Who the hell is Mr Schwarz and why would ANYONE respond to his letter?

[sangh0]

I don't get this?

Why should anyone believe "some guy on the Internet"?

[ima_sinnic]

1. um,. you're welcome to google ?

there's an article on SmirkingChimp with info.

[sangh0]

2. umm, I have Googled it

and I haven't seen any reason why anyone would respond to his letter.

[sangh0]

3. anyone?

.

[Jose Diablo]

4. You might ask PJM

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2529929

[sangh0]

5. Why would I do that?

And yes, I read the thread. All of them.

And your reason is a typical example of why I have trouble believing any of this - No one can explain it clearly. They always link to something else. No one seems able to summarize. Just cryptic references.

[sangh0]

6. So still no one?

So many threads, and not one person can tell who this guy is and why I should believe him?

[sangh0]

7. Such an important issue

and no one can explain it?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

8. well, I just think he is coming on a little late with any

proof. He answered one of my arguments a couple of days ago and has offered nothing else since. I just wish he would go away now. He doesn't seem to be able to offer any proof. As I have said before...time will tell.

theProdigal

[sangh0]

9. I just don't get it, PJM

If this is such an important issue, why can't anyone explain it?

I'm not asking for proof here. I just want to understand what argument he is making, and what he has to back it up. I think each and every one of us is capable of deciding for ourselves whether or not Mr Schwarz is trustworthy, but none of us can do that without understanding what he is claiming.

[Hutzpa]

18. Why is it important for you to know who he is n/t

[neebob]

10. Oh, you didn't know?

Most CEOs spend all their time on the internet, sharing their inside knowledge and trying to convince people they're for real.

Which is not to say the letter isn't interesting.

[sangh0]

11. If a CEO had the sort of info Mr Schwarz says he has,

I could see how they might be on the Internet trying to inform others.

What I don't understand is why no one would be able to repeat it in a clear and understandable manner.

[neebob]

14. There's a lot to repeat

and I'm not sure why the ability of others to repeat the information seems to be your main criterion. For me it's the existence of evidence that the person and company exist, other than people on the internet talking about them in connection with this letter.

[sangh0]

15. It's the first step

I'd love to investigate the existence of his evidence, but no one seems able to tell me what it is.

[H2O Man]

16. I'd be interested, too.

I have been reading this thread, along with the Vreeman thread which has since been moved, with some interest. I had attempted to post what few things I had picked up from reading the Vreeman threads, but was greeted with a "locked thread" note, then found it was moved. Ah, well.....

I am on good terms with a couple of the folks on the threads that sangh0 is questioning. I will admit that even after reading the threads with an open mind, I am not sure that I have anywhere near enough information to form an opinion on the subjects being discussed.

Clearly, on complex issues, it may be impossible to accurately report everything involved in a single post ... or even a long thread. The Plame scandal, for example, is long and complicated. Yet if anyone wanted to get a general idea what was involved, it can easily be laid out in about 3 or 4 paragraphs. Then, if a person is interested, they can read more.

I'd hope that someone would take the time to try to answer the question that sangh0 has asked here .... and for that matter, on the Vreeman case. I'd bet we could have a civil conversation if we had a bit more to go on.

[neebob]

21. I've been resisting the urge to find out about Vreeman/Vreeland

Which one is it? The reason I haven't read more is because, when someone (yesterday) posted a request for a clear explanation, no one posted one that I saw. I need the three or four paragraphs to decide whether I'm interested or not. So I'm with you.

[seemslikeadream]

24. self delete

[sangh0]

26. And here's another example of how unresponsive some DUers are

ssemslikeadream has put more effort into providing multiple links which provide no clear explanation, than it would have taken for him/her to write three or four paragraphs summarizing the most important points.

I habe no idea why seemslikeadream would think that things like:
"12/14/03
Post-9/11, this doesn't seem all that weird
Rocco Galati quits.
Read Now"

would help someone understand this. "Post-9/11, this doesmn't seem all that weird" explains NOTHING

[seemslikeadream]

29. self delete

[sangh0]

30. Now, after posting info that s/he claimed explained the Schwarz matter

seemslikeadream has self-deleted it. Why wouldn't SLAD leave that info up?

[sangh0]

25. Like the Plame and Vreeland threads, this Scwarz issue

can be summarized. I don't understand why even asking for that produces hostility.

[neebob]

17. That's because all he does in the letter is ask questions

that only suggest what you are asking for. I compare him to Michael Ruppert, who makes a simple statement (i.e., Dick Cheney personally managed the attacks on 9/11) and then supports it with evidence. Whether you believe that statement or not, it's more convincing than a bunch of questions and the guy who asked them defending himself with more cryptic statements.

Why should the rest of us have to translate for him? If he isn't willing to do it, it's not worth pursuing, in my opinion.

[H2O Man]

19. Fair enough.

I haven't seen the letter. So I'm not even sure what's in it. I'd certainly have taken the time to read more about it, were the information available ... as I did with the Vreeman threads. But if you don't see it as worth pursuing, then it's likely not worth seeing. I appreciate your taking the time to answer my question.

[neebob]

20. Actually, I thought the letter was interesting

This is the link where I first saw it:

http://rense.com/general58/demand.htm

By "not worth pursuing," all I'm saying is I'm not willing to spend hours reading long threads and hunting for additional information.

My theory is it's some guy who thinks he's uncovered something and is posing as a CEO to give it more credibility. I neither believe nor disbelieve what he's suggesting. Like you, I'm not even sure what he's suggesting.

[H2O Man]

22. Okay, thanks ....

Having read the letter, I'd say that it brings up several very interesting points. It seems that the majority of them have been mentioned at various times on DU, actually. I think that it sounds very similar to some of the information that a few people who were in a group that splintered off from the Plame threads had posted on their Sibel Edmonds threads.

[sangh0]

27. Yes, the letter is interesting, but why do some think it's important

It asks a series of tough questions about the BFEE and their various enterprises, just as many websites and chain letters have done.

SO why are people discussing this as if it is anything more than some chain email? There are many DUers who could have (and may have) written that letter, so what's the big deal?

Is there any new info in it that has been corroborated? None that I can tell. So why are people on DU pushing this story, and why won't they explain WHY they're pushing this story?

[ldf]

12. deja vu

bbv threads all over again.

and we see how much crap bbv was.

frankly, you don't warrant a response.

[sangh0]

13. Typical response

I ask for info, and instead of providing it, you try to claim that this is "just like" BBV.

I support BBV, and I'd support Schwarz too, if only someone could give me a reason why.

frankly, you don't warrant a response.

I'm not the only one here. This is a public space, and this thread is an opportunity to inform the public, an opportunity you have chosen to waste.

Why wouldn't you want to spread Schwarz's info, if you believe it to be accurate?

[The Minus World]

23. I Hope this Clarifies Things

I've been paying attention to both. Admittedly, I don't have much information on either, but this is what I do know (make of it what you will):

- Karl Schwarz is a sleighted republican who is determined to break the lockstep of religious party-line republicans, and convey to them that Bush is not a good Christian.

- Karl Schwarz also claims to have a wealth of insider information about the Bush administration. Apparently, there's a side of Capitol Hill that many are not well acquainted with - sex trade and blackmail. Apparently, this information will come out soon, and it will cause major unrest on "both sides of the aisle".

- Regardless of what some might claim about his identity, Karl Schwarz possesses a lucid grasp of complicated facts, and the eloquence to simplify terms for his audience.

I recommend you take an hour of your time to listen to his radio interview on Doug Basham's show, if you're interested in hearing what he's all about.

- Vreeland apparently knows something about a staged pre-election attack. He is also the man who "predicted" the 9/11 plot before it happened. He was in a Canadian jail for a while; then, apparently, he was released, and was just arrested again, a couple of days ago. The official story is that he was arrested under charges of child prostitution; although, it has been said on this board that he turned himself in (possibly as a move to save his own butt).

- Vreeland, from what I gather, mentioned a specific location where the next attack was supposed to happen. If his intel is credible, it would follow that this will be an inside job, perpetrated by the Bush administration, in order to suspend the elections through Martial Law. That location was mentioned upstream in this thread, along with a description of what weapons might be used.

- Vreeland is a con-man. Apparently, the government hires con-men to do little jobs here and there. It's possible that his warning of an upcoming attack is just junk information. However, if you believe that this man gained access to information that granted him foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks, then you'd see that his warnings should not be taken lightly.

- Vreeland has had direct communication with an individual(s) who frequents this board.

Although Vreeland has a history of being a "pain in the ass" (as Mike Ruppert put it), one should not take his warnings lightly.

Please, if you're interested in reading up on these subjects, by all means, do so. Otherwise, you'll be relying on spoon-fed bits of selective information like this post; I'm sure that you can understand how that can frustrate some of those who possess lesser patience than I.

[sangh0]

28. Thank you. That was more in line with what I've been looking for

And much of what you wrote is in line with what I've managed to gather about this. For the purposes of compare and contrast, here's my thoughts on what you posted

1) "- Karl Schwarz is a sleighted republican who is determined to break the lockstep of religious party-line republicans, and convey to them that Bush is not a good Christian."

Yes, that is what he claims. I have no reason to doubt it, nor any reason to believe it either. I reserve judgement as to who Mr Schwarz is and was.

2) " Karl Schwarz also claims to have a wealth of insider information about the Bush administration. Apparently, there's a side of Capitol Hill that many are not well acquainted with - sex trade and blackmail. Apparently, this information will come out soon, and it will cause major unrest on "both sides of the aisle"."

Thank you. I remember reading about his claims of upcoming revelations on this subject. In the past, I've read about pedophilia in the rnc claims. We will have to see if any of this info does come out and if it does cause "major unrest", though that "both side of the aisle" makes me wonder.

3) "- Regardless of what some might claim about his identity, Karl Schwarz possesses a lucid grasp of complicated facts, and the eloquence to simplify terms for his audience."

I have little doubt that whoever he is, he has a firm grasp of the facts surrounding these issues. My concern is that he is accumulating credibility by repeating things that we know are true (but not necesarily well known) and then using that credibility to spread rumors that may know be true.

4) WRT Vreeland - I think I've mined this one for all it's worth, and basically you've got it. All it seems to be is that Vreeland (who claims to have predicted 9/11 while he was in a Canadian jail) is now claiming that he has info about an attack on the Twin Cities sometime around next weekend.

Like Schwarz, I don't disbelieve Vreeland. However, I don't believe him either. I just don't know if they're credible, but I don't take it lightly. That's why I'm asking. I'm looking for a reason to believe as much as a reason to not beliece. I'm keeping an open mind on this and if I ever see any reason to think they are credible, then I'll believe them.

[Buck Rabbit]

32. Thanks for this thread, You summarized my thoughts on this exactly.

As to why people are reluctant to respond Sangh0, it's because you're kind of scary.

Just look at your picture. See I can't remember if the guys with the black on the left and white on the right side of their faces are the good guys or the other way around. So all I know is there is a 50/50 chance that you are an alien terrorist. (Folks too young to have watched the original Star Trek don't bother trying to figure this out.)


(edited typo)

[sangh0]

35. Hey, I was just trying to get people to focus on

my better side!!

[sangh0]

51. OK, the tests came back

I'm not an alien, but they're not sure I'm human either

[sangh0]

31. kick

for the weekday crowd

[sangh0]

33. Anyone?

.

[sangh0]

34. Still no one?

Someone is going to break 9/11 wide open, and no one has any comments?

[sangh0]

36. Is this mic on?

.

[pauliedangerously]

37. My two cents...

I admire your skepticism!!!

:yourock:

[sangh0]

40. Thank you

.

[Rockholm]

38. Why do you keep pushing this?

Bumping this thread up and all others like it? just curious.

[sangh0]

39. These are important issues

that demand investigation.

[Bandit]

41. What response from you is he asking?

The only letter I read was addressed to the pResdient. He is the only one that need to respond. What sort of response do you feel is required of you? Maybe I am missing a bunch of information here but I don't understand your question.

[sangh0]

42. Posters have argued that a response is required

so I asked why ANYONE would feel a need/desire to answer his questions.

[ScaRBama]

44. Sangho...

Why don't you send Karl an e-mail and ask him? That way you can get it straight from the horses mouth.

[sangh0]

46. Do you have his email address?

.

[ScaRBama]

47. Yes...here it is on his site...

http://www.karlschwarz.com/

[sangh0]

50. thank you

If I hear back from him, I'll post

[m berst]

43. my .02

I have known Karl for over a year. I can't definitively answer your question sangh0 but I will give you my impressions.

His opinions about the Bush admin are stellar and are sincere. He is well-spoken and persuasive, and can speak to conservatives and Christians. Much of what he says can be verified from other sources, or is consistent with known facts, and he weaves it together into a persuasive narrative.

The problem is that he intimates that he has the "goods" on the bad guys in some sort of way that will have a spectacular effect - through investigations, or criminal proceedings or breaking news stories or something. Know what I mean? As though he had the smoking gun. He may have the smoking gun, and he may be sincere about that, but we haven't seen it. And that of course is a problem. We don't know what he really has.

Where do you think people here want it to go, or are hoping for it to go? I am thinking of just sitting down with him and getting to the bottom of it all, but I am not even sure what the bottom is that I am looking for with him.

I don't know how helpful this is, because I have been asking the same questions you are for over a year now.

When he showed up here at DU, I was hoping that he would be proven to be either fish or foul. But there he still is - tantalizingly halfway between a hoax and the real thing. :shrug:

[sangh0]

45. Thank you for that

Though I understand how your personal knowledge of this man could affect your opinion, I do hope you realize that from where I'm sitting, it makes no difference. This is not to attack you, but merely to point out that as far as I know, you could be nothing more than just a very smart Cocker Spaniel. It's not that I have ANY reason to distrust you, but that I also have no reason to trust you either.

Do you know of any info I can check out that would give me a better idea of who this person is? It *is* frustrating hearing about the impending indictment of the greatest criminal in the history of the planet and additional info might provide some comfort.

[m berst]

53. appreciate your calm and steady influence

and skepticism. I don't have the skill or patience to walk through this the way you are doing (much admired) but if I did I would be doing the same thing.

I offered what I know in case it is useful. I have no idea who the guy is or what he is up to beyond what he tells me, and I hope it didn't sound as though I claimed anything more than that.

For over a year I have watched at several boards as people got very excited about what Karl had to say, and one or two people then point out that there was no "there" there. The usual routine is for him to come to a board like gangbusters and make a lot of posts in a few days, and some people get very excited and intrigued anticipating the other shoe to drop any minute, and then gradually become disappointed and disillusioned when nothing happens.

People are biting on something - a promise? - but I never felt the urge to bite. On the other hand until now I haven't expressed suspicion because I didn't want to go through the usual nonsense of being accused of being a secret undercover goverment agent in on the plot to suppress the truth - you know the drill, no doubt.

I always thought that people would think it all through for themselves and that for me to jump in on the conversation would immediately put me in one of the two opposing camps - true believer or debunker. I never thought that what Karl had to say - so far - was important enough to tackle dealing with that.

One thing Karl seems to do well is create a super-heated atmosphere on a board, so I have mostly kept quiet and watched to see where it was going rather than get swept up in the fracas.

I have no definite proof that he is a fraud and no definite proof that he is who he says he is. That information - that is, that after a year of being curious about him and stayong in communiciation with him I still know nothing more than anyone who just met him today, may in and of itself be useful for people to know. I not only have not seen the pot at the end of the rainbow - proof; I don't even see the rainbow - a trail to the proof. Maybe it is there. I am willing to see it. But I don't.

Karl says that he is going to rock the ruling elite and that they are going down. Well... ok, sounds good to me. Not sure what we are supposed to glean from that or what the next step is or what he is telling us that we don't know.

When I saw him show up here, I thought sure that the proof for his claims would be presented finally, or that he would be discredited. But he has survived DU and remains an interesting but enigmatic figure to me.

on edit - paragraph #8 belonged in the #3 slot

[seemslikeadream]

48. 100 Leaders & 40 Families Launch 9/11 Truth - Karl Schwarz

For all the doubters - apparently Karl Schwarz is indeed a real person.

View full statement: http://tinyurl.com/5o832
Donate for NY Times ad: http://rate.affero.net/911truth /

Respected Leaders and Families Launch 911 Truth Statement Demanding Deeper Investigation into the Events of 9/11

NEW YORK CITY, NY (Oct. 26, 2004) - An alliance of 100 prominent Americans and 40 family members of those killed on 9/11 today announced the release of the 911 Truth Statement, a call for immediate inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur. The Statement supports an August 31st Zogby poll that found nearly 50% of New Yorkers believe the government had foreknowledge and "consciously failed to act," with 66% wanting a new 9/11 investigation.

Focusing on twelve questions, the Statement highlights areas of incriminating evidence that were either inadequately explored or ignored by the Kean Commission, ranging from insider trading and hijacker funding to foreign government forewarnings and inactive defenses around the Pentagon.
The Statement asks for four actions: an immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, Congressional hearings, media analysis, and the formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry.

The Statement's list of signatories includes notables spanning the political spectrum, from Presidential candidates Ralph Nader, Michael Badnarik, and David Cobb to Catherine Austin Fitts, a member of the first Bush administration, as well as Washington veterans like Pentagon whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern. Other signers range from peace activists like Code Pink president Jodie Evans and Global Exchange's Kevin Danaher to retired lieutenant colonel Dr. Robert Bowman; from environmentalists like Randy Hayes and John Robbins to business leaders such as Paul Hawken and Karl Schwartz, CEO of Patmos Nanotechnologies; from populist journalist Ronnie Dugger to renowned investigative reporter Kelly Patricia O’Meara. The statement includes 43 noted authors, including New York Times #1 bestseller John Gray, as well as 18 eminent professors, historians, and theologians. Other notables include five-term Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, singers Michelle Shocked and Michael Franti, and actors Ed Asner and Mimi Kennedy.

The Statement was facilitated by 911truth.org, a leading coalition. The organization has also announced a press conference outside of Eliot Spitzer's Manhattan office (corner of Cedar and Nassau) at 2:00PM on Thursday, Oct. 28th where 9/11 family members and victim group representatives will file a formal complaint demanding the first criminal investigation of 9/11 events by the New York Attorney General.

For a complete statement and list of signatories, see http://tinyurl.com/5o832 or www.911truth.org

Take Action!

1. DONATE NOW – We need to raise $70K immediately to get the full statement and signatories in the NY Times as a full-page advertisement this week.
Contribute yourself and urge friends to do so: http://rate.affero.net/911truth /

2. Send this information to your congresspeople and journalists, demanding attention

3. Help New York citizens and 9/11 family members, beginning Wednesday, Oct. 27th, by signing an online petition in support of their formal complaint to be filed with New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.
Petition at http://www.justicefor911.org

4. Get MoveOn moving! Join MoveOn (http://www.moveon.org ) and urge them in member forums to focus on this issue.

5. Stay informed at http://www.911truth.org and get active in local groups at http://www.septembereleventh.org

Thanks for your support! May we all get the full truth we deserve.


Thanks TNOE for posting this :hi:

[sangh0]

49. Thanks for the info

.

[sangh0]

52. So now he's raising money

but no one can explain why anyone should give him money?