Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Len Colby]

Did you actually read the report or were your comments based on Griffen or someone else of his ilk?

Mike I was really hoping you'd reply to this question and the other questions I asked and points I raised in this post.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=139626

[Guest David Guyatt]

David, The two Mohameds look like twins to me....[not!]...but one has learned the Dracula 'look' in his eyes.

I guessed you missed it Peter but the man in the photo isn't the other Mohamed but a friend of his. From his e-mail to Hopsicker as quoted by the Florida "journalist"

“Amanda mentions transvestites in Key West, my friend got grabbed by a group of them in the street, as it was funny, I took a picture as well"

I'm in touch with the guy he told me (no kidding) that his friend's name is Peter. Perhaps that's you in the photo!

Just because you posted that theory about the picture being the "friend" doesn't make it fact.

Somehow though, you always assume your opinions are facts because you don't seem to know the difference between reality and Lenland.

Len Colby wrote Post No. 111:

quote

Funny that you should mention the photo of the “2nd Mohammed/5th pilot” being pawed by the transvestites. That sounds a lot more like the “Mohamed” Keller described than the “Atta” described by people we know knew him Hamburg and Venice.

Funnier still is that you omitted the following passage from the page you got it from. Quoting the e-mail Mohamed Arakji sent him:

“Amanda mentions transvestites in Key West, my friend got grabbed by a group of them in the street, as it was funny, I took a picture as well"

In other words they guy in the photo isn’t him it’s his friend. What was that you were saying about my credibility?

Hopsicker got confused about that too and labeled the photo “Atta Double”, so maybe “all A-rabs look a like” after all.

http://www.madcowprod.com/05022005.html

unquote

(my underlining)

Firstly, I didn't omit anything from my post. On the contrary I posted a link to the entire article with the suggestion"

"Read the full story here:"

Meanwhile, allow me to repeat what I've previously said about your credibility.

You have none. Period.

This post of yours merely highlights this sad fact and further underscores your extraordinary ability to spin and weave facts to fit your predetermined conclusion.

Your explanation of the 2nd Mohamed photo being "his friend" is wholly without foundation, because as he himself states "I took a picture as well" --- and it is that picture that Daniel posts at the top of his article as the "other Mohamed".

As proof of this I would point readers who care and have time to waste to the second picture posted in the same article -- this one at the foot of the piece. That also is the 2nd Mohamed - Mohamed Arakji -- albeit without sunglasses and in a different setting. But undoubtedly the same man.

Turning to another facet, further on in your post you say this:

quote

Arakji did however send a photo of himself that Hopsicker doesn’t think looks like Atta either but they aren’t that different

unquote

This is factually inaccurate.

Because Hopsicker makes very clear that:

quote

Mr. "Mohamed Arajaki" sent along several photos of himself...

unquote

Only you could mistake a picture of the second Mohamed for one of his friends, using logic based on...well, nothing at all...

And only you could look at a picture of Mohamed Atta and two pictures of the 2nd Mohamed, Mohamed Arajaki, and proclaim: "they aren't that different".

And only you could read Hopsiker's article about the 2nd Mohamed - Mohamed Arajaki as he names himself - and avoid mentioning in your above post the very significant fact, namely as Hopsicker wrote:

Quote

According to statements the FBI made to Amanda Keller while questioning her, “Mohamed Arajaki” was an alias of Atta’s. And the FBI Terrorist List—mistakenly released to the public a month after the attack by the Finnish Government, to the Bureau’s consternation—also listed “Mohamed Arajaki” as one of Atta’s numerous aliases.

unquote

I don't know what you've been smoking but I'd like the name of your Tobacconist -- because if a couple of puffs of whatever it is can send you into Aliceland so easily, then you need to share it around -- as otherwise we all remain here on terra firma watching in alarm as you endlessly circle the inner reaches of Wonderland in the company of the Mad Rabbit.

On a serious note, we really can do without the two of you increasing the forum output of fact mangling, wanton distortion and mushroom logic.

[Guest David Guyatt]

I have a picture conspiracy and identification quiz for the forum:

1) This is Mohmed Atta:

2) This is the second Mohamed -- Mohamd Arajaki:

Note the similarities. Not in the east bit unalike.

3) Meanwhile, this is Len Colby:

4) This is the second Len - Lenny Henry:

Note the similarities. Not in the least bit unalike.

One of these four is a dead terrorist, another is the "5th terrorist pilot" who never was (who came to the party three years late), another is a well known black comedian, and the final one is also a black comedian but not in the least bit well known.

The question is this: one of these men consorts with transvestites -- guess which one?

Here's a clue:

Edited March 10, 2008 by David Guyatt

[Len Colby]

David, The two Mohameds look like twins to me....[not!]...but one has learned the Dracula 'look' in his eyes.

I guessed you missed it Peter but the man in the photo isn't the other Mohamed but a friend of his. From his e-mail to Hopsicker as quoted by the Florida "journalist"

“Amanda mentions transvestites in Key West, my friend got grabbed by a group of them in the street, as it was funny, I took a picture as well"

I'm in touch with the guy he told me (no kidding) that his friend's name is Peter. Perhaps that's you in the photo!

Just because you posted that theory about the picture being the "friend" doesn't make it fact.

Somehow though, you always assume your opinions are facts because you don't seem to know the difference between reality and Lenland.

Len Colby wrote Post No. 111:

quote

Funny that you should mention the photo of the “2nd Mohammed/5th pilot” being pawed by the transvestites. That sounds a lot more like the “Mohamed” Keller described than the “Atta” described by people we know knew him Hamburg and Venice.

Funnier still is that you omitted the following passage from the page you got it from. Quoting the e-mail Mohamed Arakji sent him:

“Amanda mentions transvestites in Key West, my friend got grabbed by a group of them in the street, as it was funny, I took a picture as well"

In other words they guy in the photo isn’t him it’s his friend. What was that you were saying about my credibility?

Hopsicker got confused about that too and labeled the photo “Atta Double”, so maybe “all A-rabs look a like” after all.

http://www.madcowprod.com/05022005.html

unquote

It’s not “my theory” that the photo is of Arajki’s friend rather than of the man himself. That’s what Arajki himself, the person who took, sent and doesn’t appear in the photo told Hopsicker and me. My would he send a picture of himself and say it was someone else?

“(my underlining)”

Just what is that underlining supposed to prove?

Firstly, I didn't omit anything from my post. On the contrary I posted a link to the entire article with the suggestion"

"Read the full story here:"

So did you like Hopsicker not understand plain English and miss that the photo is of someone else or did you catch it and decide to leave it out? In the latter case if you understood that Arakji said the photo was of someone else, not informing you readers about this even if you did tell them to read the entire long-winded page was highly deceptive.

“Your explanation of the 2nd Mohamed photo being "his friend" is wholly without foundation, because as he himself states "I took a picture as well" --- and it is that picture that Daniel posts at the top of his article as the "other Mohamed". “

Yes, he “took a picture” of his “friend”. You’ve not telling us that you interpret "I took a picture as well" as meaning “I was photographed”?

Please find me an example of some else (with reasonably good English) saying ‘I/you/she/he/it took a picture/photo’ in which the subject of the sentence refers to whom was photographed rather than who ‘took’ the photo. In that case the sentence should be passive i.e. “I had my picture taken as well”.

Relevant definitions of “take” from various dictionaries:

55. to make (a reproduction, picture, or photograph): to take home movies of the children.

56. to make a picture, esp. a photograph, of: The photographer took us sitting down.

[…]

To create (an image, likeness, or representation), as by drawing, painting, or photography: took a picture of us.

[…]

16. make a film or photograph of something; "take a scene"; "shoot a movie" [syn: film]

[…]

take9 [teik] verb

to make a note, record etc

Example: He took a photograph of the castle; The nurse took the patient's temperature.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/take

Is it really that hard to understand, “…my friend got grabbed by a group of them in the street, as it was funny, I took a picture…”

He presumably said “I took a picture as well” because Keller said someone took a picture of “Mohamed” while he was being pawed by transvestites in Key West. I.E. Someone else took some photos, he "took a picture as well” . It’s illogical to assume that “as well” meant he himself because that would invite the question ‘as well as whom’? Under your reading he never mentions anyone else being photographed.

“As proof of this I would point readers who care and have time to waste to the second picture posted in the same article -- this one at the foot of the piece. That also is the 2nd Mohamed - Mohamed Arakji -- albeit without sunglasses and in a different setting. But undoubtedly the same man.”

I actually think you are right about that, the person in the other photo is probably Peter as well, or perhaps his brother Stephen. The person with the TVs is Peter. “As proof of this I” cite Arakji’s e-mails to me:

“I sent hopsicker a mail telling him about the lies of Amanda, I also included the picture of the transvestites in key west with my friend peter”

“you are right, I sent the picture of my friend peter with the transvestite to prove to him that i was there, i am not really sure if he misunderstood me by thinking that I was claiming that it was me on the picture”

I asked him about the other photo but he had previously indicated to me he was going to be in China and seemed weary of this story.

But if you want to insist that it is Arakji that would further undermine your and Hopsicker’s case because then we would have a photo of him just like one Hopsicker claims exists of Amanda’s Mohamed.

Turning to another facet, further on in your post you say this:

quote

Arakji did however send a photo of himself that Hopsicker doesn’t think looks like Atta either but they aren’t that different

unquote

This is factually inaccurate.

Because Hopsicker makes very clear that:

quote

Mr. "Mohamed Arajaki" sent along several photos of himself...

unquote

Hopsicker, who couldn’t even spell the guy's name correctly, not understanding isn’t evidence of anything. He lies, for example in this video he said (approximate quote) “the postman”, “the apartment manager and his wife” and “the next door neighborS” confirmed that Atta lived with Keller. “The postman” and “apartment manager’s wife” said Atta lived there with a group of five other Middle Eastern flight students, the postman said they moved out in January, several months before Hopsicker claims he moved in. The apartment manager also said initially that Atta lived with 5 other Middle Eastern students from Huffman but changed his story. Only one neighbor said Atta lived with Keller but contradicted her on 2 – 3 important points (where they met, what name he used and perhaps when they lived together).

He also constantly contradicts himself without seeming to realize it. In Chapter 1 of his book he said Amanda was a stripper/escort when she met “Atta” in chapter 5 he says she worked as a pizza place when they met and only became a stripper/escort later. Sometimes he says they met at the pizza place, in others at the airport bar. On some pages on his site he says they were together in 2000 in others 2001. Arakji sent me a couple of photos that he sent to Hopsicker that the author did publish, do you want to venture a guess why?

“Only you could mistake a picture of the second Mohamed for one of his friends, using logic based on...well, nothing at all...”

The word of the photographer / supposed subject of the photo is nothing?

“And only you could look at a picture of Mohamed Atta and two pictures of the 2nd Mohamed, Mohamed Arajaki, and proclaim: "they aren't that different".”

At this point I’d make that zero pictures of Arakji. In any case that was taken out of context, some people saw “Mohamed” a student at the airport across the street perhaps a few times over the course of a few weeks and several months later saw a photo of “Mohamed Atta” who’d been a student at the airport on TV. Since there are contradictory reports of when and with whom Atta lived there at least half the reports are mistaken identity.

Only three other people say they saw Atta and Keller together,

The building manager originally that Atta had lived there with 5 other Middle Eastern students from Huffman, his wife said the same, 2 other witnesses including the guys boss (who didn’t ID Atta) and the mailman said the group moved out by January, the story is however that Keller and “Atta” live there March –April

The next door neighbor said Keller introduced him as Mohamed Atta when even Keller says she knew him as Mohamed Arajaki (Arakji).

The other is anonymous and said he saw the pink haired Keller with Atta at Huffman on a few occasions. Funny that no one else reported seeing with such a conspicuous figure. See my blog for more and documentation.

“And only you could read Hopsiker's article about the 2nd Mohamed - Mohamed Arajaki as he names himself”

No he calls himself Mohamed Arakji, which is the same spelling used by the FBI, FAA, French phone company among others. Arajaki is Hopsicker’s error

“- and avoid mentioning in your above post the very significant fact, namely as Hopsicker wrote:

Quote

According to statements the FBI made to Amanda Keller while questioning her, “Mohamed Arajaki” was an alias of Atta’s.”

Keller is an admitted xxxx, she has given two different versions of where she met Mohamed a} the airport bar b} Papa Joe’s Pizza, two different version of what her job was at the time a} escort/stripper b} Papa Joe’s Pizza manager and even given two different versions of her relationship with him a} some guy she let sleep on her sofa while she was going out with “Garret” b} her lover whom she dumped in favor of “Garret”.

When he directly quoted her all she said was “The FBI told me they found bank accounts of his all over under numerous different names." As I’ve previously noted he isn’t always straight with the facts.

“And the FBI Terrorist List—mistakenly released to the public a month after the attack by the Finnish Government, to the Bureau’s consternation—also listed “Mohamed Arajaki” as one of Atta’s numerous aliases.

Unquote”

I’m glad you brought that up because it shows just how unreliable Hopsicker is. Below is the Mohamed Atta entry from the copy of the watchlist formerly housed on Hopsicker’s site. It’s no wonder the link is now broken.

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ma...om/Finnlist.pdf

It is very unlikely that this was an error because in an earlier post he wrote correctly (other than misspelling his name again), “…on the terror watch list the FBI listed Mohamed Arajaki as if this were some another individual entirely.”

http://www.madcowprod.com/mc6412004.html

The sequence of events was, he…

…made a correct statement about the list (April 10, 2004)

…added the Watch List to his site (late 2004– early 2005)

…made a contradictory incorrect statement about list (May 3, 2005) does NOT provide link to it even though it’s housed on his site (and elsewhere)

…deleted the list from his site (late 2005 – mid 2006

I don't know what you've been smoking but I'd like the name of your Tobacconist -- because if a couple of puffs of whatever it is can send you into Aliceland so easily, then you need to share it around -- as otherwise we all remain here on terra firma watching in alarm as you endlessly circle the inner reaches of Wonderland in the company of the Mad Rabbit.

You’re an unintentional master of irony!

[Len Colby]

I have a picture conspiracy and identification quiz for the forum:

1) This is Mohmed Atta:

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh169/S...ohamed_Atta.jpg

2) This is the second Mohamed -- Mohamd Arajaki:

Note the similarities. Not in the east bit unalike.

3) Meanwhile, this is Len Colby:

4) This is the second Len - Lenny Henry:

Note the similarities. Not in the least bit unalike.

One of these four is a dead terrorist, another is the "5th terrorist pilot" who never was (who came to the party three years late), another is a well known black comedian, and the final one is also a black comedian but not in the least bit well known.

The question is this: one of these men consorts with transvestites -- guess which one?

Here's a clue:

You forgot this dude "David Guyatt" aka David Guy Atta whose dead nephew "Mo" never met Amanda Keller.

[Guest David Guyatt]

Another nice succinct post eh.

I like the bit about Mohamed Arajki being weary of the story and is going to China... when you asked him about the second picture... Nice dodge that. Talk about avoiding the question.

And you bought into that eh.

Meanwhile, what he has said about the picture of his friend Peter being in a picture is not at all inconsistent. He may well have done that. But he also sent Daniel pictures of himself. Not one but pictures plural. And there are two pictures on Daniel's site of the same person... not one. Your mate is avoiding this issue isn't he. He has the time to write to tell you he is weary of the story and going to Chia, but can't be arsed to write, " yes, that second picture is also my friend Peter..."

And yes, it is entirely possible for a person who doesn't have a thorough grasp of the English language to mangle it: " I took" versus "I had taken", being a fine example of such mangling. You make it sound as though this is unusual but I have listened to non-English speakers doing this frequently. It is commonplace.

In the second Mohamed's case, his grasp of the English language is lacking (as you undoubtedly know) and he does manage to mangle it with regularity.

The fact is that I don't for a second buy what you are saying. You can never admit you're wrong even in a month of Sundays. And I believe the way you have written your post is designedly deceptive. I think you know precisely that I am right but will do anything to avoid admitting that.

So, a solution to this intractability is called for. Since you are apparently in contact with the second Mohamed, let's cut to the chase on this. Please PM me his email address so I can contact him directly by email and/or phone.

I will post here both my emails to him and his answers... in full.

[Guest David Guyatt]

But if you want to insist that it is Arakji that would further undermine your and Hopsicker’s case because then we would have a photo of him just like one Hopsicker claims exists of Amanda’s Mohamed.

Would you care to rewrite this in a format that allows ordinary mortals to guess what it is you're trying to say? As it stands I haven't a cue what you're talking about.

***

Also, since it is only you and I that have any real interest in this thread might we agree to henceforward deal with one fact at a time and exhaust that, before moving on to others? Although I am almost retired I still haven't the time available that is necessary to parse through the dense mountains of guff you post and to make sense of it.. and then fact check it for accuracy... and then respond to it.

Can we also agree to keep said posts succinct and to the point. Let's make the remainder of this thread a rambling and garrulous free zone eh?

Just the facts Maam... as they used to say in Dragnet.

PS, I like the way you keep copying my style of sarcasm and humour. Very flattering.

Unoriginal mind you...

[Len Colby]

Another nice succinct post eh.

I like the bit about Mohamed Arajki being weary of the story and is going to China... when you asked him about the second picture... Nice dodge that. Talk about avoiding the question.

And you bought into that eh.

No he told me he was going to China before I asked him. He’s a pilot for a charter company he told me he was flying to China and would be there over a week.

Meanwhile, what he has said about the picture of his friend Peter being in a picture is not at all inconsistent. He may well have done that. But he also sent Daniel pictures of himself. Not one but pictures plural. And there are two pictures on Daniel's site of the same person... not one.

Yes he sent me two photos of himself that he said he sent Hopsicker in the same e-mail but he didn't publish them. I'll post them by tomorrow. Don’t forget that Hopsicker is wholly unreliable

Your mate is avoiding this issue isn't he. He has the time to write to tell you he is weary of the story and going to Chia, but can't be arsed to write, " yes, that second picture is also my friend Peter..."

He said that before I asked him.

And yes, it is entirely possible for a person who doesn't have a thorough grasp of the English language to mangle it: " I took" versus "I had taken", being a fine example of such mangling. You make it sound as though this is unusual but I have listened to non-English speakers doing this frequently. It is commonplace.

In the second Mohamed's case, his grasp of the English language is lacking (as you undoubtedly know) and he does manage to mangle it with regularity.

Other than not always using capitals when he should I didn’t notice any major errors except once he used ‘on’ when he should have used ‘in’. In any case he since made it quite clear that the person in the picture is Peter. I’d say his English isn’t as lacking as yours, you were the one who understood “I took a picture” as “I had my picture taken”.

The fact is that I don't for a second buy what you are saying. You can never admit you're wrong even in a month of Sundays. And I believe the way you have written your post is designedly deceptive. I think you know precisely that I am right but will do anything to avoid admitting that.

Please show evidence that I was deceptive. You’re the person failing to admit error, from the get go Arakji has said that the photo is of Peter.Unlike you (and Mike Hogan) I admit when I'm wrong. I though it was 2 different men in the photos, now I think it's the same one or the 2nd is his brother.

So, a solution to this intractability is called for. Since you are apparently in contact with the second Mohamed, let's cut to the chase on this. Please PM me his email address so I can contact him directly by email and/or phone.

I will post here both my emails to him and his answers... in full.

And what makes you think he wants me to give you his e-mail I imagine doing so would lead him to cutting me off. I tracked him down it wasn’t that hard. If he consents I will do a video interview over the Internet.

[Len Colby]

But if you want to insist that it is Arakji that would further undermine your and Hopsicker’s case because then we would have a photo of him just like one Hopsicker claims exists of Amanda’s Mohamed.

Would you care to rewrite this in a format that allows ordinary mortals to guess what it is you're trying to say? As it stands I haven't a cue what you're talking about.

OK I’ll make it quite simple

Keller said there is a photo of “Mohamed” being pawed by transvestites. If you and Hopsicker are right the posted photo is of Mohamed Arakji being pawed by transvestites.

Also, since it is only you and I that have any real interest in this thread might we agree to henceforward deal with one fact at a time and exhaust that, before moving on to others? Although I am almost retired I still haven't the time available that is necessary to parse through the dense mountains of guff you post and to make sense of it.. and then fact check it for accuracy... and then respond to it.

Can we also agree to keep said posts succinct and to the point. Let's make the remainder of this thread a rambling and garrulous free zone eh?

Just the facts Maam... as they used to say in Dragnet.

The facts are your buddy Hopsicker consistently makes incorrect statements about the case and keeps changing his story. Keller who now says she was lying all along kept changing her story as well. Basing your case on what they say is sort of a lost cause.

PS, I like the way you keep my style of sarcasm and humour. Very flattering.

Unoriginal mind you...

Keep copying As in more than once? I made one joke sorta like yours based on the similarity of your name to Atta’s and now I’m in the habit of “copying [your] style of sarcasm and humour”?

[Guest David Guyatt]

And what makes you think he wants me to give you his e-mail I imagine doing so would lead him to cutting me off. I tracked him down it wasn’t that hard. If he consents I will do a video interview over the Internet.

For the sake of balance and accuracy I would like to call him or email him. If he cares about his story being recorded accurately then he'll want to talk. If he is a scheming little bugger and unreliable then he won't. Ditto you. Protecting information allows you to shape it to suit your purposes. I don't trust your objectivity or honesty -- as I'v said a hundred times, so a video interview amounts to nothing.

****

[Guest David Guyatt]

OK I’ll make it quite simple

Keller said there is a photo of “Mohamed” being pawed by transvestites. If you and Hopsicker are right the posted photo is of Mohamed Arakji being pawed by transvestites.

(my underiing)

Okay. That's absolutely simple and clear.

But wrong.

The below is is what Hopsicker wrote according to Amanda Keller's recollection of the trip to Key West -- and upon which you are drawing on in the above comments:

Quote

“Peter, Mohamed and Stephan were all standing next to the drag queen, who stuffed his hand down all their pants in the pictures, and Peter and Stephan both laughed it off, but Mohamed got really angry,” said Amanda.

unquote

This is the photograph in question:

Which demonstrates the continuing flawed logic you so happily indulge in. There are no hands thrust down the second mohamed's pants.

Moving on...

Please explain the logic of the following:

Len Colby said (quoting the second Mohamed) in Post No. 124:

Quote

“I sent hopsicker a mail telling him about the lies of Amanda, I also included the picture of the transvestites in key west with my friend peter”

“you are right, I sent the picture of my friend peter with the transvestite to prove to him that i was there, i am not really sure if he misunderstood me by thinking that I was claiming that it was me on the picture”

Unquote

Quite how does sending a picture of his friend Peter (without the tranny's hands thrust down his pants) being cuddled by a bunch of drag queens prove that the second Mohamed "was there" - in other words was present on that same occasion in that same place?

I can just imagine the prosecutor in a trial entering into evidence this picture of a friend of the accused as proof that the accused was present. The Judge, the defence and he jury would fall about laughing.

Meanwhile, there's still no explanation of who it is supposed to be in the second picture if it wasn't the second Mohamed himself. This is the second picture Hopsicker posted as being from the second Mohamed (who has grown weary of explaining himself and is going to China so as not to have to answer anymore probing questions).

Did he send another picture of his friend Peter - this time cuddling a girl - to prove that he [Mohamed Arajki] lived in Florida.

It's nonsense and none of it adds up.

***

The foregoing demonstrates that you cannot be trusted to think clearly, let alone undertake a pseudo journalistic video interview. All you'll do in that is pander to this dopes wild allegations in order to save your own ego from being badly (and deservedly) bruised.

At every turn in this thread you've been found wanting, beginnng with your very first post (No 8 on this thread).

So again, please let me have Mohamed Arajki's email and phone number. I'll call him this weekend. I'll tape the call and mail a copy of the whole (and unexpurgated) tape to you in Brazil, so that you have the opportunity to listen to it at your leisure. I want to do this as I want to get to the core of this mater so I don't have to be still posting on this thread in a year's time unmangling your cock-ups and deciphering your spinning. The facts are the facts and should be made available clearly and unambiguously.

[Guest David Guyatt]

By the way, when you next communicate with your prized second Mohamed, ask him precisely how many pictures he actually sent to Daniel Hopsicker.

It's an easy question for him to answer. Dead easy.

My guess is that he won't be able to remember.

My guess is that an attack of amnesia will flood over him when he is pressed hard about precise details about anything and that he will become "weary" of the story all over again. That is before he goes off to China.

But just ask and post the answer here, okay...

And then we'll have done with this it was a picture of his "friend Peter" (sans drag queens hands down his pants) that Hopsicker mistakenly posted in his article bollocks -- and can move on to deconstructing the other multiple shoddiness of yours.

**

Additionally, please impress upon Arajaki the need to scan and send you -- so that you can post here -- his passport ID photo page, his Florida driving license photo ID, the current city and state of residence and his full name as entered on his state driving license and passport.

FYI, I have already conducted a preliminary background check using an agency resource and no such person as "Mohamed Arajaki" appears in any available public information records in Florida ( these include utility records, court records, county records, change of address records, property records, business records, and other public and publicly available records). Some of these records date back 20 years too.

Edited March 14, 2008 by David Guyatt

[Evan Burton]

I was in the US Navy Aviation Museum at Pensacola today, and was looking at the Skylab CM. Photos are great, but there is nothing like seeing the real thing for yourself.

That prompted a question:

Jack, have you ever visited any of the Apollo hardware on display? There is a little bit on display in Texas, and I presume you have travelled around the country a fair bit.

Have you ever been to see the exhibits? Taken images of one of the unflown LMs or CMs? Looked at the EMUs?

Just curious.

[Len Colby]

And what makes you think he wants me to give you his e-mail I imagine doing so would lead him to cutting me off. I tracked him down it wasn’t that hard. If he consents I will do a video interview over the Internet.

For the sake of balance and accuracy I would like to call him or email him. If he cares about his story being recorded accurately then he'll want to talk. If he is a scheming little bugger and unreliable then he won't.

That’s exactly the problem I get the impression I care more about it than he does. He sent Hopsicker an e-mail a few years back and replied to me, that seems to be about the extent of his interest

Ditto you. Protecting information allows you to shape it to suit your purposes. I don't trust your objectivity or honesty -- as I'v said a hundred times, so a video interview amounts to nothing.

How do you think Peter would have replied if I asked him for Eva Kor’s or Tony van R’s contact info? Would you give me the e-mail of a reluctant source? Are you willing to PM the info from and contact info of the person who you claims verified the Kiribati story?

A video interview if I pull it off would show that he is saying what I claim he is saying and doesn’t look like his friend Peter. You might not trust me that’s your problem. You have repeatedly failed to show that I’m not reliable. Funny that you put so much faith in Hopsicker who I’ve show to be continuously wrong about the facts of this case.

[Len Colby]

OK I’ll make it quite simple

Keller said there is a photo of “Mohamed” being pawed by transvestites. If you and Hopsicker are right the posted photo is of Mohamed Arakji being pawed by transvestites.

(my underiing)

Okay. That's absolutely simple and clear.

But wrong.

The below is is what Hopsicker wrote according to Amanda Keller's recollection of the trip to Key West -- and upon which you are drawing on in the above comments:

Quote

“Peter, Mohamed and Stephan were all standing next to the drag queen, who stuffed his hand down all their pants in the pictures, and Peter and Stephan both laughed it off, but Mohamed got really angry,” said Amanda.

unquote

This is the photograph in question:

Which demonstrates the continuing flawed logic you so happily indulge in. There are no hands thrust down the second mohamed's pants.

In the photo above as in the scenario spelled out by Keller the person is being pawed by transvestites in Key West. Keller’s story to Hopsicker seems to be “based on a true story” much of what she said is probably true (other that the identity of Mohamed) but some is made up. Damningly much of what she said corresponds with Arakji much more that Atta.

Funny that you said his English was so bad and above you made the same error he did (failing to capitalize).

Please explain the logic of the following:

Len Colby said (quoting the second Mohamed) in Post No. 124:

Quote

“I sent hopsicker a mail telling him about the lies of Amanda, I also included the picture of the transvestites in key west with my friend peter”

“you are right, I sent the picture of my friend peter with the transvestite to prove to him that i was there, i am not really sure if he misunderstood me by thinking that I was claiming that it was me on the picture”

Unquote

Quite how does sending a picture of his friend Peter (without the tranny's hands thrust down his pants) being cuddled by a bunch of drag queens prove that the second Mohamed "was there" - in other words was present on that same occasion in that same place?

You want me to explain someone else’s logic? I assume he figured Hopsicker might know what Peter looked like since he (Hopsicker) researched his recent life (I can’t remember all of Hopsickers allegations IIRC he said Peter and his brother Stephen were involved in some shady deals with Florida flight school owners and the latter did time in Europe). Him having a photo of Peter in a scenario similar to one Keller described would be evidence (though not proof) he was there or at the least knew Peter.

I can just imagine the prosecutor in a trial entering into evidence this picture of a friend of the accused as proof that the accused was present. The Judge, the defence and he jury would fall about laughing.

I wouldn’t go into the trial analogy if I were you Hopsicker and especially Keller don’t exactly make credible witnesses and there are problems with the only 2 named witnesses who say they saw Keller with Atta.

Meanwhile, there's still no explanation of who it is supposed to be in the second picture if it wasn't the second Mohamed himself. This is the second picture Hopsicker posted as being from the second Mohamed (who has grown weary of explaining himself and is going to China so as not to have to answer anymore probing questions).

Did he send another picture of his friend Peter - this time cuddling a girl - to prove that he [Mohamed Arajki] lived in Florida.

It's nonsense and none of it adds up.

As I said I assume it’s Peter or his brother, Arakji pretty clearly told Hopsicker the guy in the 1st photo was Peter but the Floridian was too dense to figure out plain English. Hopsicker is not reliable. There is no way of knowing at this point what Arajaki told him about the other photo. Arakji told me he no longer has the e-mail, which is not surprising after 3 years.

Why don’t you write Hopsicker and ask him if hie still has the full text of the e-mail and ask for the other photos?

The foregoing demonstrates that you cannot be trusted to think clearly, let alone undertake a pseudo journalistic video interview. All you'll do in that is pander to this dopes wild allegations in order to save your own ego from being badly (and deservedly) bruised.

At every turn in this thread you've been found wanting, beginnng with your very first post (No 8 on this thread).

Yes I made a few errors on this thread, some of which I caught myself, some of which were based on being confused by Hopsicker’s contradictory claims. When in error I’ve admitted it. What do think my error was in post #8?

So again, please let me have Mohamed Arajki's email and phone number. I'll call him this weekend. I'll tape the call and mail a copy of the whole (and unexpurgated) tape to you in Brazil, so that you have the opportunity to listen to it at your leisure. I want to do this as I want to get to the core of this mater so I don't have to be still posting on this thread in a year's time unmangling your cock-ups and deciphering your spinning. The facts are the facts and should be made available clearly and unambiguously.

No dice for reasons stated above. His phone number wouldn’t do you much good anyway since he’s traveling at the moment.