by becoming the first person to volunteer for euthanasia? If we have to thin the herd here, Mike, I think you are missing a golden opportunity to set an example for your flock.

I think that covers all my questions on that topic (I realize that you are not going to answer any of these questions, but I am going to ask them anyway), so let's move on to other things. One of the most remarkable aspects of your missive is that you have repeatedly accused me of making libelous statements about you, even while you, at the very same time, shamelessly libel me by accusing me of: employing “tactics intended to stall and distract, rather than educate”; “engaging in the most insidious and duplicitous kinds of sophistry”; employing “dishonesty, straw arguments, and libelous character assassinations”; “dancing around the issue with falsehoods”; employing “childish and uncritical tactics”; and utilizing “unethical argumentative protocols, distortions, and sophistry.” You have also strongly implied that I am partial to the use of “ad hominem attacks, obfuscation, evasion of the issues and straw-man arguments.”

That is a remarkable list of charges to levy against someone, especially considering that you do not offer a single concrete example to support any of the charges that you have made. Not one example of “sophistry.” Not one example of “dishonesty.” Not one example of employing a “straw argument.” Not one example of a “libelous character assassination.” Not one example of an “unethical argumentative protocol.” Not one example of a “distortion.” And not one example of an “ad hominem attack,” an “obfuscation,” a "childish and uncritical tactic," or even an “evasion of the issues.”

You did attempt to provide an example of a “falsehood,” and that pathetic attempt of yours is quite revealing. Your one shining example of my use of falsehoods is my supposed “statement that [you] and a number of petroleum scientists argue that oil is derived from dinosaurs.” There is only one problem with your example, but it is kind of a big problem: I never said that. And since you obviously read my posting, then you know full well that I never said that. In other words, your one example of a supposed “falsehood” on my part is, in reality, an outright lie on your part -- because we both know that what I really said was that I was raised to believe that oil came from dinosaurs. For the record, let's take a look at the actual excerpt:

As anyone who stayed awake during elementary school science class knows, oil comes from dinosaurs. I remember as a kid (calm down, folks; there will be no Brady Bunch references this week) seeing some kind of 'public service' spot explaining how dinosaurs "gave their all" so that we could one day have oil.

It is quite clear that I never said - in any way, shape or form - that you, Michael Ruppert, or any "petroleum scientists," claim that oil comes from dinosaurs. To the contrary, the origins of oil seems to be a subject that you prefer not to talk about at all.

Early on in your missive, you comment on the "psychology of [my] move." I found it rather odd that you would purport to be able to analyze my moves when you don't actually have, as far as I am aware, any training in that area. I found it odder still that you would do so when condescendingly addressing someone who actually does have a degree in psychology. Why don't we then take a fun look at the psychology of one of your moves? When you told the lie about what I supposedly said, you actually embellished that lie with a completely fictitious story about an alleged physical reaction that you supposedly had to something that never even happened. That is not simply a lie; it is a sign of a pathological condition. For that reason, I am not expecting an apology anytime soon for what was clearly a lie on your part -- and a lie that was intended, ironically enough, to paint me as a liar.

As for your overall attempt to paint me as a disreputable charlatan, here is the situation as I see it: you pored over a 10,000-word essay that I composed, desperately seeking any example of a lie, distortion or misrepresentation, but you came up empty handed. That much we can safely infer from the fact that you resorted to making something up (as did your inept attack dog, Larry Chin). And then, armed with nothing but a lie, you proceeded to falsely accuse me of committing a number of egregious sins – and all the while, you actually had the gall to claim that it is your character that is being assassinated. You have also used your false and completely unsupported allegations to cast me as a lying egomaniac unworthy of the time required for a real public debate, thus enabling you to slip away even while claiming to take the high road. That would be a very clever maneuver -- except that you haven't even come close to pulling it off.

Let’s turn now to some other accusations that you have leveled at me. You claim that I have attempted to “invade and occupy [your] productive hours.” You have also accused me of showing a lack of integrity by not accepting your "challenge" as you have “laid it out,” as though I am under some kind of obligation to debate you only under the strictly defined conditions that you have unilaterally imposed. At the same time, you dismiss my counter proposal as some kind of ego-driven publicity stunt, referring to it dismissively as “the debate that [I] assumptively proposed.”

I think it would probably be instructive here to briefly review the chronology of recent events. As you know, I have a small, non-commercial website - otherwise known as a vanity website - just like millions of other people across the country, and around the world. On that site, I post my thoughts and opinions on a wide range of topics. I also send out mailings to a small, private mailing list composed of people who have expressed an interest in receiving my writings. That is the extent of my Internet activities (and what your acolyte has disturbingly described as “misusing the Internet”). I do not post to, nor participate in, any news or discussion groups. I post only to my own private website. Despite the accusations of both you and Chen, I have never conspired with anyone, in any way, to smear your character. As I said before, I am not affiliated in any way with any groups or movements, and certainly not with any other individuals or groups who have served as critics of yours (your apparent attempt to connect me with the Solomon/Corn crowd, I must say, is particularly pathetic, given my frequently voiced, and well documented, opinion of that bunch).

As you recall, this all began when you took offense at an opinion that I had expressed on my own website. At that time, you invaded my space, issuing a belligerent and uninvited challenge. Prior to that, I had little interest in you or your website. I had never, by any stretch of the imagination, come close to invading your “productive time.” I had never so much as sent you a single e-mail. I rarely even visit your site. So it seems that it was not I who invaded your space, but rather you who invaded my space. And you did so by issuing a boorish challenge that you feel I was somehow instantly obligated to either accept, or reject and quietly slink away. Instead, I did what I always do, which was to air my argument in the only public venue available: my website. And at that time, as we both know, your people became completely unhinged.

I did not bring this fight to you as some attempt to bask in your reflected glory (and I'm the one looking to "boost [my] ego"?); I did not bring this fight to you at all. You bullied your way into my space, attempting to force me into playing the game by your rules, as though you have some kind of divine right to do so (and I'm the one with the "insatiable ego"?). There is a very clear pattern of intimidation here.

One of the most telling aspects of your response is that it is actually a cut-and-paste form letter. I know that because, for reasons known only to you, you chose to attach a response that you sent to someone else who challenged your theories, and that response was a different version of the same form letter. There are other indications as well, such as the redundant passages, and the numbered paragraphs that never get past the number 1. The fact that it is a form letter is very significant, for a number of reasons.

Based on my experiences of the last couple of weeks, I have concluded that this is how your machine operates: whenever anyone is presumptuous enough to question your almighty wisdom, you immediately swoop in and try to intimidate them into backing off by issuing a demand (you can't really call it a request) for a formal debate. If they take you up on it, then they get the form letter imposing the restrictions and strictly limiting the scope of the debate to a false argument. When they, quite naturally, refuse your 'offer,' you then cast them as cowards and charlatans for 'ducking' the debate.

What this means, of course, is that anyone who you feel threatened by, and who you send the form letter to, is routinely accused of being a lying, disreputable glory-seeker whose behavior must be policed -- regardless of their personal standing or the validity of their challenge. My guess is that the "example" is a fill-in-the-blank kind of thing, and in my case, you didn't have anything legitimate to fill in the blank. Nevertheless, you left all the unsupported accusations in the form letter and simply filled in the blank with a figment of your imagination.

You have accused me of attacking you "as being part of some kind of covert operation intended to promote infinite war." Your associate has implied that I have attacked you as being a shill for the Bush administration. I have never said, explicitly, that you are any such thing. But I will say that there is no question but that your tactics closely mirror those of the Bush administration (or pretty much any other U.S. presidential administration).

First and foremost is what we might call the "pot-calling-the-kettle-black syndrome." You engage in reprehensible character assassinations, even while claiming to be a victim yourself. You accuse your critics of employing tactics to stifle you, even as you employ those very tactics to stifle them. You accuse your critics of libel, even as you viciously libel them. You accuse your opponents of dodging a real debate, even as it is you who are dodging the real debate. You accuse your critics of being unable to stick to the issues and construct an ethical argument, even as you dodge the real issues through the use of unethical arguments. Then there is your habit of unilaterally issuing uninvited, bullying, unreasonable, take-it-or-leave-it ultimatums, and then claiming that it is the other party's fault when the 'offer' is refused. I am thinking of Rambouillet here, but there are also numerous other examples that could be cited. So while I obviously cannot definitively say if there is someone pulling your strings, I can say that Karl Rove himself couldn't run a more well-oiled machine.

Let us turn now to the inherent fraudulence of your debate "challenge." The biggest problem, and the most telling aspect of the 'offer,' is with the framing of the question. You have chosen (and this isn't the original topic of debate, by the way, but one that you came up with after you read my critique): "Is abiotic petroleum and natural gas readily available and making its way into commercial use in sufficient quantities to establish that there is no imminent energy shortage?”

The interesting thing about that question is that it presupposes that your side of the argument has already been proven, even though we both know that that isn't true. It is interesting to note here that whenever people such as you and Mr. Chin mention abiotic petroleum, you are usually quick to claim that it is a "disputed" theory. However, you never attach such qualifiers to mentions of 'fossil fuels.' Don't you find that odd, considering that it is actually the reverse that is true?

You have admitted that petroleum can be produced abiotically (in your response to my "kindred spirit"). In fact, no one with any credibility can deny that fact. It has been demonstrated in the laboratory and verified with unchallenged mathematical models. It is a fact. The 'fossil fuel' theory, on the other hand, cannot be verified and is disputed by, at the very least, a large community of Soviet and Ukrainian scientists. Since abiotic petroleum is not disputed and is verifiable, the logical presumption, until proven otherwise, is that all the natural gas and petroleum in commercial use, and in the ground, and in storage tanks, and anywhere else, is abiotic oil and gas.

Your chosen question then is an entirely fraudulent one, selected so as to protect you from having to establish the basic foundation of your argument. Just as with Mr. Chin, you want to skip right over that and start building your 'Peak Oil' theory. It doesn't work that way, and all of your sophistry cannot change that fact.

A few other aspects of the debate 'challenge' seem problematic as well. You claim that you assume that I live in the Bay Area, when you know very well that I live in the Los Angeles area, just like you. You may pretend otherwise, but you have met me. We were introduced after an event in Santa Monica in 2002. You tried to engage me in conversation, but I wasn't interested and wandered off (or is that perhaps something that I have conjured up in my imagination to feed my ego?).

Why then the Bay Area? Perhaps the answer lies in condition number 4, and the "large pool" of judges that you seem to be familiar with. I don't happen to know anyone in the Bay Area, except for my cousin, and I doubt that he is part of that pool of judges. Your obsession with a purse is another problem, and an obvious attempt to discourage acceptance of your proposal (and judging by your response to my "kindred spirit," you don't pay up when you lose anyway). All I am going to say about this issue is that, unlike you, I am not in this for the money. How much have you made, by the way, off the September 11 attacks? I know you claim to have doubled your subscribers, to 10,000. That's 5,000 new subscribers at $35.00 per year (more for the hard copy), or a minimum of $175,000 per year. Then there are the speaking fees and the reimbursed travel and living expenses. Then there are, of course, all the 9-11 related books and videos that you hawk. Then there are the donations that you solicit. So how much is it, in total, over the last two-and-a-half years? Around a half mil? More? Why don't we do this: each of us will contribute to the purse all the money that we have made off the 9-11 attacks. You will put up your proceeds, and I will put up mine. Does that sound fair?

Before wrapping this up, I need to address several more brazen misrepresentations and specious allegations that you have made. You have claimed that I have attempted to win this argument "by the sheer number of words that can be thrown at the subject." The truth though is that I have written exactly one article that challenges what you are selling. You, on the other hand, have littered the Internet with dozens of hysterical, and sometimes quite lengthy, missives on the subject. Again I would have to say that the 'pot-calling-the-kettle-black syndrome' clearly applies here.

You have claimed that I must be "assuming" that you are a reader of this site (my ego again, I presume). But we both know that you are a reader of this site. Why else would you have responded with warp speed not only to my abiotic oil posting, but to the posting that first caused your testes to draw up tighter than a newborn baby's? And I noticed, in reading through some of your material, that you have written things that appear to be direct responses to things that I have written (oops, there goes my ego again!). I will be commenting on that, and providing a clear example, in a future newsletter. As for your claim that I was hoping that you would somehow be unaware of my posting, we both know that that is absurd.

You claim that I have "attacked those who have warned of the dangers of Peak Oil as being employees of oil companies," but I said no such thing. I did identify the various geochemists quoted in news reports that I cited as "shills for the petroleum industry," but they were, in fact, identified in those reports as employees of various oil companies. It was nice of you though to volunteer the information that one of your experts once worked for Shell. And I would tend to agree that Deffeyes "long tenure at Princeton and the fact that his income is derived from there speaks volumes."

You are now claiming that, "If one paper has received peer reviews supporting it that does not, in fact, prove that the subject matter is true." But when you previously wrote that "peer-reviewed articles ensure the validity of science," you gave no hint that that statement was conditional. For the sake of accuracy, should you not go back and change the posting to read "peer-reviewed articles ensure the validity of science, unless the conclusions reached contradict the theories that I am selling"?

You also claim that I "ignore the fact that peer review is only one of nine critical questions FTW has posed," but it is you who ignores the fact that your theory is inconsistent with the laws of thermodynamics, which you identify as the most critical of the nine questions (the one that "Most of the other questions in this list can be tied up into").

You claim that "advocates of abiogenic oil and gas keep refusing to appear in public to defend their work" (not unlike the way that you claim that your critics refuse to appear in public to debate you). But Dr. Kenney and some of his Soviet colleagues have said that that is an egregious lie, and I am more prone to believe them than you. They have also complained about news reports claiming that they were "unavailable for comment," when no one had made the slightest attempt to contact them.

You have written: "As for 'Peak Groceries,' you again distort because groceries can be located by a mere phone call or internet order." To say that this is a bizarre rebuttal would be quite an understatement. It has nothing to do with my argument, which concerned the consolidation of various industries. And for the record, I can buy a can of oil with a phone call or an internet order as well. So what? Is this one of those "straw arguments" you were so concerned about?

Finally, you have written that you are "certain" that I will find "something" in my argument that you "did not respond to and state that this is proof" that you are defeated. "Not true. I never agreed to debate you on your terms." As you are well aware (and as anyone reading this will be well aware), you responded to almost nothing in my "diatribe." Instead, you sent me a bullying, childish form letter filled with entirely unfounded allegations and pompous self-importance. And for the record, it is I who never agreed to, and was never obligated to, 'debate' you on your terms.

You have declared that you are through with me. And that is fine. No one ever invited you to this party to begin with. And you obviously have nothing of substance to contribute anyway.

                                                          ********************************                                                           ********************************

With the above article in mind, I’d like to provide another one that seriously questions Mike Ruppert’s judgment in regard to his journalistic endeavors. I’m broaching this subject because Ruppert, during his speech at the Commonwealth Club in August, 2004, stated unequivocally, “I’m a journalist by training.” My dilemma at this stage of the game is: I’ve checked Ruppert’s bio, and nowhere do I see a journalist degree from any university, a full-time job at any newspaper or television station, or even training in journalism classes. Now, I would be the first person to admit that one doesn’t need a degree to be a competent journalist; but what if Ruppert came out and posited that he was a brain surgeon, even though he didn’t possess a medical degree or any training. This point is quite important, for HE is the one that habitually demands that certain standards be kept, but this standard only seems to apply to others – not him.

Such a proposition becomes even more relevant in regard to Ruppert’s coverage of a man named Delmart “Mike” Vreeland. As Ron Anicich shows so adeptly in the following article, if Ruppert’s judgment and perceptions were so off-kilter in this matter, what other areas is he also lacking in, or wrong about? While reading through this lengthy dissertation, you’ll once again see Ruppert’s paranoia emerge, along with completely unsubstantiated claims, leaps of logic, shoddy journalism, plus a letter which appeared on a Yahoo forum (June 1, 2002) that is so bizarre that it entirely cracks the Ruppert veneer. In addition, Anicich provides further examples of Ruppert’s abusive tirades when backed into a corner. In all, this is quite a pathetic display by a man who proclaims to be such a shining example of professionalism for others to follow.

                                                          ********************************                                                           ********************************

I Delmart Vreeland: What Mike Ruppert Doesn't Want You To Know
A Detailed Analysis of Ruppert's Reporting of the Vreeland Story
By Ron Anicich

In an interview on KPFK in late-August, Michael C Ruppert describes the criticism he has received as a result of his reporting of the claims of Delmart Vreeland, who Ruppert says is an American spy who had advance knowledge of what would happen on September 11/2001, in the following manner.

"Mike Vreeland has been less than 10% of my coverage and 95% of all the criticism around the world that's been leveled at me, and none of that criticism has really dealt with what I was saying."

It is strange that Ruppert, in recent interviews and appearances, continually attempts to minimize the reporting he has done on this story. The "less than 10%" argument is regularly augmented by comments like, "Vreeland is only five minutes of my 2 hour lecture." Ruppert, however, still maintains that Vreeland had advance knowledge of what would happen on September 11/2001 despite having presented little evidence of this.

At any rate, his statement is quite incorrect. The best criticism of the Vreeland story was presented in an LA Weekly article by David Corn which was published this past June. In the article Corn effectively debunked the Vreeland myth as created by Ruppert. Mr. Corn's work was very reassuring for Greg Duffell and I. We had been conducting our own look at the Vreeland story, which we began to air on CKLN FM Toronto this past May, and had come to many of the same conclusions as Corn.

Seeing how Mr. Ruppert has the belief, however erroneously, that no one has yet criticized what he has written about Vreeland, I decided that I would oblige him by doing exactly that. What follows is a thorough analysis of various articles and letters by Mr. Ruppert on the subject of Delmart Vreeland.

A White Knight Talking Backwards

In his January 25/2002 article at FTW, Ruppert states that, "The US wants Vreeland back in the States on a Michigan warrant for credit card fraud - using his own credit card." The credit card which was used in the Michigan fraud case had the name Edward Delmar on it, not Delmart Vreeland, according to both Judy Horigan, the salesperson involved in the transaction, and Lt. Keith Frye of the Troy, Michigan Police Department, the police officer who headed the investigation into the fraud and evidence submitted into evidence at Vreeland's extradition. According to Frye, the company which issued the card, American Express, says that the application for the card was also found to be fraudulent, obtained using false identification and drawing on the credit history of another person.

In the same article Ruppert tell us that, "He has never had anything to do with intelligence according to 1200 pages of Navy records filed in Toronto Superior Court." The 1200 pages he refers to were never submitted to any court. In fact Vreeland himself has claimed in an interview on CKLN Radio on April 14/2002 that he has only 56 pages of his records from the Navy in his possession. According to Canadian judges in the five hearings that have taken place on the matter of USA v. Vreeland thus far, Vreeland has presented no evidence other than his own word to confirm his involvement with the Navy or ONI. Also from the same Ruppert article: "the Crown Solicitor argued that Vreeland, who has been in jail and without access to a computer for thirteen months, had somehow cracked the Pentagon’s personnel records and inserted his name, an office number, and telephone extension into the Pentagon database."

Not somehow. Evidence was presented in court which showed exactly how Vreeland accomplished this task. The judge in the hearing which Ruppert refers to found that the evidence presented by the prosecutors was far more convincing than any explanation offered by Vreeland. Evidence was presented by federal prosecutor Kevin Wilson that Mr. Vreeland sent, or caused to be sent, an email and a telephone call which had the effect of Vreeland being added to the Pentagon directory. In any case, in a CKLN interview with Ruppert on May 19/2002 he had changed his story to say that Vreeland had, in fact, had access to a computer at the time he was in jail. No written correction was forthcoming.

Once again, in the very same article, Ruppert asserts, "He faces a special danger in the US because he has also been an informant against an organized crime family in Michigan where the criminal charges originate."

Ruppert fails to mention that the people who Vreeland testified against had the charges against them dropped because of his testimony. It is more likely that Vreeland was paid by the accused than the incredible twist of logic that they would want to harm him for doing them this tremendous favour. In a Detroit Free Press article the judge who heard the case called Vreeland, "the least credible witness I have ever seen." These sentiments have since been echoed in the decisions of Canadian judges in his current case. What is their motive for killing him exactly?

Additionally, the Detroit "organized crime family" boss Jack Tocco which Ruppert refers to is not directly related to the Steven Tocco that Delmart Vreeland testified against in 1998 according to Eric Kaiser, the Michigan prosecutor who tried the arson case in question. Steve Tocco has been identified by both Vreeland and his half-brother Terry Weems as a childhood friend of the family. Bobby Moore, the owner of the St. Clair Shores restaurant where the arson took place, in addition to having all charges in the arson dropped, is also no stranger to Delmart Vreeland. Moore, who remains a successful restauranteur with no organized crime convictions, is married to Vreeland's sister.

Ruppert Defends His Work

In a March 3 letter from Ruppert published at AlterNet, Ruppert says, "No, the Toronto Star did not confirm Vreeland's story. The Canadian court system did."

The truth is that by the time this letter was composed five separate decisions were handed down by Canadian judges which, rather than confirming Vreeland's story, thoroughly discredited it. Ruppert's reporter must have missed that.

In the same letter Ruppert states that Vreeland, "wrote a warning of the 9-11 attacks a month before they happened."

Vreeland, his former lawyer, Paul Slansky, and others have repeatedly stated that this note was "not a warning note." Hard to believe that they didn't share that information with Ruppert. Indeed, upon inspection of the document it is difficult to see how anyone could characterize the note as a warning of anything.

Vreeland Attacked In Canadian Jail

A March 3/2002 article for FTW by Greta Knutzen, the reporter hired by Ruppert to sit in on the court proceedings, states that, "Vreeland has been subject to physical attacks while behind bars."

No evidence was ever offered in court to prove this aside from Vreeland's own testimony. The same article states that, "Upon his arrest, Vreeland was placed in solitary confinement. The reason for this treatment was the difficulty Toronto police had in confirming his identity... ...he was removed from solitary confinement on Jan. 15, 2001."

Vreeland had been identified by Dec 8/2000. This would seem to contradict the assertion that he was in solitary confinement until Jan 15/2001 for the reason stated here. In Troy, Michigan Lt. Keith Frye was informed of the capture of Delmart Vreeland by Canadian authorities on Dec 8/2000. He must have been identified by this date despite the fact that he had provided the Toronto Police Fugitive Squad with two different aliases.

From the same article: "After he was removed from solitary confinement on Jan. 15, 2001, he learned that six days after his arrest, on Dec. 12, 2000, Bastien was found dead."

Vreeland has stated in a subsequent interview on CKLN and in an interview at FTW that he was not made aware of Bastien's death until August 2001 when he met with the RCMP. The article, while not incorrect, is extremely misleading. Contrary to the assertions made in the CKLN and FTW interviews, information found in a sworn affidavit submitted by Vreeland to a Canadian court in October 2001 clearly states that he learned of Bastien's death from a December 14/2000 Moscow Times article in June 2001. The Moscow Times article was submitted by Vreeland as an exhibit in support of his affidavit. This is one of many examples of Vreeland contradicting his own story.

Vreeland in Safe House, All Canadian Charges Dropped, Temporary Refugee Status Granted

In a March 15/2002 article at FTW Ruppert starts right off by claiming that Delmart Vreeland is a "US Navy officer who wrote a written warning of the 9-11 attacks, a month before they occurred."

If Ruppert is referring to the exhibit N document that resides on the FTW website then we have already addressed this point. If however he refers to the alleged accompanying 37 page memo addressed to Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Vern Clark that Vreeland also claims to have written while in jail, then I would remind Mr Ruppert that no one has been brought forward who has even seen it.

Ruppert continues to tell the tale. "At the time the bail release order was issued, (Vreeland's) address was made part of the public record and announced in open court, raising immediate fears that Vreeland... would become easy prey for would-be assassins."

Since his release, however, Vreeland has made no secret of his precise whereabouts. He often meets with supporters and has even had at least one virtual stranger, Cameron Sexton, an Ohio native who had posted supportive messages at Vreeland's website, at his home for an overnight visit. Mr Sexton described his somewhat surreal visit with Vreeland in an interview on CKLN. The suggestion that Vreeland needs protection from "would-be assassins" would seem to be contradicted by Vreeland's willingness to part with knowledge of his whereabouts.

Vreeland has also seen fit to describe his whereabouts to journalists. According to an article by Andrew Wilt, "Vreeland is now, quite ironically, living in the World Trade Center in Toronto." These are simply not the actions of a man who is trying to avoid an attempt on his life. Mr. Wilt recently informed me that Vreeland had personally approved the article before it was published.

Ruppert flatly states that Vreeland "served as an informant on organized crime investigations in the US, allegedly while working as a Naval intelligence officer."

Allegedly is not an adequate disclaimer here. When Vreeland served as an informant in Macomb County, Michigan against Bobby Moore, Steve Tocco, and others he was in jail on other charges, according to Eric Kaiser, who is the prosecutor who brokered the deal for Vreeland's testimony. Another detail of the event which was recalled by both Kaiser and Vreeland's half-brother, Terry Weems, was that Vreeland claimed that he had tried to warn the authorities in advance that the arson was going to happen. The "proof" in this case was the date which Vreeland had written on his warning letter. However, the envelope he used to mail the warning was post-marked many days after the alleged arson took place.

Vreeland also offered to testify against Nestor Fonseca in Canada, who Vreeland said was involved in organized crime with Bobby Moore. Vreeland's testimony was quite sensibly not proceeded upon by law enforcement. Moore claims that he does not know Mr. Fonseca and no evidence is offered to suggest that he does.

Ruppert offers no evidence at all to support claims of Vreeland's involvement with organized crime or ONI at any time.

Later in the same article Ruppert states, "Canadian courts have continually refused to allow Vreeland or his attorneys to present mounting evidence validating his assertions -- in many cases corroborated by official records..."

Ruppert should know of Vreeland's affidavit and the numerous exhibits which are attached to it. Some of these documents are available online, including exhibit N, the "warning note" that is available at FTW. These documents, of course, show that Vreeland was given the opportunity to present his case in court and in great detail. At least three Canadian judges have dismissed his story as the result of a vivid imagination, partly because of the fact that he was unable to provide any evidence as proof of his claims, other than his own testimony. According to Ruppert, "Vreeland’s claims that a Canadian diplomat, Marc Bastien, was murdered in Moscow, originally denied by Canadian officials, have since proven true as a result of autopsy findings."

This statement is extremely misleading for several reasons, and plain incorrect on at least one point. During an interview on CKLN (April 14/2002), Vreeland stated very clearly that he didn't make the allegation that Bastien had been murdered until he met with the RCMP on August 8/2001. Corporal Kispol of the RCMP confirmed that the meeting took place on this date. The results of Bastien's autopsy, however, were delivered to family members on Dec 19/2000, over seven months before Vreeland made his claim, according to an Ottawa Sun article by Kathleen Harris. Also it is important to note that at no time has any Canadian official ever gone on the record as stating that Bastien was not murdered. The "natural causes" reason for Bastien's death was only ever offered publicly by Moscow police, according to articles in the Moscow Times published in the days following the incident.

Additionally, no evidence was ever presented to prove that Vreeland had ever been to Moscow. No evidence was presented that he had ever even met Bastien.

What The CIA Doesn't Want You To Know

On April 4/2002 Mike Ruppert published a 35 question interview with Vreeland at FTW. In the preamble Ruppert claims of his Vreeland reporting, "It is a case that has sparked zealous attacks on FTW and me personally... These attacks are an indication of the threat Vreeland poses to the credibility of the U.S. government."

This is a stunning leap of logic that borders on delusion. Ruppert characterizes criticism of his work as an attack. This, of course, is absurd on its face. As I have demonstrated, criticism of Ruppert's coverage of the Vreeland story was inevitable as it was apparent that Ruppert has made many errors in his reporting and had made little if any attempt to establish the actual facts through an investigation. He follows that with the conclusion that this criticism is indicative of a perceived threat to the US government without establishing that this criticism has been directed at Ruppert, or has any connection to the government whatsoever. Mr. Ruppert's reasoning here is extremely flawed.

Ruppert continues, "Mike Vreeland has a very confusing criminal arrest record -- some of it very contradictory and apparently fabricated -- for a variety of petty criminal offenses including fraud."

Ruppert fails to point to any part of Vreeland's criminal record that is either contradictory or fabricated. Additionally, stealing a yacht in Florida, a crime for which Vreeland was convicted, stealing a Porsche, as described in police reports from Mishawaka, Indiana, and alleged purchases which Vreeland made worth tens of thousands of dollars on a bogus credit card (the Troy, Michigan charges he is being extradited to face) can hardly be described as petty. According to records from the Michigan Department of Corrections, Vreeland has spent almost his entire adult life under supervision. Once again, not at all petty.

Then Ruppert asks a question that can only be characterized as bizarre. "If a crazy man runs up to you on the street and says that a house is on fire with children trapped inside, and you smell smoke, who is the crazy one if you decide not to investigate?"

In light of what we have learned about Vreeland so far, a more appropriate question would be: If a crazy man runs up to you on the street and says that a house is on fire with children trapped inside and it is clear that there is no fire, who is the crazy one if you decide to investigate?

According to Ruppert, "A growing pile of evidence, much of it filed in court records and undisputed by Canadian or U.S. authorities, establishes clearly that Vreeland was exactly what he says he was -- a spy."

In reality, there was absolutely no evidence presented in court to establish Vreeland's employment by ONI or any other "spy" agency. The only thing that was clearly established in court was that Vreeland's story bore no resemblance to reality, according to the Canadian judges who had been hearing the case. Unlike Ruppert, they are actually aware of what evidence was presented to the court.

Ruppert's knowledge of his own work is also highly questionable. "We have described how, in open court on a speakerphone, his lawyers obtained direct confirmation from the Pentagon that he was a Navy officer. We have also reported that, as of March 14, all Canadian charges against Vreeland were dismissed."

The Pentagon phone call, which does not meet any standard of evidence, was successfully disputed by federal prosecutor Kevin Wilson. Wilson presented an email, sent either by Vreeland or on his behalf, which explained how the Pentagon directory scam was accomplished. One wonders what Ruppert was hoping to accomplish by continually refusing to acknowledge the decisions of judges and evidence presented by the prosecution in this case. Likewise, Ruppert reports on the dropping of the Canadian charges without offering an explanation for this, in order to falsely suggest that there is something to Vreeland's ridiculous stories. According to the officer seeking Vreeland's extradition, Toronto police, and Mr. Wilson, the Canadian charges were dropped to expedite the extradition.

In the same article we are given a glimpse into Rupperts motives. "I avoid some of the questions being raised by dilettantes and neophyte journalists who take all of the threads of Vreeland's stories and run with them into a wilderness from which no professional journalist could credibly emerge."

Despite Ruppert's assertion, repeatedly ignoring all evidence which contradicts your personal position is not the hallmark of a professional journalist. A professional journalist would make himself aware of the facts of a case before publishing stories that are filled with misleading conjecture, half-truths and downright lies. His continual use of Vreeland and his former lawyers as the sole source for his articles show his contempt for journalism. His attempts to portray himself as a journalist are far from convincing given his practices. One question comes to mind: where did Ruppert study journalism?

Ruppert continues, "To the U.S. government, Vreeland is totally expendable. And those who run with every piece of information he has disclosed will themselves be proven fools in a fool's game."

Once again Ruppert diverges from reality. To the US government, Vreeland is a career criminal who needs to come home to face fraud charges in Troy, Michigan. This information is clearly spelled out in Vreeland's extradition request. Those who run with every piece of information that Vreeland has provided have unanimously come to the conclusion that Vreeland is a con man and liar. It is the "journalist" who prints Vreeland's unsubstantiated allegations who is being proven a fool in a fool's game. Once again, one must wonder what Ruppert's motives might be in discouraging people from investigating the various elements of Vreeland's story.

Ruppert suggests, "And if he knew something, based upon documents given to him by Russian officials indicating U.S. knowledge, and if the U.S. government went to great lengths to discredit him, rather than bring him in from the cold -- then there is real meat on the plate for journalists, the American government, and all of mankind."

This is a very big "if" considering the information we now have at our disposal. The documents which Vreeland allegedly brought back from Russia have not yet been produced despite the fact that Vreeland repeatedly stated he would be releasing them to the media. Surely, if these documents actually existed they would be an effective tool to silence Ruppert and Vreeland's many critics. To date; no convincing proof of the existence of these documents has been offered, nevermind the documents themselves. Also, the "meat" which Ruppert refers to has been largely and understandably ignored by the media. It is also strange that since making this statement Ruppert has minimized the importance of his Vreeland reporting at every opportunity. Ruppert needs to decide if the Vreeland story is "meat on the plate... for all mankind" or a small, insignificant part of his 9/11 reporting, as he now claims frequently in interviews.

Ruppert introduces the 35 questions and answers with the following statement. "Now you can read Mike Vreeland's answers as he speaks for himself."

Recently I was provided with a copy of the letter which was sent to Vreeland by Ruppert which contained the questions asked in this interview. Before the actual questions Ruppert gives Vreeland some curious advice. "It is extremely important that you keep your answers short. It is also extremely important that you do not overcomplicate or add any confusing issues. We've talked about that. OK to add additional data where it helps clarify you (sic) point. But before we talk you have to think through your answers to be short and on-point. That will serve you better in the long run."

Surprisingly, Ruppert actually confirmed that he wrote this. He also claimed that these instructions did not violate any journalistic standards. Once again, where did he study journalism? In any case, these instructions suggest that the assertion Ruppert makes in his article - that Vreeland was "speaking for himself" - is somewhat less than accurate. Most journalists do not see a need to tell their interview subjects how to answer questions. This practice is deceitful. The question of what will "serve Vreeland better in the long run" is a concern best left to Vreeland's lawyers, not a self-proclaimed professional journalist who is trying to discover the truth. What are Ruppert's motives here?

The answers which Vreeland offers to Ruppert's questions are incredible. So far we have examined several of Vreeland's claims as reported by Ruppert, but there remain a few issues in this interview that would seem to require a little investigation.

Ruppert: 1. What part of the U.S. government did you work for? Was it the CIA?

Vreeland: "I worked for U.S. Naval intelligence. What the CIA directs us to do is their business, so we have no way of knowing whether we're working for them or not."

This must be some of that "professional journalism" Ruppert likes to speak of. After claiming in three articles that Vreeland worked for ONI, Ruppert finally gets around too asking him who he works for. Strange.

Ruppert: 3. Why were you in Moscow and Russia in the latter part of 2000?

Vreeland: "I was sent there by the U.S. government and the ONI [Office of Naval Intelligence]. I got my orders between Sept. 4 and Sept. 7, 2000.

"Marc Bastien departed for Russia on Sept. 7, 2000. I had orders to meet him. Bastien was going to work at the Canadian embassy regarding diagrams and blueprints of a weapons defense system. The U.S. government had a direct influence on his mission. The name of the defense system is SSST [Stealth Satellite System Terminator]..."

Regarding Bastien, it is important to reiterate that not a single person has been brought forward to confirm that Vreeland had ever even been in the same room as Bastien, nevermind the possibility that they might have worked together. The SSST reference is also curious. The US military does in fact have technology that is known by this acronym. It is called a supersonic sea-skimming target, which is used to test the accuracy of cruise missiles. After an exhaustive search we can find absolutely no reference to Vreeland's SSST save for this one article on FTW and another which also used Vreeland as a source. It is absolutely indicative of Ruppert's incompetence that he would not have attempted to confirm this detail of Vreeland's story. Sadly, this is typical of Ruppert's reporting.

Ruppert: 8. Who put the information on the attacks into the pouch, and what would have been their motive for doing so?

Vreeland: "I am not allowed to answer that. It would jeopardize the lives of active agents, and it would violate the National Security Act of 1947."

Vreeland has stated clearly on several occasions that he had already violated the act mentioned above. That means that this part of his answer does not hold water. Also, it should be pointed out that pointing the finger at even more people who had alleged advance knowledge of what would happen on September 11th creates an even larger conspiracy, thus making his story even less credible.

Ruppert: 17. The most common excuse people use to discredit you is that you have prior arrests on fraud charges, and there are several press stories linking you to alleged criminal activity. How do you explain this?

Vreeland: "The American Express charges are b.s., and Amex has stated on tape that the specific charges in question were approved. They admit that there was no fraud on this card. That card had been issued to Lt. Delmart Michael Vreeland. The Amex people admitted that the card was a U.S. Navy card.

"The press stories that have circulated about my past are lies. Portions of the stories alleging fraud and ID theft are lies. I have threatened to sue these papers, and the stories have been pulled."

What becomes extremely clear once again in this portion of the interview is that Ruppert had done little, if anything, to confirm what Vreeland had told him. It would have taken Ruppert about a day (the amount of time it took us) to discover that the Michigan fraud charges were not on a card that had been issued to Lt. Delmart Michael Vreeland, but to Edward Delmar, one of Vreeland's many aliases. According to Lt. Frye, Amex says that the application for the card was found to be fraudulent and that several fraudulent transactions were made using the card. Additionally, none of the press stories which Vreeland refers to here have been retracted or corrected. This is also very easy to check. Ruppert seems happy to provide Vreeland a forum to tell many lies. It is no wonder that Vreeland speaks so highly of Ruppert.

As if Ruppert's work at FTW weren't enough, Ruppert's next Vreeland news left absolutely no doubt as to his incompetence. On a public forum at Yahoo on June 1/2002, Ruppert delivered the following report:

     I am writing this from a hotel room in Sacramento. There is little I can do from here except      report what I know. I am presently without the ability to report in further detail. Both Mike      Vreeland and his lawyer Rocco Galati have been poisoned. Both are apparently out of the      woods, but for Vreeland it was a very close call.

     Here's what I know. Approximately four days ago, shortly after releasing the first batch of      FIN (financial transaction documents involving the FED) Vreeland received two bottles of      wine from Allan (sic) Greenspan. Vreeland stated that he had spoken to Greenspan on the      phone and knew that the wine was coming.

     I was on the phone with Vreeland yesterday right after he had had about two glasses of the      wine. Upon answering the phone Vreeland immediately stated that he had been vomitting      blood. He looked in the mirror while he was on the phone with me and said that the whites      of his eyes were turning blue and was feeling violently ill. I could hear sounds of the toilet      flushing and water running. Vreeland was obviously ill.

     He became disoriented, but as soon as he saw his eyes he said, "Shit, it's the same stuff      they gave Marc [Bastien] - clozapine." In a frenzy he went to a stash or (sic) previously      prepared syringes and took five successive injections of medications. I have a list of what      he took but am not disclosing it now. I listened as the caps came off the syringes, hit the      floor, and as he injected.

     I stayed on the phone with him for about 45 minutes until a friend of his got in the apartment.      Vreeland was fighting sleep. He didn't sound like he was faking at all. Today I learned from      Vreeland that his attorney - Rocco Galati - had been poisoned while eating in a Toronto      restaurant and had begun bleeding from his nose (and possibly ears) after becoming      violently ill. There were apparently multiple witnesses to this incident. The Galati poisoning      occured on the same day that Vreeland received the wine. Galati is now out of the hospital,      but extremely weak.

     Galati apparently made the moves for an emergency hearing yesterday while Vreeland was      opening the wine, but it may be the case that he made an emergency contact to the court      today. I just don't know.

     Galati has moved for an emergency court hearing and, due to other seucrity issues,      Vreeland is being (and probably already has been) relocated to another more secure      location.

     I have assigned my Toronto correspondent to meet with both Vreeland and Galati      tomorrow. I am on the road and not back in my office until Monday. I will report more when I      have more. Details are sketchy, and once FTW's reporter has sifted through it all we will      have more and better details.

     Mike Ruppert

This story is completely absurd on its face. An article had appeared on May 23/2002 in the Toronto Sun which indicated that Rocco Galati had been poisoned by food which he had consumed in a downtown restaurant. There is no indication in the article that it was anything other than food poisoning, although Galati alleged in court that he had also received death threats. No connection was made in this article to the alleged Vreeland poisoning, which is not surprising considering it happened more than a week later. The only person to ever put the two events together is Mike Ruppert. This is misleading to say the least.

As far as Rupppert's tale of the Vreeland poisoning goes, it appears as if Ruppert is asking us to suspend our disbelief because Ruppert tells us that "he didn't sound like he was faking at all." So we are to believe that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve sent Vreeland two bottles of wine. Then we are supposed to believe that the wine contained clozapine. Then we are supposed to believe that Vreeland repeatedly injected himself with some undisclosed antidote. All this because Ruppert says he didn't sound like he was faking it? Pardon me for not being convinced!

At least one explanation for Vreeland's prolific vomiting comes from the Ohio native, Cameron Sexton, who visited Vreeland that weekend and left on the very day that this alleged incident took place. Mr. Sexton described Vreeland's heroic alcohol intake in an interview with CKLN which was recorded shortly afterward. Sexton also says that Vreeland consumed cocaine during his visit, a fact which he also reported to the Toronto police. In any case, Sexton's description of his visit offers an alternative and vastly more plausible explanation for any apparent sickness which Ruppert may have observed.

The further details of this incident which Ruppert said he would provide in the future were not forthcoming. In an LA Weekly article by David Corn, Ruppert appeared to express his own doubts about the incident, claiming, "since all of the information received was solely from Vreeland -- who was obviously disoriented and ill -- I couldn't go with a news story."

What is most striking about this is that Vreeland appears to be the sole source of information in the majority of the articles Ruppert has written about him. If not, he has certainly not given us any reason to think otherwise. The other stories are no more believable than this one, which begs the question: why stop now?

Over a month later my CKLN colleague Greg Duffell, with whom I have spent many months exploring the many facets of Vreeland's claims, posed the following questions to Ruppert on the same Yahoo discussion forum:

     Mr. Ruppert,

     I just wish you'd answer my oft-repeated question to you as to whether you discussed your      interview with us at CKLN on May 16th with Mr. Vreeland and if you, as he claims, advised      him not to do an interview with us scheduled for May 19th. I've asked several times on this      forum. Perhaps you haven't seen it.

     I'd also like to get clarification about the "Allan Greenspan" wine story, but you seem to      avoid any real commentary about that.

     I'd appreciate a response to either or both.

     Sincerely,
     Greg Duffell

What happened next was truly bewildering. Ruppert sent the following reply:

     It is futile to try to explain algebra to an impaired third grader. As far as covert operations      go, you are in this class. It was either you or your partner who asked me one of the      stupidest questions I have ever heard. At that point you became persona non grata to me      because you had demonstrated not the slightest degree of humility, manners, or willingness      to learn. You just assumed that you knew everything - about everything.

     Your worst problem is that you assume great experience and understanding when you are      dangerously naïve. Your most accurate statement in one of your postings was that you were      an amateur. I heartily agree.

     As to the wine statement there is nothing to explain. Vreeland was disoriented, in obvious      pain, and I recorded his statements over a hotel phone in Sacramento. When I made the      posting I said that I had no way to verify what I had heard. Then I found out - thanks to this list      - that Vreeland's attorney Rocco Galati had indeed been poisoned and that it had been      reported in a Canadian paper.

     I met with Galati in person on my last visit to Toronto and we discussed the poisoning      among other issues. I have agreed not to make any further disclosures on the subject until      after an upcoming court date where much more will be disclosed.

     Your bad manners, your inept arrogance, and your bellicose private threats to me off this list      are ample evidence of how you should be treated. There are times when a child should not      be allowed to interfere in matters of life and death, especially when the child doesn't have      the common sense possessed by an artichoke.

     That is the last response you will get out of me. Now enjoy your ensuing tantrum. But trust      me, as far as Mike Vreeland is concerned, you will have your comeuppance soon enough.      And it won't be coming from me.

     Have a nice day!
     Mike Ruppert

This response speaks volumes about Ruppert. This collection of holier-than-thou unsupported accusations, childish insults, and self-righteousness perfectly sums up his attitude toward being questioned - even when the questions are quite inoffensive and reasonable.

It is also interesting to note that Ruppert admits to making the assertion that Rocco Galati had been poisoned before receiving any confirmation of the fact whatsoever. Even stranger when you consider that Galati was a phone call away the entire time.

As I have illustrated clearly here, Ruppert's reporting of the Vreeland story is misleading and inaccurate on many occasions. The innuendo which makes up the bulk of his reporting of this story, while he simultaneously claims to be a "professional journalist," is unconvincing. As far as journalistic standards are concerned, Ruppert rarely rises to the level of the Weekly World News. I am quite concerned about Rupppert's acceptance by people who consider themselves to be progressive for this reason. Many on the left now seem quite willing to lend an ear to a reporter who more closely resembles PT Barnum than a credible journalist.

While Ruppert asks questions that will not likely be answered any time soon, and may not even be valid, we run the risk of losing sight of the true post-9/11 tragedy, the undisputed curtailing of our basic freedoms in the name of a supposed war on terror.

It is essential that we examine Ruppert's motives for his irresponsible journalism. Let's look at the facts. Ruppert sells videotapes of his post-9/11 lecture, lining his pockets with the misery and death of the victims. Other than the Vreeland story, which we have shown for the sloppy work that it is, Ruppert's reporting consists entirely of misleading interpretations of open source material. Vreeland is the ONLY story that Ruppert has done any original reporting on, and that is so flawed as to be unable to stand up to scrutiny. Is Ruppert simply an opportunist? Several sources have revealed to us that Ruppert is now writing a book. Seems he thinks there is even more money to be made. What is stunning is that he was able to find a publisher that agreed.

By far the most accurate summation of the absurdity of Ruppert's unwavering position on the Vreeland story is offered by David Corn in the above mentioned LA Weekly article.

"To believe Vreeland's scribbles mean anything -- as does Ruppert -- one must believe his claim to be a veteran intelligence operative sent to Moscow on an improbable top-secret, high-tech mission (change documents to neutralize an entire technology?) during which he stumbled upon records (which he has not revealed) showing that 9/11 was going to happen. To believe that, one must believe Vreeland is a victim of a massive disinformation campaign involving his family, law-enforcement officers and defense lawyers across the country, two state corrections departments, county-clerk offices in 10 or so counties, the Canadian justice system, and various parts of the U.S. government. And one must believe that hundreds if not thousands of detailed court, county, prison and state records have been forged."

I would only add that Ruppert has not seen fit to investigate any aspect of Vreeland's claims, and his articles are black-and-white evidence of this. Is it any wonder that Ruppert received the bulk of his criticism over this? He seems to think so, but in light of the fact that he has no other original investigations, I can't see why it would be any other way.

                                                          ********************************                                                           ********************************

Before proceeding (with Ruppert’s bizarre Yahoo-Vreeland-poisoning meltdown still fresh in our minds), I would like to add a few more articles of evidence to the Mike Vreeland case, for, without Ruppert’s intervention into this matter, such lunacy would have never surfaced on the 9-11 scene. In this light, if Vreeland was nothing more than a con-man who led Ruppert in the wrong direction, could this same lack of discernment apply to other areas of investigation (i.e. peak oil)?

The first item to consider originates from GNN reporter Sander Hicks in an article entitled, Down the Rabbit Hole (September 26, 2002). Hicks explains that after Vreeland purported to be a spy for the Office of Naval Intelligence, he also “claimed if he was extradited to the U.S. he could be killed.” But, Hicks continues, “Just as Vreeland’s star began to rise, it came crashing down. His long, colorful list of outstanding warrants in the U.S. was released to the public, and the international man of mystery was quickly dismissed as a two-bit con man who had concocted an elaborate yarn to avoid prosecution.”

Somehow, Ruppert didn’t see through this ruse, and as we have seen, even went so far as to spin some fantastic yarns that spiraled into the realm of the totally preposterous. Vreeland’s claims were so outlandish that Judge John Macdonald pointed out that this man believed he “developed the theory for anti-Star Wars technology in 1986 based on high school courses.” Yet Ruppert promoted him for the world to see. If he had been as diligent an investigator as Sheffield, Alabama Detective Greg Ray, he would have discovered a rap-sheet that extended for twenty pages, with “nine known felony convictions and five more felony charges.” But he didn’t, despite his claims of being an inscrutably thorough researcher. To close the Vreeland files, Michigan detective John Meiers summed it up best. “The bottom line: Delmart Vreeland is a con man. He’s conned everyone he comes in contact with.”

                                                          ********************************

Adding further weight to this argument, Toronto screenwriter R. Marshall Smith wrote about his adventures with Mike Ruppert in a piece entitled, The Asinine Case of Delmart "Spyboy" Vreeland or: How I Learned Not to Be So Paranoid and Trust my Instincts Again (October 30, 2003). He begins by speaking about his proposed screenplay on Vreeland, and also Ruppert's typically abusive reaction. "After about two weeks, the treatment was complete and totaled 50 pages. I submitted it to Mr. Kroonenburg [an L.A. producer] for his consideration and waited on his response. I hadn’t heard from Vreeland in awhile, so I sent off another email. Shortly thereafter, I received a garbled message from the faux-op, and it immediately raised a red flag in my mind. Thinking that Vreeland had in some way been compromised, I quickly wrote Mr. Ruppert for his advice. The investigative journalist replied promptly and basically lambasted me for bringing into question Vreeland’s lack of skill with a keyboard, as I was obviously uninformed in the ways of covert operatives and he didn’t have the time to educate me."

Smith then lands a knockout punch, for he was quickly able to see through Vreeland's ruse: "Incidentally, if you have ever had the misfortune of meeting Vreeland in person -- like I have -- then you will know this scoundrel and the word “intelligence” do not mix, and may as well be an oxymoron. How this pitiful little man was able to convince a vast number of people -- some of them hi-profile -- of his absurd claims is beyond comprehension. Mine at least. I guess that old familiar phrase, “There’s a fool born every minute,” is a lot more applicable today than I thought."

                                                          ********************************

Yet Mike Ruppert peddled his nonsense while absolutely failing to follow even the most elementary of investigative principles. This lack of judgment should send warning flags up in every direction. [And to think, Ruppert categorized my reporting as “sloppy” when he laid these completely unfounded whoppers on us. This guy has some nerve. Worse, in Ruppert's initial e-mail to me, he claimed that my work could have cost him and his business harm. Yet, try to imagine how many people repeated his bogus claims about Vreeland having foreknowledge of 9-11. I can only conclude at this point that it is Ruppert's lack of credibility as a journalist which has actually caused the real harm.]

Now that we've had a chance to digest all of the above-mentioned Vreeland material, what can we determine? I'm not sure about you, but if I were Mike Ruppert, I'd distance myself so far from this con-man that I wouldn't even acknowledge his name. Either that, or simply admit I was wrong and move on. But what does Ruppert do? He devotes two entire chapters to Vreeland in Crossing the Rubicon! Can you believe it? Plus, he mentions him in two other chapters. It seems he can't leave well enough alone, regardless of the ridicule. In fact, here is how Ruppert ultimately summarizes his relationship with Vreeland in Crossing the Rubicon (page 294):"I knew exactly what he was doing, and he knew that I knew. The unspoken deal between us was that I was going to let him try to trash me by feeding me bad information so that he could uphold his end of his deal with his handlers and maybe get out of Canada alive?"

Say what? This is sheer lunacy! Name one credible journalist in the world that would make such a statement. Ruppert was going to let Vreeland try to ruin him by disseminating bogus information so that he could please his shadow government maniuplators? And it was all an "unspoken deal"? This is Twilight Zone material, and it's about time somebody finally pointed it out.

This scenario is so alarming that over the past two decades many have come to ponder Ruppert’s competence as a researcher, along with his psychological make-up. These questions first arose in an October 11, 1981 Los Angeles Herald Examiner two-part article (by Randall Sullivan) where Ruppert’s girlfriend Teddy lamented, “Doesn’t it make you doubt the mental stability of someone who has become so obsessed with things that happened so long ago?” Ruppert’s commanding officer in the LAPD reiterated her concerns, stating, “Any attempts to rejoin the Department by Officer Ruppert should be approved only after a thorough psychiatric examination.” (David Corn, The September 11 X-files, May 30, 2002)

But this example certainly isn’t the only one which brings into question Ruppert’s reliability as a prognosticator of current events. Researcher Brian Salter, in a May 18, 2003 article entitled Mike Ruppert on Amy Goodman and the 9/11 Latecomers, reproduces a statement made by Ruppert after being savaged by the phony left-leaning alternative media. I couldn’t agree more with his assertions in regard to these charlatans, but near the end of this article, Ruppert opines, “Having been vindicated so many times I point again to Saudi Arabia and also now to West Africa. Nine months ago FTW wrote that Saudi Arabia would tour after Iraq. Little noticed details of the recent bombings in Riyadh confirm it. And recent developments in Africa, especially Nigeria – the world’s sixth largest oil producer – are sounding alarms that al Qaeda may be about to reveal an African face, including that of Osama bin Laden.”

He continues, “Every time my analysis is vindicated, every time a FTW prediction comes true, it is more affirmation that Peak Oil is real.”

Whoa, let’s slow down for a moment. I’m sorry to inform Mr. Ruppert, but now, in 2004, a full two years after he uttered the above proclamation, the U.S. has not invaded Saudi Arabia, or any country in West Africa. Yet Ruppert boasted that his prediction was “affirmation that Peak Oil is real.” And this, as we all know, is what Ruppert claims is the real motive behind 9-11, as he made clear in a recent speech at the Commonwealth Club: “Crossing the Rubicon is a detective story that gets to the innermost core of the 9/11 attacks. It places 9/11 at the center of a desperate new America, created by specific, named individuals in preparation for peak oil: an economic crisis like nothing the world has ever seen.”

I’m sure Ruppert doesn’t like to be reminded of his past words, but he can’t have it both ways. If peak oil’s reality is, as he proclaims, predicated on an invasion of Saudi Arabia or West Africa, then he is utterly wrong in his assertions. It’s that simple. This picture is similar to Ruppert’s unwavering claim of being a top-notch researcher, yet all the while being duped into embarrassment by Mike Vreeland.

By combining peak oil, 9-11, and the war machine into a huge jumbled mess, then making predictions based upon these views (some of which have been proven to be faulty), Ruppert is not only muddying the water, but also drawing a huge amount of criticism which ultimately does not help the cause for those who want to discover what actually happened on the morning of September 11, 2001.

One of Ruppert’s detractors is Angela D’Urso, who wrote a piece entitled The Creepy Side of the 911 Truth Movement (September 10, 2004): “Ruppert appears to be a volunteer mouthpiece for the oil industry/government, who seeks to – through 911 truth exposure – spread the peak oil scam as well as make people believe there are no viable alternative energies worth pursuing.”

In addition, Ruppert’s horrifying social views are once again exposed by D’Urso. “As for creepiness, get this; Ruppert also wants to inform us that because of ‘peak oil,’ population reduction is a necessity. The only question we have to decide, he told us all at the 911 Inquiry in San Francisco, is whether we want to do it ‘nice or nasty’.”

I don’t know about you, but my first reaction to this type of agenda is: WHO THE HELL DOES MIKE RUPPERT THINK HE IS? Who made him an Olympian god that determines who should live and who should die? What we’re delving into here, folks, is pure New World Order treachery – i.e. a Rockefeller-style eugenics/euthanasia nightmare.

In a commentary on this article, journalist, researcher, and author John Kaminski (The Perfect Enemy) responded in typically incisive fashion, “Ruppert? What is it with this peak oil shit? Who cares? We’re after mass murderers! We don’t care WHY they did it. We just want them arrested and sent to Guantanamo in orange jumpsuits.”

This sentiment was reiterated to WING TV co-host Lisa Guliani in a private e-mail from a noted 9-11 researcher (whose identity we will protect), who stated that Ruppert is a “limited hang-out agent inserted into the 9/11 movement by clear Cointelpro ‘legend making’.” He continued, “Ruppert sells not only the already well known drug angle (long exposed by others), but the bogus Peak Oil angle that subtly allows progressives and neoliberals to lend credence to the war.”

There are also references to Ruppert that get into the realm of unbridled "high weirdness." Take for example this passage from an e-mail sent on Monday, September 27, 2004 by Leuren Moret, who is a geoscientist, environmental commissioner in Berkeley, and researcher-turned-whistleblower in 1991 at the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab. She wrote: "Michael Ruppert and his office mates were having a horrible time in LA with bad moods, squabbling etc. One of them finally brought a geiger counter into the office and compared the meter readings inside and outside their office. The geiger counter was used in Russia at the US Embassy when the workers and ambassadors were dying and getting sick. Apparently microwaves have a distinctive pattern on geiger counters - a peaked pattern. Sure enough the meter readings inside were much higher than outside; and after they made a big public fuss about it, the harrassment stopped."

My question is: are we to believe that Mike and his office mates brought a geiger counter into their office to determine why they were experiencing such "squabbling, bad moods, and horrible times"? I suppose we must, because Ruppert writes about this very same phenomenon in the "VREELAND II" chapter of Crossing the Rubicon. Or, God forbid, could the tension among his associates merely be a reflection of Ruppert's notorious anger-laced tirades? Catherine Austin Fitts said of him in the introduction to Rubicon, "Mike's temper is big." So, once again, instead of accepting responsibility for his actions, Ruppert magnifies everything to monumental proportions, directs it outward, while at the same time deflecting all blame from himself.

Another insight into Ruppert's combativeness, paranoia, and inability to accept criticism can be found in this e-mail to me from CKLN radio personality Ron Acinich (September 25, 2004). In this note, Acinich elaborates on Ruppert's frenzied reaction to his investigation of Mike Vreeland, along with his relationship to publisher Adam Parfrey of Feral House Press:

     Victor,

     There are a few things that might be of help to you.

     First of all, yes, paranoid is accurate. An aquaintance of mine described the content of      one of his conversations with Mike. When I related the details back to Mike he assumed,      incorrectly, that I was illegally monitoring his email and tapping his phone. He, of course,      also accused me of working for the CIA. Being an anarchist, and Canadian, I was very      amused by this.

     Abusive is also accurate. When Mike first got word that we were debunking his Vreeland      story he turned on us completely. We had already interviewed him about Vreeland and      would have liked to interview him again in light of the new information which we had      uncovered.

     You might also want to speak with Adam Parfrey at Feral House Publishing. They were      going to print Mike's book. However, in the end, parts of it were unpublishable. Apparently      the publisher shared my concerns with the Vreeland stuff. When their editor got in touch with      Mike about dropping that part of the book, Mike turned on the whole lot of them, accusing      them of being part of the vast CIA conspiracy against him.

                                                          ********************************

Acinich followed-up by providing me with an e-mail from Adam Parfrey (May 11, 2003) where he asks why Feral House decided to "disengage" themselves from Ruppert's publishing project. Parfrey responded:

     It is what happens every once in a great while after a book goes through a copyedit      process, particularly with a first-time author. Mr. Ruppert didn't see the virtues of some cuts      suggested by an excellent, thorough copyeditor I hired (Shane Davis of the University of      Michigan, who also copyedited the soon to be published Inside the Shadow Government      by Harry Helms for Feral House. After Mr. Ruppert's initial upset, I did concede, for sake of      togetherness, the retention of four excised chapters, and Mr. Ruppert was, for a time,      content. But weeks later he discovered other problems, and I became concerned that his      discontent would never end. I was interested in having the book focus better upon the      subjects of its title, and attract a bigger audience its primary subjects deserved by retailing      it for less than twenty dollars, and being concise enough (450 pages!) to allow foreign      publishers to translate and publish it. I must also admit to not feeling strong enough to      weather Mr. Ruppert's language and threats. It was difficult to engage in a      professional relationship (emphasis added). Among other accusations, I did not wish to      be accused of engaging in a conspiracy to diminish Mr. Ruppert's book."

As a sidenote, I did contact Adam Parfrey at Feral House (who I interviewed in the past (May, 2002)), but his response was that I should contact Ruppert directly. Thus, I would be very interested in asking Mike if the above description is accurate (along with many other facets of this article); but since he refuses to be interviewed by me, I am not able to relate any other information to you at this time.

The criticism of Ruppert’s stances have become so extensive that I’ve been noticing detractors from every angle – on Internet posting forums, from political commentators (Antiwar.com founder Justin Raimondo referred to Ruppert’s views as “tinfoil hat conspiracy theories” --- and yeah, I know, Raimondo is somewhat of a Gatekeeper, but still, is this the type of publicity we want?), and talk radio. What follows are a few of the juicier tidbits made by Fintan Dunne on his September 6, 2004 broadcast of Break for News:

     1) "So, the question we ask tonight: is Mike Ruppert a rebel without a rebellion, a fearless      defender of truth, justice, and the American way, or a dirty double-crossing rat whose name      will go down in history?"

     2) "Some people say Mike Ruppert is simply pawning off oil company propaganda without      you even knowing it."

     3) "On a host of key issues, Mike Ruppert's alternative outsider stance is completely at one      with that of the establishment."

     4) "It's good to see Mike Ruppert taking this Mr. Big line on 9-11 because it reveals to me it      is total and complete bullshit. So you can take your Mr. Big of 9-11, Mike, and shove it."

     5) "This is oil company propaganda that Mike Ruppert is putting out."

Finally, to close-out this section, a resounding question haunts many in the 9-11 research movement: Why has Mike Ruppert chosen to sit on the information regarding Dick Cheney’s alleged involvement in the 9-11 war games for so long? Considering the monumental nature of what occurred on that fateful morning and how it traumatized an entire nation, shouldn’t this information have been released IMMEDIATELY? Nobody is begrudging Ruppert the right to publish a book, but what is more important – the truth, or money? This question becomes even more pressing when we see how guarded Ruppert is of the war game information, especially when attorney Stanley Hilton began speaking out on the same topic. He even went so far as to state on September 17, 2004 that, “to his knowledge there is no record anywhere that Stanley Hilton broke information on the war games preceding 9/11 before I did.” Then, in a September 15, 2004 e-mail, Ruppert slams his perceived competition: “Hilton’s research and legal work to date have been extremely sloppy, very reminiscent of Daniel Sheehan’s sabotage of the Iran-Contra movement. He and [Alex] Jones are trying to put spin on my research before the book gets out.” Ruppert also slides a few racial overtones into the mix by referring to Hilton and the Protocols for the Elders of Zion. Thus, it seems that one-upmanship and who can lay claim to “getting the scoop and breaking the story” takes precedence over all else. If you ask me, this is a very regrettable turn-of-events, especially when matters of life and death are thrown into the equation (on both 9-11 and our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan).

This matter is something all of us should think seriously about, not to mention the tremendous amount of money that Ruppert is raking in from his FTW website (if my addition is correct, it comes to over a million dollars a year --- 16,000 subscribers at its current rate of $65.00/year = $1,040,000; not to mention his top-dollar video and book). My question to everyone in the 9-11 community is: how many of YOU are making a million dollars a year? And if you remember correctly, one of the initial complaints that numerous people were voicing against Ruppert that I listed in my first e-mail to him was that he was seen as a PATRIOT FOR HIRE. You, the reader, can now decide that issue for yourself.

                                                          ********************************

In closing, some people may argue that the only reason I wrote this expose was because Mike Ruppert wouldn’t appear on WING TV – that this is nothing more than sour grapes. And in all honesty, maybe they’re partially correct. But from my perspective, a more accurate appraisal would be as such: Mike Ruppert made his name (and a lot of money) in the alternative research field (not the mainstream), and these are the very people he should be most gracious toward. And, yes, of course Ruppert should also try to invade the mainstream media space (as Lisa Guliani likes to call it). But what I’ve noticed over the past few years is that he conveys a very pervasive, mean-spirited attitude of condescension toward many of his fellow researchers. Such a stance (or character flaw) is inexcusable in my book, and one that Ruppert will hopefully change in the near future because, as a former police officer, he knows all about "patterns of behavior" and a "preponderance of evidence." Can all of the people cited in this article be wrong, involved in a conspiracy to destroy him, or be part of a CIA psy-op? Of course not.

Also, since Ruppert declined our offer to appear on WING TV, the big question now is: which shows and publications will he grace with his presence? And remember, WING TV accepts no corporate donations (as does NPR, PBS, and Amy Goodman’s Disinformation Now), nor do we accept any advertising revenue from any source (thus, nobody is able to potentially compromise our views). In addition, we don’t require people to subscribe to WING TV to see it, or beg incessantly for donations. We even sell our books and videos at such a low profit margin that oftentimes we undersell the publishers themselves. In this sense, it all boils down to a philosophical question which everyone must ask themselves: why are we involved in the 9-11 truth movement? What are our motives? At WING TV, we’re not in it for the money, but instead are simply trying to make this vital information about the New World Order available to as many people as possible. Thus we have, at least from our perspective, one of the purest, least money-oriented sites on the Internet; and in this day-and-age, that’s saying a lot.

So, when Mike Ruppert refuses to appear on our show (especially after considering the lame excuse he gave (see Section One of this essay)), we have to seriously question not only where his loyalties lie, but also what his ultimate agenda is. In addition, I assured both Mike Ruppert and his publicist, Ken Levine, that we would give him a fair shake during his interview on WING TV. Sure, we’d ask tough questions like we do with other guests, but it wasn’t our intention in the least to do a hatchet-job on him. If this is what Ruppert feared, then the only thing I can attribute it to is his infamous paranoia and aversion to criticism.

Lastly, I would like to reiterate that this essay is not an indictment of Ruppert’s new book, Crossing the Rubicon. I do intend to review Rubicon, but in the meantime I wanted to let others peek behind the veil and see what I’ve seen of Mike Ruppert. With as much at stake as we have in the world today, his repeated patterns of behavior which are exposed in this article seem inexcusable, especially when directed at fellow researchers. Hopefully, Ruppert can reign-in his outbursts, become more of a team-player, and rally people together rather than denouncing and alienating them. From my vantage point, Mike has two courses of action: he can either use the same pathetic tactics that have been so abundantly exposed in this article (by a variety of different sources), or he can finally grow-up and start conducting himself in a responsible manner. Only time will tell which path he selects.

As for Crossing the Rubicon itself, there isn’t anyone who would like to see the psychopaths responsible for 9-11 nailed to the wall more than I would. If Mike Ruppert’s able to accomplish this feat … well … I’ll tell you the exact same thing that I told him during our initial telephone conversation on August 6, 2004 – I’ll be the first person anywhere to give him a standing ovation and a pat on the back! Now let’s get those bastards!