Reply #60: You've written a lot there. I'll try to respond.

[jamboi]

You're probably right that I laid into Dunne too harshly and checking myself as you say I think of it you're right I've been belligerant in some of my postings. Point taken. Like many here its probably the passion of the moment and driving desire to break the truth out which got the better of my judgement. And I do feel a bit protective of people who are risking their lives (Madsen and Curtis) to get the truth to the people. Idealistically I think that their stories will prove out and become evident, but my practical side is worried about their safety and the probability of disinformation attacks destroying them and the truth they bear.

As NVMojo and others familiar with real investigative journalism will attest, this is kind of a cat and mouse game between the good guys trying to uncover truth and the bad guys trying to hide and mislead the hunters. I don't know precisely when Madsen realized that the bank check was a fraud, but I do know that he told me about it a number of days before I was able to tell y'all. He realized and told me it was a decoy, intended to lead the hunters away from the real money flow. He put out the details in the hopes of smoking out info about the real money flow. If you want to call that throwing mud and hoping it will stick, well okay, but don't miss the point that the mud he was throwing was against the bad guys, not a fellow reporter. And the desired end result is further insights into crime, not interpersonal jousting between reporters.

I'm not understanding your point about Curtis. He's been trying to get the word out for quite a while. His story is internally consistent. Whether one thinks his self-published book was well-written or not or effective in getting his story or not, or somehow casts the wrong light on his efforts, I don't know. I have no problem with it. Chinese communist spies did indeed use Yang to steal secrets from the U.S. and that is well documented, so I'm not sure what you're saying there.

As for Cybernet, I don't know anything about it that would lend any weight to investigating it further, but I have no problem with people working on that angle too. I suspect it may be disinformation time waster, but who knows, maybe that is a similar decoy that will lead to some other puzzle piece.

As far as Dunne's article goes I have to continue to stand on the point that Dunne doesn't provide any contrary primary evidence that he's tracked down on the ground like Madsen and his investigators and info network have. Clearly apples and oranges IMO. Dunne may be an expert in other areas of conspiracy theory, but I don't see how one can say that a DC-based former NSA agent w/ deep connections into the intelligence community knows less about this matter than someone writing from across the pond who is not in a position to be getting many leaks from the inside or being able to do ground work.

I don't know Dunne's motivation and probably should be more circumspect about speculating about that. I will say I strongly believe the energy he's exerted to "debunk" Madsen is mispent and in some ways is endangers Madsen and Curtis' safety and impedes the truth coming forward. Why can't he work with Madsen and us to unearth the story instead of targeting this breaking story with friendly fire.