She would love to run as 'the woman who solved the JonBenet Murder Case' but its an awfully long and expensive road to take. She will run for higher office if she does solve the case, but there are simply better investments for her to make for her time and her money.

Having her team plod through the files is a great way to proceed. She is not investing time, money or making false promises to the electorate. If the plodding uncovers something, so be it. If it does not, so be it. Politicians learn to avoid things that can bite them.

First, I profiled the note, not the psychological type of profiling but the more common sense. Finding phrases and little oddities that indicated WHAT kind of animal I was looking for. Surprisingly, I was able to figure out what the initials stood for by simply analyzing and reasoning for example, why the last dot was left off the initials. I also matched words in the ransom note to the initials in the case that he might have repeated himself (he did, afterall, write 2 and 1/3rd pages of stuff).
He did repeat himself. The combination of these three techniques painted a portrait of what this guy does.

Once I was able to continue confirming what he was, It was a simpler matter to then find this person/animal. To look in the area where this person/animal habitates.

Once I found the areas, I looked for THE area.

I had the WHAT I was looking for and then the WHERE, it then came down to the WHO.

I was able, in my opinion, to find the author of the ransom note, including getting some small sample of his handwriting which had three identifiers/characteristics. Not letters, but characteristics that would occur if he had to place a line downward as in y or d, etc., for example.

After studying the animal it seemed that his modus operandi did not entail the sexual asault of a child, but he certainly was more than capable of a kidnapping.

As the ransom note indicated that there were more people involved, I had to track them down as well as I got tired of the police not moving at all on my leads.

I found the other two and focused on one of them in particular. He had professed to some sick sexual proclivities, had pictures of himself demonstrating how to use a taser and would have been with the ransom note writer at the time. They were headed down to Texas for something in particular which had something to do with the initials, which reinforced everything.

Then I had to piece everything together,... you know, what happened in the basement.

You see, the problem with this case for most people is that they were trying to put all the clues into one crime. That's why nothing made sense, why people had doubts about the ransom note.

The three conspired to kidnap JonBenet. Because of their particular activities, they were able to find out about the Ramseys. Money, private information and even their schedule. They waited for the Ramseys to leave and go to their party. When the Ramseys left, the first guy, the author of the ransom note entered the house. He looked around and set the stage for the kidnapping. He left.

When the Ramseys returned home and went to bed, not the first guy, but then the SECOND guy enters, (alone, probably at his own suggestion). The only problem is that he has a separate agenda. He, naturally, tasers her and takes her into the basement. He has to fashion a garotte as since it was a kidnapping, the group only had the tools for that. (This is the reason he left her in the basement and didn't take her with him. The other two would never let him do what he was going to do. They were only interested in the money as apparent in the ransom note. They don't even mention JonBenet by name).

He does what he does and kills her. There is also the problem with a blow delivered to JonBenet's head after she was already dead from asphyxiation (petechial marks in the eyes).

He does this so that he can tell his partners that she got away from him and he struck her accidentally and killed her. They believed him, at least at that point.

This is as best as I could without compromising the case. I'm in the unfortunate position to have to withhold information to the public because it can serious hamper any conviction.

However, how long can someone wait?

I hope this clarifies a few things.

Your Friend,
The Lighthouse

She would love to run as 'the woman who solved the JonBenet Murder Case' but its an awfully long and expensive road to take. She will run for higher office if she does solve the case, but there are simply better investments for her to make for her time and her money.

Having her team plod through the files is a great way to proceed. She is not investing time, money or making false promises to the electorate. If the plodding uncovers something, so be it. If it does not, so be it. Politicians learn to avoid things that can bite them."

Interesting theories, Don. Any evidence to support some of it?

1)Knew about the 118,000.00 check but not the year it was dated.

2)Anyone who knew the Ramsey's would have known how wealthy they were and would have asked for more.

3)Remarked about John's Southern Common Sense, indicating they only knew a little information about him, but not the whole story.

4)Anyone who knew them but was trying to pretend they didn't wouldn't have even given this little amount of information out, so as not to tip anyone off.

The author of the ransom note thought the $118,000.00 would have been a clever idea. What do you think of your cleverness now?

Your Friend,
The Lighthouse

Correct. There was no $118,000 check, and there also was no intruder.

Why would the Ramseys protect these people who murdered their daughter? The Ramseys lied to the police. They refused to fully cooperate with the investigation. They are covering up for someone, and it isn't for the benefit of three weirdos whom they don't even know.

BlueCrab

I have never discovered a single lie the Ramseys have told the police.

Th Ramseys never refused to provide information when properly called upon to do so. It was common sense for the Ramseys to lawyer up. They were in grave peril from incompetent cops.

The Ramseys agreed to be interrogated by the police. There were problems with the dates for these interviews. At least twice these interrogations were canceled by the Boulder police, not by the Ramseys.

Most of the Ramsey police interviews are on the internet. The Ramseys aren't covering up anything.

It's not the job of the Ramseys to detect the killer of JonBenet. This is supposed to be the job of the police.

The Ramseys aren't protecting anybody. They may well suspect Fleet and Priscilla White. It's not the job of John Ramsey to arrest and prosecute Fleet White.

The Lighthouse.

You're kidding, right? You consider THAT an attack on BlueCrab? OK....

I don't know a great deal about John Eller. Has anybody ever done an extensive background check on him? I know Alex Hunter once said that Eller had a screw loose. Others have described Eller as intense and abrasive. Former Assistant DA Bill Wise has said some harsh things about John Eller, who was taken off the JonBenet case on October 10th 1997.

I find it a little strange, and dare I say a little suspicious, that Eller got rid of Larry Mason at the beginning of the JonBenet murder investigation.

Larry Mason was one of the few Boulder cops who had any specialized homicide detection training. Larry Mason had sensibly suggested calling for bloodhounds on the first day. He was overruled. Larry Mason was then falsely accused of leaking confidential police information when it was Steve Thomas doing the leaking.

There is some information about John Eller on the internet on the Court TV's crime library website :

Eller, one of four Boulder police officers whose careers were damaged over the Ramsey case, left Boulder in 1998 to take up a position in the Attorney General's Office in Florida. To this day, he still harbors strong feelings about the case that led to his retirement from the Boulder Police Department after an 18-year career.

Following the release of the film, Eller gave an interview to the Rocky Mountain News during which he shared some of his observations about the case.

His main assertion was that, in his view, Boulder police had enough evidence to support an arrest, but not enough to file a murder charge and win a case at trial.

Although falling short of naming the person(s) he suspected, he told reporter Kevin McCullen: "At the time I left the investigation, no, there wasn't. We felt we had probable cause to make an arrest, but there wasn't enough there to nail a homicide charge."

He further claimed that he could have remained with the investigation if he'd "kept my mouth shut," and followed every request of prosecutors in the Boulder District Attorney's Office but instead clashed with prosecutors throughout much of his command of the investigation into the death of JonBenet.

The media coverage of the case also came under attack with Eller labeling the coverage as "inaccurate" and blaming the books and movies that followed for "contaminating a potential jury pool."

We have surmised that the intruder may have come across those pay stubs while rummaging around the house in the Ramseys' absence and that he thought this amount would be easily accessible. Many of the suspects being tossed around here WOULD KNOW what that amount represented, wouldn't they? I'm thinking FW, for example. Would someone like Linda or Merv understand, though? Would someone like Helgoth, Kenady, Gigax? Since McReynolds was a professor, probably with good EE benefits, I'd surmise he'd understand what the information on the pay stubs meant and would not assume it was so easily accessible - i.e. not money sitting in the bank.

This "financial" information in the RN is either a "joke" (red herring) as Lighthouse is suggesting, or it is an indication of someone who is quite naive about EE benefits and pay stubs reflecting such.

Simply put, the phone. They heard about "Christmas bonus" & "John's southern Common sense" over the phone, they just didn't know everything about those situations. That's how they knew the Ramseys itinerary.

How else do you think "Santa" talked to JonBenet without the parents being aware of it?

The ransom note tells you everything about those "losers". I've covered this in the past.

As to attacking anyone, I'll protect Burke from being attacked by any bully. By the way BC "The Ramseys are covering up"????!!! Who the h*** would you cover for if they murdered your daughter?! That's right, no one.

Male DNA was found on her person, it did not belong to any Ramsey male. Therefore, someone else (another male) was there.

Now that we know someone else was there, you must allow then for the possibility that the person could have been an intruder. Someone else was there, right? They could have been there without the family knowing. Anyone can sneak into a house without the inhabitants knowing. It happens all the time.

Get it?

If you can't (and it probably is more like you won't) accept the facts, well, drop dead.

This is the chain of reason. It can't be broken. So stop acting like a panting monkey in front of your computer screen every time you put Burkes' name down. It's sick.

Maybe you should one time in your life, put yourself in that childs shoes' (Burke's). No, wait, you can't do that...not without a soul.

I hope this sinks in,
Your Friend,
The Lighthouse.

I already stated that these people did not know the Ramsey's as indicated by the few items in the ransom note I mentioned. The 118,000.00 was not a red herring because they knew what amount to ask for. Please reread what I wrote about it and my conclusion.

That would dismiss all those you mentioned.

Also, when they overheard the conversations I'm talking about, they weren't in the house.

Okay, that should do it.

The Lighthouse.

Go ahead Don...

Your "Old" Friend,
The Lighthouse.

Tell me, my friend, haven't you expressed, in the past, as part of your theory, that the killer also killed Helgoth and the lady that was killed in Boulder the following year? I can't think of her name at the moment, but I think she was beaten with a ball bat. I may not be remembering clearly, but I seem to remember something about Helgoth and the girl in your theory.

Also, tell us a bit about Lou Smit. You've presented your "case" to Lou, correct? What do you feel is Lou's position concerning your theory?

Good to see you back posting here again.

Jack

The names you mention are not the ones I'm talking about. Sissi, look at the ransom note and pick out the strange phrases or the particular ones. What kind of person are we talking about? What is his thing?

Your Friend,
The Lighthouse

Hate to make you play games like this......but I don't have a choice.

Do these initials ring a bell with you.....T.B. J.R.(not Ramsey)S.B
M.P. B.P. Joe D.

Thanks...............

By the way, looking at the times of your postings, I'm glad to say you're not one of those things that go "bump" in the night.

Your Friend,
The Lighthouse.

I don't agree. It is an acronym.

This name really has nothing to do with this case, and the perpetrators do not work for this company. However, the author thought it would be funny to make them out as the ones responsible, and it has to do with their "thing".

SouthWestern Bell Telephone Company.

Look at the ransom note and tell me what supports this idea.

Your Friend,
The Lighthouse.

SBTC is not an acronym.

acronym

n : a word formed from the initial letters of a multi-word name

And just how would you pronounce the word "sbtc," Lighthouse? Subitic?

Thanks for your reply.

> Look at the ransom note and tell me what supports this idea.

Normally it is the responsibility of the claimant to support a claim. Why is this situation different?

To posters "Nope" and "70.18.210.47" thanks for clarifying the definition of acronym. Believe it or not, I appreciate it.

To "Sewer" Rat, mine makes sense. Many companies use initials to identify themselves. Your garbage was stupid. I am here on a serious endeavor, unlike you. Do you judge without considering what you just read? Maybe you should be working for the Boulder Police. They waste time on B.S., too.

Dave,
I'm sure you've heard of the socratic method. This way when you also find what I'm talking about, you'll know. Anyhow, stop being lazy and try to take a look at the phrases that support this "initial" idea, okay?

It's a way of verification, of validation, Dave.

I'm sure DonBradley remembers what they were, as he was quick to say something discrediting about my stuff. He's just not so quick to respond when he's called out. Don, do I really have to start a new post on this? Where are you hiding?

Now, the question is, by looking at the phrases in the ransom note,
what does the phone company reference have to do with the ransom note?

Your Friend,
The Lighthouse.

P.S. Dear "Shaman" (great name) I just realized you asked me a question and I didn't respond to it. My apologies. I also speak spanish but pretty badly. I also "speak" some other language, not conventional. Was this what you were asking?

Lighthouse's Post:
****To "Sewer" Rat, mine makes sense. Many companies use initials to identify themselves. Your garbage was stupid. I am here on a serious endeavor, unlike you. Do you judge without considering what you just read? Maybe you should be working for the Boulder Police. They waste time on B.S., too.*****

I've no idea if the author of the 'ransom note' actually rolled a pair of dice so as to choose the letters somewhat randomly or if he selected something that had a particularly distinct meaning to him.

Suggestions have ranged from South Boulder Trash Collectors to the non-existent Subic Bay Training Command. Ain't no acronym, but thats okay: there ain't no 'small foreign faction' either.

As to not reading my posts, how do you then adress what I've been calling you out for? How do you say,"they are just running around a creative imagination" when you haven't really read my posts. You are putting the lie to your postings.

So which is it? Are you reading my posts or assuming without reading them?

It's just that you sound confused. It would be easier to be a bigger man and say you made a mistake.

To C-River Rat, I don't believe your solution to SBTC as a genuine attempt and am not taking you seriously. That's it in a nut shell. Also, not even willing to weigh what I said shows you are not interested in S.B.T.C . Do you see? You don't give a sh*t or you would have considered it. Frankly, you're out of whack. If you were genuine, fine, but you're not. Try fooling someone else. McReynolds and Gigax???????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your Bosom-Buddy,
The Lighthouse

Contrary to the impression you are trying to create (and unless you are making a confession to the crime), you are in fact wasting many people's time with an inefficient means to propagate your mere opinion about what happened, even if it should happen to be correct.

Out of the hundred or more classes I've taken, only one inexperienced professor used the Socratic method. She finally gave up when she realized that she had covered only about 10% of the material yet used up 90% of the allotted time. That was the most inefficient use of class time that I have ever experienced, bar none. If 10% of the material had been enough to be useful, then perhaps it would have been acceptable; it wasn't. The only thing I learned in that entire class that has stuck with me is that the Socratic method is not a good method of instruction in the real world. Perhaps this is the real reason that Socrates was sentenced to death.

Your Friend,
The Lighthouse

Latin?

Margoo, I completed my theory a long time ago with facts and documentation. My frustration is with silly people who do not help but hinder. As much as I appreciate what you were doing, no, I am right about this.
Those who are closed-minded and refuse to even think about what is being said are not genuine. To slander people is a crime. No apology here.
Now, as to the socratic method, I've used it to great effect. When the answers come out of your students' own mouth, he can't deny it. This is how you really win a debate.
There is something here for all of you. I can tell you, but you will refuse to listen. When you figure it out on your own, well, that's different, isn't it.
I am dealing with huge egos all the time.
Socrates died because he pointed out other people's stupidity. Read Plato's coverage of the Apology. See if what Socrates said was not true. He also had the opportunity to escape as his students had bribed the guards. He refused as it would have devalued what he taught his students. A man of honor and integrity.
So, I can see your character more clearly as you disparage another innocent person.

The truth shall set you free.
Your Friend,
The Lighthouse

If the Socratic method was good for debate, it would be used in the scientific and technical arena all the time because science and technology is an area of continous debate (but with real data, not fluff as is typical on the Internet). I've never seen it used in attempts to resolve disagreements in scientific/technical subjects out of thousands of incidents.

In my experience, which is a lot more than you (Lighthouse) described (causing me to seriously question your methods!), the Socratic method is useful only in situations where the participants (usually students) are inexperienced in solving problems in that area. It's useful for teaching someone how to think in a new way. It's great for building confidence. "I CAN do this!"

I also don't see any debate going on here, despite your description of it as such. Your claim is something like: I used a method which I won't specify to identify a killer whom I won't name that committed this crime for a reason I'm not going to describe. Can you figure this out?

What's to debate? I'm sticking to my previous claim that you are attempting to propagate a mere opinion by inefficient means.

---------------------------------

As a historical note and according to scholars, in his own time Socrates was primarily known for his physical stamina and his mastery of the dialectic, not the so-called "Socratic method." The dialectic, not the "Socratic method," was regarded by many to be the key to winning debates and therefore obtaining high political office. The Socratic method could be used to present such an argument, but without the strength of the logic behind it, this attempt would fall flat on its face, which is what I think is happening here.

---------------------------------

The Socratic method is also useful for certain types of people, but I'm certainly NOT saying you are one of them. I have no idea.

People who don't really know what they are talking about can use a distorted variation of the Socratic method for instruction or debate. They can shift the burden onto other people's shoulders while claiming: "I'm right unless you can prove me wrong!" This is a very common tactic and a logical fallacy.

People who are afraid of being proved wrong can also make good use of it because they can claim that no one can prove that they were wrong because they never claimed anything. (As I'm sure you are aware, people fiercely debate what Socrates' points of view were on various subjects.)

People who have poor communications skills can also use this method. And so on.

It can be used as a kind of copout by people who essentially don't know what they are doing. Because of this, I am very suspicious of anyone who attempts to use it inappropriately.

As to what you said:

"I used a method which I won't specify..."

I did specify my methods, you haven't been paying attention...

"to identify a killer whom I won't name..."

I can't name them right now to YOU, but have to the authorities and some others...

"that committed this crime for a reason I'm not going to describe."

I did describe the REASONS and details of what happened because of those reasons...

"Can you figure this out?"

It's apparent that even with my help, you won't. Too bad.

Your Friend,
The Lighthouse

You are very much mistaken about your claim that the Socratic method is used all the time in the scientific and technical arena when using your definition of the Socratic method. There simply isn't time to ask questions in the manner that Plato described. Now I'm not saying that this hasn't been done historically; some of the famous debates between Einstein and Bohr, for example, do exhibit some of the characteristics of this method. But I'm not aware of a single instance resembling Plato's description, and as I have already said, I have never personally experienced this before. Please do provide me with a reference of such a dialog --- one such as described by Plato, involving a refutation such as I describe below, preferably 20th century physics (applied or theoretical) or solid state electronics. Thanks. I will keep this extremely rare item as an existence proof.

You also seem to be misunderstanding what it is that Socrates actually did. You yourself merely provide some sort of hint, then say, "Can you figure it out?" That is not at all what Socrates did. What he did was to ask questions to draw the person answering into a logical contradiction. It was fundamentally a method of refutation by use of logic to show an internal inconsistency in the respondent's thinking. You are not refuting what I think happened, for example; you are trying to play some sort of game to see if anyone else is the "genius" that you are in some sort of ego trip. Apparently you feel that if you provide clues to help people along the path you took, and no one else figures it out, then you're smarter than everyone else. QED.

I have already determined the basis of your theory. This basis is very old. I'm surprised you are not aware of this. Years ago, I myself posted many times about "funny business" (my exact words as I recall) with the telephones as regular members should recall (esp. Don Bradley who completely disagreed with me on these points).

------------------------------

I also see that you are changing your definition of "young" to "young compared to ancient" That's what people who are dead wrong often do. They also tell anecdotes such as you did on another thread, but somehow neglect to mention their failures, relating only success stories. What you are doing is very similar to what self-proclaimed psychic detectives do --- not necessarily in method, but in self-promotion.

You claimed to desribe your methods. Hah! It wouldn't pass a technical editor's desk nor a peer review by me, that's for sure. Your other claims are similarly vacant or conveniently interpreted.

Your Friend,
The Lighthouse

P.S. You said I'm extremely rude, arragant, pompous and belligerent. That may be true or not, but it was rudeness and arrogance on your part to try to devalue what I said with your hokey incomplete initals analysis. Instead of feedback, your response was "I can come up with initials, too!" (Which you didn't for one of them).
Pomposity if only I am not correct. If I am correct, it's not being pompous, I did find the answers.
Belligerent, if I appear that way to you, then I apologize. I don't really want to fight with you. If I seem to be fighting, and posters are giving me the same treatment, it's only because... we care so much.
We can empathize with a parent's loss of a child, we can understand the terrible last moments of that frightened child, and we are frustrated at the lack of action that should be taken here.
It's that we care so much, so much that naturally, emotions run high, and I believe it's true for both of us.
So let me know if you think I'm being belligerent, but please keep in mind (as I wind up the longest P.S. in the world), that will never be...intentional.

Your Friend,
The Lighthouse

Somewhere on the internet Jeff Shapiro says there was a baseball cap with SBTC on it found at Helgoth's death room. I don't know if Shapiro can back this up with photographic evidence.

A poster on Cybersleuths thought it may have come from Santa Barbara Teachers College. That was the previous name of the University of Santa Barbara, when Fleet Sr was a young man.

There are posters on other JonBenet forums who think there are missing Ramsey cell phone records for December 1996 and that this is a giant conspiracy which proves Ramsey guilt.

John Ramsey in a deposition in 2001 said "the police arrived. They asked to use our cell phones because theirs were dead."

My own theory is that there may be sensitive case files, perhaps cals to or from JonBenet, with regard to those phone calls, and they are confidential police information.

I don't know if Lighthouse is suggesting that people from the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company were involved in JonBenet's murder and wiped the December 1996 calls from the phone records?

I think John Ramsey's first instinct and impression was correct when he said it was an inside job. The murderer was familiar with the Ramsey home, JonBenet and her bedroom, and knew John Ramsey well. The murderer may well have had a key to the house and been familiar with complicated garrote knots.

There is an article by Donald Pugh on the internet which makes a lot of sense to me. Like me, Donald Pugh thinks the murderer came in a back door with a key :-

"From the author's personal experiences investigating and interviewing parents of murdered children (daughters), it is apparent that nothing demoralizes and destroys parents more than having a child murdered. Both parents experience what they feel is the ultimate failure and being falsely accused of committing the murder causes incomprehensible pain. The confusing and complex ransom "note" and the carefully constructed garrote were prepared in advance of the murder. In addition, other carefully orchestrated preparation went into the complicated plan. The killer thoroughly enjoyed this preparation as she fantasized and expanded on the plot in the weeks or even months prior to the murder. The involved planning has paid off in the eyes of the killer."

Since the land phones in the Ramsey household were being kept open and prepared for a call from the "kidnapper/s", I can understand that no one wanted to use the Ramsey phone line. I seem to recall something about one of the Ramsey's cell phones being missing and unused the month of December. What does "our" mean in "our cell phones"? It seems to me that it could mean the cell phones belonging to the Ramseys or to the Whites or Fernies or even belonging to the victim advocates. Since we know the Ramseys have provided their phone records, I wonder if anyone else has. I doubt it. What would they show?

I know BlueCrab has suggested in the past that John Ramsey phoned his lawyer Mike Bynum in the middle of Christmas night 1996. BlueCrab thinks this is the reason for the missing phone records. I just feel this suggestion is a surprise to Mike Bynum.

There was a bad working relationship between the Boulder DA's office and the Boulder Police Department. I don't think they were sharing information with each other. The Boulder police cleared Fleet White at a time when the Boulder DA office suspected Fleet White.

From what I can gather the Boulder DA office obtained the Ramsey phone records and made them available to the grand jury by about October 1998. There is controversy over missing December 1996 Ramsey cell phone records.

Personally, I believe the Boulder DA office may have the Ramsey December 1996 cell phone records but have not shared that information with the Boulder police, for some reason. It could be due to fear by the Boulder DA of leaks to the media by the Boulder police.

There were also people, like somebody called Rapp, who were stealing confidential Ramsey information at the time, and selling that information to the tabloids.

In any case I don't see how the Ramseys can be blamed for this. The Ramseys would have no control over their cell phone records. I know Steve Thomas has been quoted as saying "Search warrants were denied by the Boulder DA for elementary investigative efforts such as attempts to obtain telephone and credit card records."

Alex Hunter has been quoted as saying that Boulder cop John Eller had "a screw loose" and Hunter's assistant Bill Wise has described Eller as an "obstructionist."

There is an article on the internet about the atmosphere in the Boulder Police Department after the murder of JonBenet :

From Court TV US News :

Boulder police keep DA in the dark on Ramsey DNA
June 9, 1997
Web posted at: 11:27 p.m. EDT (0327 GMT)
BOULDER, Colorado (CNN) -- Boulder police have not complied with a request from a county district attorney to hand over DNA test results from the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation, according to a spokeswoman for District Attorney Alex Hunter.

The disagreement over who should have access to the DNA results has been difficult to resolve for nearly two weeks, because Boulder Police Chief Tom Koby has been in Texas, "attending a funeral," according to Boulder County spokeswoman Jana Petersen.

There has been "a lot of speculation" that Koby, who used to work for the Houston Police Department, is in Texas looking for a job, Petersen said.

More than a week ago, Koby's police force gave him a "no-confidence" vote after several events: the continuing lack of apparent progress in the investigation of the murder of six-year-old JonBenet Ramsey, whose body was discovered by her father December 26 in the basement of their home.

Your Friend,
The Lighthouse

Find and post a copy of Angel Eyes. Angel Eyes was written AFTER JonBenet's death and is an obvious depiction of the murder.

Though I have a hard copy of it, it's the only work of Steve Eller's that you can't get anymore. It dissappeared right after I made inquiries.

Steve Eller supposedly started writing in 96. Can you find exactly what date and if the Library of Congress can actually give an earlier date to a writing.

There's also the possibility that Eller is related.
It's a possibility that Eller heard from someone else about the matter.

I can show you a connection to the phone hackers, too, especially with the ransom note writer.

I don't know, maybe you're not so good at spotting trolls.

There is also another possibility.

Maybe you can track down Steve Eller for me and I can ask him a few questions.

Barring that, I don't believe he's guilty, it was solely that he wrote something very interesting and it helped my understanding what happened in the basement.

However, since you brought up these points, I wanted to show you that when you assume, (well, you know the rest...)

Your Friend,
The Lighthouse

>Steve Eller supposedly started writing in 96. Can you find
>exactly what date and if the Library of Congress can
>actually give an earlier date to a writing.
See Stygian #5, Spring 1996
http://www.locusmag.com/index/t385.html

>
>There's also the possibility that Eller is related.
>It's a possibility that Eller heard from someone else about
>the matter.
That's the problem with your theory. It's a jury-rigged chain of POSSIBILITIES that you somehow have converted through a combination of flawed logic, cherry-picking evidence and conveniently ignoring all contrary evidence into a 100% CERTAINTY!

>
>I can show you a connection to the phone hackers, too,
>especially with the ransom note writer.
Guess what: LogicBox is NOT the equivalent of Brainbox!

>
>I don't know, maybe you're not so good at spotting trolls.
I think I'm rather substantially better at spotting trolls than you are at sleuthing, but readers can judge this for themselves.

>Maybe you can track down Steve Eller for me and I can ask
>him a few questions.
Again, the burden of proof is on you to nail down your whacko theory, not to conscript posters here to do the work you're evidently too lazy or inept to do yourself.
>
>Barring that, I don't believe he's guilty, it was solely
>that he wrote something very interesting and it helped my
>understanding what happened in the basement.
How encouraging: so what's the point of bringing up the connection with Steve Thomas and John Eller? Accepting for argument's sake the premise that Steve Eller was inspired by JBR's death to write Angel Eyes, the fact that your theory is informed by a fiction writer's speculations should tell us a lot about how much credibility to attach to your theory. You concoct a theory, say to yourself "that sounds interesting: it's a possibility" and then go Internet surfing to find confirming evidence. As Dave noted earlier, it's trivial to find confirming evidence for even the aliens did it theory (betcha can't PROVE that they didn't, can you?). The challenge in all sleuthing is to find a theory that survives all the challenges to its being disconfirmed. When you find one, let us know.

>
>However, since you brought up these points, I wanted to show
>you that when you assume, (well, you know the rest...)
>
>Your Friend,
>The Lighthouse

Good to see you're here, too.

Your Friend,
The Lighthouse