How close was Dr Tom Termotto with BK Lim?
We have not met physically and had telephone conversation from time to time. Like many others, Dr Tom first took notice of me after my 6th article, Why Is Bps Macondo Blowout So Disastrous Beyond Patch Up published on 30 July 2010. From then on, he had faithfully posted every article I have ever written on all his websites, until recently in March 2011. Basically I wrote and he posted. We exchanged notes and clips of interests. He proof-read what I drafted occasionally. In fact all had been published without any technical alteration save for some grammatical errors. We basically worked independently of each other. I have no administrative control of any of the websites operated by ConcernedCitizens of Florida. The only blog under my control is http://bklim.newsvine.com.
It puzzles me to no end why Deborah had not bothered to investigate Dr Tom earlier, prior to collaborating with him. Is it another coincidence? Deborah first posted Dr Tom's article, The Gulf Of Mexico Is Dying, in early December 2010 about the time Thomson Reuters bought the Examiner.com. Reuters Corporate Headquarters is across the street from BP Corporate Headquarters in the City of London (Examiner-Com-Teams-Up-With-Thomson-Reuters) info by Dr Tom.
From there on, they established weekly chats to share information. I remember Dr Tom telling us, the Examiner was expressing great interest in our work. She had Dr Tom tied up in more conversations in one month than we had in the whole 7 months period Dr Tom and I had corresponded. She is after all the Human Rights Investigative reporter for the last 30 years. Me? I am just a lowly geohazards specialist from a third world country who spent more time at sea than at home. I am no trained journalist but a novice who just started blogging 8 months ago after noticing the technical discrepancies in the official story of the Gulf Disaster. If I do not point out these stark technical inconsistencies, who would?
It is only logical that I do not have any blogs or articles published on the internet before July 2010. Despite the details only an experienced geohazards specialist could have analysed, there was still speculation I was a fictitious person or Dr Tom's alternative identity on the net. The fact that I continue writing articles after Dupre's article on 7 Feb 2011 and Dr Tom disappeared completely, confirms that we are two separate persons.
Geohazards especially in the oil industry is a highly specialised niche. Even an experienced geologist like Art Berman had troubles understanding shallow geohazards; differentiating a mid-point of an escarpment and the bottom of a valley, and resolution limitation of acoustic sound sources. My detractors are mentally challenged, not me.
What about Ian Crane?
I first came across his video (Ian-Crane-Speaks-On-Gulf-Oil-Gush-Truth) on 17 Feb 2011. I was frankly quite impressed and held some respect for a co-industry truth advocate even though I did not fully agree with some of the points he presented. I do respect differences in opinion as we approach the problems from different perspectives. I had not realised who Ian Crane was before this. After watching his video I promptly seeded it to my column. I extracted some key phrases to highlight his presentation. It was never meant to be a comprehensive review asserted by Ian Crane. How could a short paragraph justify as a review? Now who gave him this absurd idea?
Under Newsvine's code of honour (COH) we are permitted only a few lines of summary to avoid accusation of plagiarism. His video links were seeded with my recommendation “You need to see these videos”. There were dozens of other websites with his you-tube links and short summaries. Was he just picking any lame excuse to attack me? It would be even more suspicious for him to attack me out of the blues without any lame excuse or anyone of the conspirator to introduce him to me. No, the road to Rome is laden with many traps. It would be one or the other. That Ian Crane chose to publicly post his first and only comment and links to his video on our website discussion blog on 9 Jan 2011, has some significance with regard to some of the confidential email correspondences in that period. Connecting the dots, it is now obvious Ian Crane was recruited to be part of the brewing plan to engage and distract me in a frontal cyber-attack; to conceal the physical attack from the rear. A classic military maneuver.
They were truly disappointed when I failed to respond. That was why Merita and Thad Daly had to come in on 18 Jan and 25 Jan respectively. No wonder Ian Crane's comments sounded so pathetic, frustrated and disappointed. How could a lowly geohazards specialist from a 3rd world country have ignored Ian Crane's overtures for almost 2 months. It must have been totally pathetic not to have heard of the high and mighty dragon slayer from UK. After almost 4 months, Ian Crane has to resort to legally challenging BK to a fight in the courtroom. Do I trust the legal system of 1st world countries? Nah. I have seen enough fake justices in my lifetime. Only the court of Public Opinion matters to me now.
Truth be spoken, I had actually wanted to contact Ian Crane earlier to commend him on his work but my computer was under constant cyber attacks at that time. I am glad I did not after noticing his “pathetic” comments at Deborah's column and later his website only on 2 March 2011. My respect for him went down the drain not because he thought so lowly of me (I can take that) but his instant jump to conclusion that I am in cahoot with Dr Tom to mislead or “controlled the opposition” as he termed it, without even investigating my background and past articles.
Putting it bluntly, he is accusing me of being paid to write all these articles and to control the “opposition” (gulf victims) into a mental corral so that his good work can be ignored by the public.
Wow! This must be a real compliment for my articles to have such controlling power. You can argue it both ways. The key word here is “Control”. To control implies power, force, pressure or mass media to influence others while my preferred term has always been “Believe” a softer term whereby the readers are convinced by the simple truths and logic not by mental coercion of any means. Undeniably, telling the truth is simple and easy with no worries of tripping over previous facts. On the other hand you need more lies to cover the initial lies and eventually the suppressed inconsistencies can no longer be kept close in the overcrowded closet. Ian Crane is now tripping over his own lies and deception he was paid to carry out.
As an experienced orator, why would Ian Crane choose to use “control” over “believe”? It is so inconsistent with my fugitive status, my constant theme of exposing the criminality behind the deception and my numerous whistle-blower reports. On the Gulf Disaster alone, I had written over 45 articles in 8 months. Many of them are over 5 pages long and with numerous illustrations and images. I must have been a damn good liar to have lasted so long with so many cyber mercenaries after my a$$. Even a small mistake would have been exploited to the hilt.
If I was not telling the truth, the lies would have multiplied exponentially that even a department of 10 staff would not have been able to cope. As an experienced analyst, surely he would have realised this untenable situation. So why would he choose to rely solely on Deborah's article, instead of doing his own research or investigation as claimed.
Again for an experienced oilfield executive, he must know that one does not go on the offensive without covering his behind (CYA) and doing his groundwork. Is there more to this? His sharply targeted comments showed rashness not objectivity. He seemed to be taking an opportunistic strike at a “down opponent (Dr Tom)” so uncharacteristic of an independent crusader of truth. Notice his choice of word “opposition” or opponent as if speaking from a position of authority. Is that a Freudian Slip?
Instead of viewing me as a co-industry worker and somebody supporting his cause of speaking the truth, is it possible he was viewing me as his Competitor? Readers can judge for themselves by reading my articles. I thought we were fighting on the same side? Nobody has any exclusivity on the truth. By staking a monopolistic claim to truth, one exposes one's selfish greed of owning and peddling “truth” for a price. BP would have seen the opportunity to create a split “opposition”. When it is hard to beat the truth, it is time to create a competition for it by funding one against another.
Spreading truth is like free flow water; there is never any need for pressure to force it in. On the contrary, to force feed even small amounts of twisted truth, you need constant bombardment to hammer it into the masses. No doubt many governments and global corporations like BP are well funded to follow Joseph Goebbels' propaganda principle of repetitive lying.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” ~ Joseph Goebbels
Surely any truth advocate would have touched the raw nerves of the establishments, governments and big oil corporations as I have. Publicly you became an unemployable “pariah” within the oil industry. No one wants to be associated with you even though many expressed their concerns and support privately.
Permalink Reply by Ian R Crane on February 22, 2011 at 1:55am
If this is the best that Gulf Coast activists c...an offer after I have spent the past 7mths sharing this information via a DVD released in August 2010, 40+ public presentations throughout the UK, Ireland & Sweden, more than a dozen radio interviews with US & European stations; I strongly suspect that there are ‘elements’ with the Gulf Coast ‘activist’ community who are deliberately trying to prevent this information reaching a wider audience.
Reaching a wider audience to spread the truth far and wide is my main objective; not profit.
How many of the stricken gulf victims could afford Ian Crane's DVD or costly travels to attend his public presentation? Clearly his target masses are not the common “small people” most affected by the breakout any mega disaster. His high profile operations need funds to operate. Do you see that in my operation? My self funded crusade is hosted free of charge and the information shared freely. We live frugally to keep costs down. Cost-wise my messages reached out to more people at a tiny fraction of Crane's cost and with more potency. Who do you think BP would approach to buy out one against the other? Even Adsense turned down our requests for paid advertisement. Their sole reason; “Unsuitable/offensive contents”.
On the whole, it is so uncharacteristic of a “highly respected analyst” to jump to conclusion without using his grey matter. The same goes to Deborah as well. In one of my comments in August, I had commended her on a well written article. But now I am not so sure. Assuming she did not read my article to understand what I stood for before quoting or incorporating them into her investigative journalistic work, the very least she could do was to call or email me for clarification. I wanted to do that before I wrote this article but was advised against it as too much water had already flowed under the bridge. The implication of me being complicit in the “controlled opposition campaign” is totally untrue if only she had read and understood my articles, see http://bklim.newsvine.com. So where are her journalistic principles?
Deborah Dupre wrote on 7 Feb 2011.
Disinformation is designed to include elements of truth with untruths in the mix to confuse, agitate or pacify, and ultimately lead the public against its best interest. Termotto's reported claims about the murder of "Gulf Hero" Dr. Tom Manton and Gulf related assassination attempts on BKLim are in question, as everything else he reported.
The U.S. counter-intelligence program's 3-D aim is to disrupt, discredit and dissolve progressive groups. Its professionally executed divide and conquer tactic is highly effective, even among peerless colleagues.
Who would be more likely to be employed as US COINTELPRO? Deborah or me? As for Ian Crane, I had repeatedly said and wrote that I am just a plain BK Lim. No PhD. Why would he want to quote me as “Dr BK Lim”? Is it to embarrass or to ridicule, given Deborah's obsession with DR Tom?
Ian Crane was highly disappointed that I wrote such a pathetically short synopsis of his “priceless work” which he sweated for 7 whole months. Excuse me. I was not born into this world to serve Ian Crane. I am not a journalist but an independent geohazards specialist who is contributing his expertise and spare time for the sake of humanity and averting another preplanned disaster. I seeded his you-tube videos (which he encouraged to spread far and wide) for the benefit of my readers. There was no condition that one must sing a few pages of praises to bolster his ego prior to seeding. I cannot control anyone from “copying that pathetic short sypnosis of his work” and pasting them all over the internet. If he was so egoistic why did he not write one himself?
Oh I forgot. He wanted a lowly geohazards specialist to endorse his work. I did, but the short paragraph was too short for his liking. For that he blames the poor response to his post at his website on my “pathetic synopsis”. I did all my articles strictly on pro-bono basis and did not expect anyone to praise me. I was so thankful the general public would be interested enough to read my articles. I wrote that as long as there is one person who wants to read my articles I will continue to write without fear or favour, until my last breath.
But I learned to accept the ungratefulness that goes with my hard work in my line of work. When we did a good job of selecting a safe location out of a risky prospect, there were no thanks. His accusation that I was running a “controlled opposition campaign” is completely baseless and malicious. Get Real! I am apolitical. Who are the “opposition” Ian Crane was referring to? We are trying to get the truth out there and not even selling any DVD's to support our own out-of-pocket expenses. All the earnings from my newsvine column went to charities.
I did not chastise my readers for not heaping praises on me. I thank most of them for showing interest in what I wrote. I believe in educating not teaching, as we are all equals. People can judge for themselves whether there is logic and truth in my articles. Least of all, I do not need to convince Ian Crane that I am not part of ANYBODY's “Controlled Opposition” campaign. What I did is out of my heart; Sacrifice without Expectation.
The Gulf Victims are being lied to and it is within my geohazards expertise to analyse the situation and to tell the truth. I did not do it expecting anything in return. Instead I get repeated nasty comments from people like Thad Daly who harped on the point that I needed to join the list of dead scientists and whistleblowers to show my sincerity in advocating the truth. Why is Thad Daly not insisting Ian Crane to be dead in order to be a credible analyst? Both are obviously working on the same side.
Sorry to disappoint you, Thad Daly and Ian Crane. If I had haboured any intention of quitting, your comments have only strengthened my resolve to continue writing. I am thankful for so many people praying for my safety.
Ian Crane Wrote:
“The claim that their lives are at risk is a pathetic attempt to gain credibility amongst other activists …. Fool me once,eh?”
If Ian Crane could be fooled by me and reawaken by Deborah (who was proven to have written without investigating or reading) then I think Crane has been fooled twice already, don't you think?
Ian Crane Wrote:
Lim & Termotto are playing the 'Limited Hangout' game here. They know that ignoring my research and insights would be highly suspicious, so attempted to deflect this suspicion by posting a pathetic single paragraph 'synopsis' of m...y revelations. Termotto has also been central to the manufactured division amongst Gulf Coast activists ... it is essential that these infiltrators are exposed for what they are; primarily because their primary task is to keep the activism local and internally focused. Therby minimising the the risk to the perpetrators.
I can only say Ian Crane has “limited” openings to pick a fight with me, to pick out such an incoherent lame excuse. Ignoring his research and insights would be highly suspicious? Deflect this suspicions by posting a pathetic single paragraph synopsis? Notice how inconsistent his argument is? If I had wanted to ignore him, I would simply not post anything on him. With him on the fore-front of truth-advocacy, no wonder we are losing the battle to the evil-doers.
I just cannot believe he could open his mouth without checking his facts. I can only conclude he has been bought. As an ex-Schlumberger and a supposedly independent ex-industry worker, Ian Crane should have noticed the technical discrepancies in BP's fabrication on the blowout itself.
BP drilled at 3 separate well locations. We have rov video proof of 2 well heads and one blown crater with sub-horizontal casing retrieved on 29 July 2010. In his video, only 2 well locations (A and B, at 300ft apart) were mentioned based on BP's pathetic bathymetric chart and exploration plan. There are at least 5 fundamental arguments (facts) that they could not have drilled only at only 2 well locations. Sadly he has not picked up the discrepancies. With oil executives who are so incompetent, no wonder we keep getting wells blown up. So who is being fooled? Three times fooled?
Ian Crane also believed BP's story that the initial hydrocarbon influx that blew the well came from the bottom of the well (18,000ft bml). No he was dead wrong again to trust BP's fabrication. The initial gas influx came from leaks at the top 5000 ft section on 20 April 2010. The hydrocarbon influx from the base (with all the hydraulic power) happened only on 22 April 2010. There was a large gas bubble at the coastguard base some 40 miles away, to prove that this was a much much larger underground explosion than the first which caught fire on 20 April 2010. The BOP was intact until the 2nd explosion which caused the DWH rig to sink.
These are just a few of our independent findings presented here to show our sincere efforts in determining the truth rather than harping on the superficial discrepancies purposely let out as distractions. I am truly disappointed. A truth advocate of Ian's experience and caliber could have done more than just sucking up to BP. Who is the “controlled opposition” now? What have you learn from his video? More of the same old stuffs churned out by BP presented in a more comical presentation and avoiding the real puppet masters behind the Gulf Tragedy. Fooled four times already!
His insights and revelations? My foot. Tell us something which we don't already know.
There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth; not going all the way and not starting ~ Buddha.
