ETA: Looks like BO's big problem is with the people in the SUV. We'd have "permission" to show Ethan the video otherwise?
Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:40 pm
petunia
I'm struggling to make sense of all this, but I agree it's probably better for Ethan if we don't tell him yet. He'd tell his bosses, and they might pull the project.
But Jade has just posted on OC, looking for Ethan (why not on Ethan's blog, I wonder??):
Jade wrote:
Ethan, What's up? You still in Ohio? What is it; Bigfoot or crop circles?
Anyway, did anything happen the other night? I just got back in town now so let me know if you need anything. I might be over in St. Pete this weekend if you have a place to check out. Also, did you still want me to check out the site by that lady's house?
Who the hell's spearmint?
I think we're being nudged to go directly to Jade for help this time.
Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 9:48 am
Typoxic
Telling Ethan about Spearmint is one thing, but telling him about the video is another. Brighton made a decent case for keeping the video from him, I thought:
In reply to "why shouldn't we tell him", Brighton wrote:
Would have thought it was obvious.
Don't know what happened yet.
Two possibilities, maybe more.
They were with him and attempting to help.
Or they abducted him.
If the latter, who were they? Why?
If the latter, they may be interested in others who were involved.
For now, Ethan is only peripherally involved.
What he doesn't know is less likely to hurt him.
Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:59 am
dashcat
I think we should tell Ethan. He got us into this so lets take him with us
Really, we do need to tell Ethan.
Spearmint is an odd name for a shadowy figure.
So has anyone written to the email address on the matchbook? Maybe we will get the other side of the story from her.
Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:09 am
mortality
Like I said, I'm confused. "Unbelievers" was the best euphemism I could come up with. How do we label the difference between people like that woman on the Fox wifeswap show who plainly thought the dark arts existed, but thought God, not a benign magic, was a counter, versus people who think magic doesn't exist, versus people who think dark arts exist but there are magical counters?
Brighton checks in:
BrightonEarly wrote:
Mortality wrote:
Yeah? Does that mean [limited access] just to email or the global greeting, too?
What do you want from us?
Both.
Nothing.
Thought you would want to know.
How nice of him to take our wishes into consideration...
What, if anything, do we want to tell Ethan about all this? I made the mistake of posting "Reality Now?" in comments on his blog yesterday. But given that they've made the website more secure, he won't find the op details we did. He'll probably see the strange exchange on the WF blog, tho.
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:38 pm
Typoxic
In the context of fighting for objectivism (if not Objectivism), the comment about "blackest shadows" doesn't seem to make sense (there's always a way to back out of the "shadows" of unreason). Nor does the information about the rituals being included on the site. Either the objectivism is an attempt at a cover, or Spearmint is involved in actively trying to prevent the occult, or something weirder is going on.
Edit: Reviewing it, especially in light of the stated intents on each event, the active prevention thing seems most likely. If that's really the case, that wouldn't quite make Spearmint an unbeliever, would it? It would also mean the factions are more like our guys, their guys, and the guys performing the rituals. Spearmint's use of "handedness" seems to relate more to whether or not you believe this kind of thing is (or should be) possible.
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:55 pm
mortality
Spearmint is posting in the comments of 0702 at the WF blog.
Wait, what happened with Spearmint? It seems like something is missing here. Did someone try to talk to him/her?
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:26 pm
mortality
I'm so confused by Spearmint it's not even funny. The new comments make it seem like there are more than two factions.
*Unbelievers (Spearmint and Reality Now; I think Spearmint's use of "right thinking" means rationalist, not right-hand path; I would've assumed Whitechapel was, too, but maybe not)
*Left-handers (the ones performing the three rituals?)
*Right-handers (BrightonEarly [Calvin?])
Spearmint seems to be implying that Whitechapel is a front pretending to be skeptical, but actually composed of right-handers.
Right now, the only person I trust at all is Ethan.
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:16 pm
petunia
Sylvia wrote:
I also wonder if this is a hint to other hidden pages.
The same thing occurred to me. I tried the usual ./contact.html and got a 404. Wouldn't surprise me if there's some goodies in there though! Also noticed the "Title." title.... huh.
Quote:
ETA: I don't feel good today, so I'm going to be resting.
I have to say, that may be the wisest thing I've heard anybody say lately, anywhere.
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:58 pm
Sylvia
Well, I think I messed up with Spearmint. But I left some comments that will hopefully set things straight. Anyways, she removed the links to her about page and privacy-policy page. They are still there, if you didn't bookmark them you will have to type them in or use these links.
I also wonder if this is a hint to other hidden pages.
Also I updated my post above to reflect some changes that were made.
and the home page now says this:
Quote:
Question The Inexplicable.
There is ALWAYS a rational explanation.
And on the privacy-policy page, the part from Jan 8, 2007 event was moved here and the word "Title." with the period was added.
Quote:
Title.
ETA: I don't feel good today, so I'm going to be resting.
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:37 pm
casablanca
Reality Now Person of Contact
Sylvia, thanks for the breakdown that's really helpful.
One thing I notice from the Reality Now posts is that there is a Person Of Contact (POC) for the others but not for the one on Jan 8th.
Also, the page source for the home page shows:
Quote:
meta name="keywords" content="objectivism, rationality, truth, reality"
These are not terms that are usually associated with groups involved in the paranormal.
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:13 am
mortality
All that looks good.
This does not:
Brighton Early via email wrote:
Limited access.
On Jan 9, 2008 Mortality wrote:
You scared the crap outta me. Thought maybe something went wrong with EG's trip.
Glad to see that wasn't the case. Have access to the world. Would you prefer contact through email or there?
They've let the comments through on the BO blog, too.
Quote:
# Mort Says:
January 9, 2008 at 7:12 am
Nice to meet you, too. Glad to see someone checked out the R3.
You seem to know something about me/us. Mind saying if you're someone we've already met or not?
//I am on your side.
# dashcat Says:
January 9, 2008 at 7:34 am
And who are you? Is this Jade?
Not important. No.
The //I am on your side. Was a response to what I wrote. And the second line in Dashcat's is BO's response, as well, I imagine.
So...Calvin? Or someone else. Do we ask if BO left MSG1-4 for us as a test? And how does he know we're on the same side? Say something cryptic about now we know their reality? Something about the Enclave (one of the Autumn Country factions)?
What does on our side mean? Investigating the occult? Hunting demons? If it's Calvin, being IT dude, he already has access to all the emails posted on WF, and maybe everything sent to Ethan's account.
Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 9:56 pm
Sylvia
I updated my post above to reflect what I think is being said.
Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 8:52 pm
Rogi Ocnorb
*nod* on the date formatting.
But I think you're wrong on the coordinates. I just drop them into http://maps.google.com and replace the semicolon with a comma and a space.