FACT CHECK... & TROLLS NAMED...

INDIVIDUAL FACT CHECKS ARE SHOWN FURTHER DOWN THIS PAGE...

..Extensive research and case studies show that those who engage in trolling are most likely to be suffering from one or more of a range of mental health conditions.

The following excerpt from the US National Library of Medicine puts the issue into perspective and, as you are through it and the link to the full article, you can see how serious a problem it is:

The dark tetrad and online trolling

Prior research on online anti-social behavior asked, ‘who trolls others?’, sparking investigations of the trolls’ personalities. Specifically, research has confirmed the link between trolling behavior and the Dark Tetrad traits (sadism, psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism).     

1. Narcissism refers to excessive self-love and a grandiose sense of self-importance [24];   

2. Machiavellianism refers to the willingness to manipulate others [25];

3. Subclinical psychopathy refers to fearless dominance and disinhibition [26];  
4. Sadism refers to intentionally inflicting psychological/physical pain for enjoyment or power [27].

These four correlated, theoretically distinct traits share a core of callous manipulation [28]. Moreover, the Dark Tetrad facets are associated with self-reported, observer-reported, and behavioral aggression [28]. Indeed, research has confirmed the link between people scoring high on the Dark Tetrad traits and trolling behavior [5–8, 23, 29–31] which may be due to lower affective empathy in these individuals [32–34], a tendency for moral disengagement [35], and reduced behavioral inhibition anxiety [36]. Moreover, all four facets are positively associated with dominance [37] and social dominance orientation is also associated with past trolling and acceptance of trolling [38]. 

Here's the link to the full article:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10004561/#:~:text=Prior%20research%20on%20online%20anti,%2C%20Machiavellianism%2C%20and%20narcissism).

The message for those involved in trolling is clear, you have mental health issues that you should address as a matter of some urgency. Those that populate or associate with known trolls should be especially careful.

Troll comments will be included here in our FACT CHECK page to show our followers and site visitors just which sites or blogs and which people are known for allowing or enabling trolling and who take an active part. At this time the known Troll sites are:

1. Ciphermysteries.com, author, Nick Pelling, rarely moderates comments and actively enables trolls on his site.
The Ciphermyteries blog is hosted on a WordPress platform. WordPress has numerous facilities including tracking individual IP addresses and retrospective editing of comments, this can be done by the comment author.

2. Tomsbytwo.com, author Pete Bowes, rarely moderates comments and participates regularly in trolling 'outbursts', Pete is a self-acknowledged troll and plagiarist. Very often Pete Bowes in his personal attacks will make himself out to be the victim and 'project' his behaviour onto his targets a trait he has in common with the John Sanders troll on the Ciphermysteries blog. The Tomsbytwo blog is hosted on a WordPress platform. WordPress has numerous facilities including tracking individual IP addresses and retrospective editing of comments, this can be done by the comment author.

In contrast to the two named blogs, this blog is hosted on a Google Blogspot platform. Google has stringent rules governing privacy which include no tracking of IP addresses all information that could identify a site visitor cannot be viewed or captured. 

With regards to who can comment on this blog, Blogspot offers 3 options apart from the author:
1. Anonymous. Anyone can comment subject to moderation. This is the option used on this blog

2. Google Members, this restricts the number of users and we do not do that

3. Members only, too restrictive for this audience and we do not use that option

On this blog, all comments posted by the author are identified by a red spot with a white tick alongside the author's name.

Known Trolls include John Sanders, Milongal (AKA I Forget), and Pete Bowes who together with associates often organise troll attacks on people associated with the Somerton Man case many of whom are now deceased but their families are the intended targets of these troll gangs. No one is spared from their insidious troll comments. This blog has been targeted many times over the years and the rage of some trolls has gone on since 2013 when I first started this blog. More often the attacks are aimed at me personally and they have caused serious harm.

As more FACT CHECKS are carried out, other trolls will likely be named here. The message for those who associate with trolls on their known sites is that they will be named publicly. There is a major public backlash coming as you will see from the size of the problem in the US. This blog is one small part of that backlash but I will make sure that the news and the details of what is being done here will travel far and wide. 

It is also possible that offences will be disclosed in the process of FACT CHECKS such breaches of the law may include defamation and libelous behaviours, in some extreme cases those breaches may be of Criminal Law. I will not hesitate to report those matters and inform the people who may be relatives of deceased persons who were involved in the original Somerton Man case. The relevant authorities have been informed and they have the URL for this page.

Apart from naming trolls and troll sites, this page is dedicated to checking the origins and accuracy of claims and statements made about aspects of the Somerton Man Mystery. Our 'FACT CHECKS' will appear in the comments section...

      Statements will be checked for truth and accuracy and will be categorised as follows:

   TRUE  |  FALSE  |  UNSUBSTANTIATED  |  QUESTIONABLE | FABRICATION

FACT CHECK 1. JOHN SANDERS. FALSE CLAIM #1

4 September 2024 at 09:22

FACT CHECK: FALSE CLAIM, Details:

John Sanders on August 30, 2024 at 8:40 am in MISC STUFF thread on the Ciphermysteries.com blog said:

3. H. Rolfe North the cloakroom witness gave evidence on behalf of Ralph Craig who was on leave, in fact he was that same entity and suspect that he had a lot to hide. He died 23 days later aged 64 presumably not of old age.

FACT CHECK: No one by the name of Ralph Craig was employed by SAR at the time that the suitcase was said to have been deposited by the Somerton Man nor at the time that the same suitcase was retrieved by the Police. 3 employees with the surname of Craig were employed at the relevant times:

1. Alexander Craig. Born on 3/8/1883, joined SAR on 23/02/1945 and left the service on 22/08/1950 there is no evidence to support the claim that 'Alex Craig' died 23 days later. Alex Craig was 66 years old in August 1949 and is recorded as having left the service on 22nd August 1950 shortly after his 67th birthday.

2. Douglas Macdonald Craig. Born 22/04/1923, joined SAR 19/04/1939, records show that he left the service on 23/02/1949. However, Douglas enlisted in the Royal Australian Airforce in October 1941 where he served until June 1949 with rank of Flight Lieutenant. Service Number 416832. It is believed that SAR held positions for those who became members of the armed forces during WW2.

3. Bruce Craig (Alternative name ‘LEIGH’) Born 14/07/1930, joined SAR 17/03/1947, left the service 26/11/1970 . Bruce left after 23 years service/

See blog post here: https://tamamshud.blogspot.com/2022/03/somerton-man-tamam-shud-craig-

case.html,

The linked post above provides details on SAR employees and related circumstances

It is believed that SAR held positions for those who became members of the armed forces during WW2.

FACT CHECK RESULT = FALSE

Further information:

Here is Sanders response to the FACT CHECK on R Craig:

'I may as well remind you once more, from memory, that Harold Rolfe North, stand in witness for R. Craig at the ’49 inquest was part of the extended Craig family after the death of his father and was known variously as Rolfe, Rolf and Ralf Craig before his marriage

to Iris Cecily who survived him.'

The False Claim was that Craig had died 23 days after the inquest, it had nothing to do with the diversion set up by Sanders to cover the initial false claim he had made

In other words, he was caught out, his response was as expected. His claim was and remains FALSE.

JOHN SANDERS FALSE CLAIM #2

FACT CHECK2

6 September 2024 at 08:16

FACT CHECK: FALSE CLAIM: JOHN SANDERS

https://ciphermysteries.com/2013/11/08/gordon-cramer-somerton-man#comment-519227

on September 5, 2024 at 9:16 am John Sanders said:

'Cannot tell a lie Gordon, twas I that spotted your torn “3” pic with the missing names and blanked out Charlie image. It was displayed as a promo on air before the ABC doco and I brought it to the attention of all and sundry same day.'

A search was made of the relevant Cipher Mysteries threads of all comments made by John Sanders and whilst there were many made, no trace of a comment mentioning the photograph of the family group of 4 that had no names displayed and had been torn.

The Ciphermysteries blog is based on a Wordpress platform and it is possible within Wordpress to retrospectively edit and/or delete comments made on such sites. For that reason comments made on that site are less credible than other platforms.

FACT CHECK RESULT = FALSE

Comment:

10 September 2024 at 04:43

In a recent comment on the CM blog John Sanders said that the reason that his comment regarding his claimed ‘first find’ of the Webb Family group of 4 torn photograph was not found on the CM blog was because he had posted it elsewhere, the tomsbytwo blog. Using the Wayback machine I followed up on the tbt blog for November 2022. TheWayback machine had made 3 visits to the tbt blog in that month. The visit of interest being shown as 18th November 2022 which is one day after the date nominated by John Sanders. However the Wayback machine for the 18th November showed the one post made on 17th November 2022. It had 7 comments dated 17th November 2022, none of which bore the name John Sanders and none of which made mention of the Webb family of 4 torn photograph, neither did any comment on the following dates or previous dates recorded by the Wayback machine. Here’s the link to the tomsbytwo.com Wayback machine entry for the 18th November which included the 17th November post and comments::

https://tomsbytwo.com/2022/11/17/did-carl-webb-come-calling-at-90a-moseley-street/

To the FALSE Fact check result for the John Sanders claim, I have added FABRICATION based on this latest result from the ‘Internet Archive’ Wayback machine.

9 September 2024 at 13:41

John Sanders: A good way to verify comments and posts is here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20220101000000*/ciphermysteries.com

It's known as the WAYBACK MACHINE. The link above is to the cipher mysteries blog and it shows the dates that a snapshot was taken and importantly, you are able to scroll through all of the comments in the right hand column. That scrolling can move forward and backwards. This means that when you select the 15th of November 2022, you can scroll forward for some months a day at a time, which means that you can see the comments made on 17th of November 2022 across a number of threads.

Its always possible that I could have missed it but while I could see the comment by Sanders regarding the striped tie, I could not see any comment by John Sanders on the date he quoted. 17/11/22 that refers to the ABC promo photograph with Carl Webb's image cut out. Perhaps it was added later?

Further comments by Sanders now says he made a mistake and that he posted his original comment in yet another location but that location has not been revealed by Sanders.

His claim was and remains FALSE

Sanders 3

8 September 2024 at 10:45

FACT CHECK: FALSE & DEFAMATORY CLAIM MADE BY JOHN SANDERS:

on 30th August 2024, Cipher Mysteries Blog

https://ciphermysteries.com/misc-stuff#comment-519355

John Sanders made a comment as follows:

5. From the get go Prof John Cleland was all over the case for which he had no reason apart from being giving medical opinion only, so what’s he doing diving into dead mans pockets (and coming up trumps with the highly suspect TS slip In later years he was accused of planting evidence and for lieing on Oath.

The statement made by Sanders was the subject of a deep research exercise given the seriousness of the comment and no mention of the Professor ever having been accused of lying under oath or of planting evidence was found.

"Based on the search results provided, there is no information indicating that Sir John Burton Cleland was ever accused of planting evidence or being untruthful in giving evidence in any known case.

Sir John Burton Cleland (1878-1971) was a renowned Australian pathologist, naturalist, and professor who made significant contributions to various scientific fields. He served as Professor of Pathology at the University of Adelaide and was consulted on high-level police inquiries. One of his most famous cases was the Taman Shud Case in 1948, where he acted as the pathologist."

You can find further detailed information on the Professor here:

https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/cleland-sir-john-burton-5679

FACT CHECK RESULT: A FALSE AND POSSIBLY DEFAMATORY STATEMENT MADE BY JOHN SANDERS

As of today, September 14th, 2024, Sanders has made no response to this Fact Check

MILONGAL Fact Check #1

6 September 2024 at 11:43

FACT CHECK: FALSE CLAIM 'MILONGAL' AKA 'I FORGET"

Comment on https://tomsbytwo.com/2024/08/28/this-is-irresistible/#comments

I forget #

Even if we believe AI is used, I’m always skeptical of any type of survey/analysis that is run by someone with a vested interest in the results, especially with very little transparency.

Firstly, you can construct the criteria in a way that benefits you, and tweak criteria to be vaguer or more specific as it suits. If you’re using an analysis tool (whether it’s AI or something less trendy) you can also run multiple times, excluding criteria that comes up bad for you, and continuing tweaking the “questions” until it finally spits out results that show what you want…..etc

TBH, I don’t really know why people even bother commenting on what he posts (unless they’re in camp Kramer) – all it does is keep his site in the conversation, when frankly, it’s a long time since it posted anything even remotely credible. We should all just stop giving him airtime – the one thing he understands is marketing (his blog is so prolific because he understands how to clone and reference and SEO and all – which you can tell by the ‘clone’ sites), and I’m pretty sure he’s a firm believer in “There’s no such thing as negative publicity”….

Like

September 2, 2024Reply

I forget #

Almost missed an opportunity for my favourite line:

Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity

Like

September 2, 2024

Regarding the comparison project I carried out, I personally designed the system including defining the criterion that was used. I then used a Prompt Generator to create the prompt which I submitted to ChatGPT. Chat GPT allocated the scores based on its detailed exploration and examination of the posts and comments made on the blogs concerned, including this blog. I published the prompt and criterion used to ensure complete transparency. Others are able to repeat the exact same exercise, no adjustments or 'tweaking' was done at any time in the process which includes the construction of the criterion, the building of the Prompt, the assessment or scoring nor the final results. The inference that it was done otherwise is false and misleading.

Milongal is a known troll who was initially based on the Cipher Mysteries blog. He has claimed that he was a bus driver for the State Transport Authority in Adelaide and later that he was employed by Border Force and moved to Canberra. Border Force are being made aware of 'Milongal/I Forget's' activities. His real name is not known at this time.

FACT CHECK RESULT: FALSE AND MISLEADING

Whether the comments were deliberately designed to cause reputational harm to myself or the blog is for others to assess.

Milongal Fact Check #2

6 September 2024 at 12:14

FACT CHECK: FALSE CLAIM BY 'MILONGAL' I FORGET'

https://tomsbytwo.com/2024/08/08/the-danetta-code/#comments

I forget #

The Danetta stuff was one of the more interesting things GC came up with, but *really* the only signficance was the original find on Tibor’s note (which really could be a coincidence). Like with other ideas on that site, beyond Danetta he found nothing else concealed a similar way – so it’s a bit unsatisfying that you can find this pattern at the beginning of the letter (in the most obvious place) but nothing else.

A lot of the “cryptographic analysis” he did of it originally was pumping it through all sorts of checks (from memory on docde.fr) and then misinterpreting the results (NB: I don’t think this was a deliberate deception, I think he just didn’t fully understand what the results meant).

He then used a fairly random (or perhaps ‘inconsistent’ is a better description) formula to claim Danetta could be found elsewhere too – but it seemed very much to be tweaking rules to get to the desired solution.

IMO the ‘Danetta’ would be interesting if:

– he could tie it (or at least Tibor) to SM

– there were other similar concealments (especially if they could be shown to relate)

– if it actually appeared in more than Tibor’s note (most of the discoveries beyond that are a long stretch)

But I think a lot of the discussion on Danetta has been done to death by JS and co.

Like

August 9, 2024

Regarding the DANETTA code fining by myself, it was done after examining Tibor Kaldor's last which was done one paragraph at a time. The first paragraph as per my posts on the subject when put through a code identifier resulted in an AACROSTIC code being nominated. The same paragraph was then pu through the decoder which then gave some 20 or so groups of letters only one of which spelled out a clear word or name, that being DANETTA. When read through in plain text the word DANETTA was clearly visible. I have taken a number of courses since 2015 on the subject of cryptography whilst I would not consider myself an 'expert' I am familiar with a number of codes and ciphers as well as the methods used to conceal them. The name DANETTA has been proven to occur in the handwritten Verse 70 copy of the Rubaiyat and the printed version. I studied the book carefully and found that the name DANETTA can only be derived from 4 verses of the Rubaiyat. The Methuen copy of the Rubaiyat was left open on the chest of George Marshall when he was found in August 1945. The verse that was visible and underlined was one of the 4 verses just mentioned. The verse in the Marshall book was printed on a different page when compared to other copies of Methuen's editions. The same word DANETTA can be found in a custom form of an acrostic code in 4 instances where a man was found dead in suspicious circumstances. two associated with copies of the Rubaiyat and two were the name occured in 'suicide notes' one being Tibor Kaldor in Adelaide and the other being Michael Goreloff who was found dead in Sydney on the 10th, December 1948 but thought to have died on 27th November. Michael was a well built man of around 6 feet tall and was found hanging from a 4 foot tall sapling. his wife recognised hos writing but in her words ' It wasn't written by him' At the time members of the White Russian Community, of which Michael was a prominent member, believed that he had been killed by a 'Britisher'.

MILONGAL has to this date, 14th.September 2024, not made a response to this claim.

MILONGALS CLAIM was and remains FALSE