Talk:Keith Henson/Archive 1

message: There's a hell of a lot more interesting stuff to Keith's life than this ... anyone got bio info/sources? - David Gerard 15:36, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)
:Well, there are some posts he made to the SL4 mailing list.  Here is a link to the SL4 mailing list archive:  http://sl4.org/archive/  He started posting here in February, 2004.  Click on the month you want, then click on the "sorted by: [author]" link to find his posts faster.--205.200.57.177
:No mention of the "Tom Cruise Missile" fiasco? .--PHiZ
:There should be mention of his work with Alcor, including his involvement with the freezing of Dora Kent's head. .--Jim Lippard July 24, 2005
::Feel free to add that to the article, provided it is true. --AI 22:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Added his articles. --Irmgard 11:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need info 

message: "$6,000 since May 1981 includes operation and four-day hospital stay [daughter's name]; ... psychological counseling for [two daughter's names] as a result of father's sexual molestation of them." -Carolyn Meinel in a signed affidavit of medical expenses in 1982 divorce proceedings between Keith Henson and Carolyn Meinel. --AI 5 July 2005 10:02 (UTC)
: Okay, a description of this little incident is now included in the article.  Therefore, it is more NPOV.  :) --Modemac 12:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited your contribution. The Henson's legal divorce papers are not cancelled by a Carolyn's usenet posting. Neither are they cancelled by her recent support of Keith. Also, he was not prosecuted or even accused as a request from Carolyn provided that Keith get counseling. --AI 03:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Prove it.  So far, the entire content of the "child molesting" accusation consists of that one single sentence taken from the legal filing.  Since you apparently have access to more than this ("a request from Carolyn"), then please post it or provide a direct reference to it.  I never said her Usenet posting "cancelled" her divorce papers -- rather, Carolyn herself posted a message stating that "Scientologists are liars."  Do you object to that? --Modemac 07:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is she really the poster of the usenet article where she repudiates her statement and calls Scientologists bad liars. I tried to verify the email address used for the posting and found several other articles written from the same address. Are those postings really from Carolyn? Who knows, it doesn't really matter because the legal affidavit was REALLY SIGNED BY CAROLYN. If she chooses later to contradict her legally signed statement, that is her problem. Who's the liar? If she lied about the medical expenses in a legal document, I'm sure she would have no problem lying in *ALT*. --AI 23:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And if the Church would frame Paulette Cooper to make it look like she was a fanatic bomber who had threatened violence to the Church of Scientology, I'm sure they would have no problem framing other critics on similar bogus charges.  Which makes it interesting that you're clearly very interested in any accusation that's ever been made to tarnish the reputation of Henson but by your own admission you don't care if those accusations are later repudiated by the accuser, casting great question on their trustworthiness. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not generalize, ok Antaeus? You are talking about the alleged framing perpetrated by some individuals.  Whether or not their actions were ordered or approved by superiors, their actions were contrary to Scientology policy and any superiors who gave orders or approved such actions are not following Scientology policy. --AI 01:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Which makes you wonder how the Church of Scientology can ever fulfill its grandiose promise of a world without crime when it can't even deliver on the more modest promise of 'the Church of Scientology will not itself commit crimes'.  Yeah, I've heard the excuse before that anyone committing crimes is automatically not following Scientology policy; it's a pretty feeble response, isn't it?  How exactly does Scientology expect to get the whole world to start obeying Scientology policy and stop committing crimes when it can't get, oh, let's see, the second in command of the whole business to stay within the law?  -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets take a closer scrutiny of your actions.  You revert my changes which basically removed my mention of Keith's bomb expertise and restored the link to Arnie Lerma's POV.  Why didn't you explain those changes as you claim in the history comment: for reasons explained on talk page. You are not acting in good faith. --AI 02:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Why did Carolyn make a legal statement in a signed affidavit and then later recant it in *ALT* of all places?  Which of her statements is true?  Which of her statements is LEGAL. --AI 01:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Once again: Prove it.  Tell us *exactly* what is written on this legal statement  that the so called "Religious Freedom Watch" claims is Carolyn asking her husband to be arrested.  Give an exact quote from this legal filing, if you have it.  --Modemac 09:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Subgenius ;) , what is this, some kind of spin? YOU prove that Carolyn asked Keith to be arrested for the molestation. I never made that claim, so you prove that part because you are suggesting it. And YOU prove that I suggested it anywhere. --AI 20:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Right up above, you state: "I edited your contribution. The Henson's legal divorce papers are not cancelled by a Carolyn's usenet posting. Neither are they cancelled by her recent support of Keith. Also, he was not prosecuted or even accused as a request from Carolyn provided that Keith get counseling. --AI 03:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, now I understand your dispute. The reference is Henson's divorce case file which I currently do not have access to. --AI 12:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The repudiated accusation that Keith Henson molested his children 

message: PROTESTER IS SUBJECT TO ARREST
The Press-Enterprise
Thursday, May 17, 2001
BY Erin D. Randolph
"A man convicted in April of oppressing Scientologists because of their religion has fled to Canada to apply for political refugee status, the man said Wednesday.
"Keith Henson, 58, of Palo Alto, was scheduled to be sentenced Wednesday morning in court but didn't show up. A judge immediately issued a warrant for his arrest."
--AI 5 July 2005 10:34 (UTC)
::That doesn't say anything about Henson being a fugitive from US justice (which implies running away from a federal warrant).  If there's a federal warrant I'd like to see a reference.  Meanwhile I changed the description in the article to say there's a California warrant.  63.201.229.19 06:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keith Henson the fugitive from US Justice 

message: Modemac, you write an "obscure California law" but you do not cite the law or quote it. Is it really obscure?  In who's opinion is it obscure? Why aren't the readers allowed to decide? --AI 23:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I added references and link to the California Penal Code (the alleged "obscure law"), and removed POV reference to it. Let the reader decide is it is obscure or not. --Zappaz 02:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modemac's "obscure California law" 

message: User:141.154.206.219 apparently changed the article to reference a 1971 Supreme Court decision but with a URL link to a commentary by Arnie Lerma who is an associate of Keith Hensons (MORE POV).  The url should link to the actual copy of the Supreme Court documents. --AI 23:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1971 Supreme Court decision 

message: User:MarkSweep please explain why you reverted the page, I have already explained my reverts. --AI 00:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your reverts have the effect of removing a comment by User:Antaeus Feldspar. Numerous editors have encouraged you strongly and repeatedly not to remove comments by other users, both on talk pages and in edit summaries. --MarkSweep 02:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: AI has seemed to think that he is allowed to remove not only his personal attacks but any sign that he ever made them, such as admonishments he drew for them.  He's even done this on my own talk page, removing his own comments and mine.  In case there is any doubt at all, BTW, I would rather someone who's got a peeve against me make a hundred personal attacks on me and have the guts to stand by them than make one personal attack, say "Oopsie!  I wasn't allowed to do that, but I did it anyways and now policy gives me the inalienable right to toss the conversation down the memory hole!" -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

text: If they are personal comments or attacks I can remove them. They can be found in the history. --AI 04:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Antaeus, can you take your arguments to Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks, maybe they will consider your opinions. --AI 01:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert of talk page 

message: Most of the contributors to this article want to focus on Henson vs. Scientology. No wonder the NPOV tag is still on his article. If he is a writer on life extension and cryonics, memetics; If he is a founding member of the L5 Society and a lifetime member of the National Space Society then why doesn't the article's body mention these things.
All I see is Keith Henson#Explosives expert and Keith Henson#Henson versus Scientology. And some of you have had the audacity to claim I am not approaching this with NPOV? --AI 01:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still POV 

message: "The decision to ask for the assistance of the Halton Regional Police Service Emergency Services Unit in the arrest and detention of the complainants was made by [subject officer] in consultation with [subject officer] and a supervisor of the Toronto Police Service Emergency Task Force. In arriving at this decision [subject officer] considered both what it was he was trying to accomplish and the various pieces of information he was aware of which might affect his ability to accomplish it. [Subject officer] stated that he received Henson's file and learned that a warrant for the arrest of Henson had already been issued by Citizenship and Immigration. His job, therefore, was to locate Henson, arrest him on the strength of the existing warrant and have him brought before the appropriate authorities for an immigration hearing."[Subject officer] learned from an official of the California Department of Justice, District Attorney [redacted], that Henson had a history of familiarity and proficiency with explosives. [Subject officer] states he learned Henson was believed to be providing information on the construction of pipe bombs over the Internet. As a result of these pieces of information [subject officer] came to the conclusion that the arrest of Henson potentially involved higher risks than other types of arrests and that he should make some efforts to address these risks. There is nothing to suggest this was an unreasonable conclusion to arrive at."Complainants: William G. Hagglund and Keith Henson Complaint Number: 2001-EXT-0364 Investigated by: Detective [redacted] (6274) Public Complaints Investigation Bureau
excerpt posted by AI 02:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henson's arrest in Canada by armed police 

message: Seven days later, on October 22, 1997 another usenet posting on alt.religion.scientology, claiming to be Carolyn Meinel, denied the report[d47f516d68fc3c77?q=%22carolyn+meinel%22&rnum=4&hl=en#d47f516d68fc3c77. Keith claimed that accusations of the sort are common in divorce proceedings. Carolyn continues to support Henson by speak positively on his behalf .
Please remove this false and libelous material. I am Carolyn Meinel, I support my daughter's reports of what Henson did to them, I only objectred to the Scientology post because it claimed he had raped all four of our daughters. He only raped two of them. I threw him out of the house the very day I learned of this, our two youngest were aged one and two so I doubt he got to thEM.
PLEASE REMOVE THIS FALSE AND LIBELOUS CLAIM THAT I SIDE WITH HENSON AGAINST MY DAUGHTERS!!!! PLEASE HAVE PITY ON HIS INNOCENT VICTIMS, THEY WERE JUST CHILDREN AND HE HAD NO RIGHT TO RAPE THEM. THE ONLY REASON HE WASN'T PROSECUTED WAS BECAUSE HIS LAWYER PROMISED TO PUT OUR DAUIGHTERS THROUGH LIVING HELL IF THE AUTHORITIES PUT HIM ON TRIAL. I CAN PROVIDE WITNESSES IF YOU INSIST!!!!
Carolyn Meinel 505-2xx-xxxx office, 505-2xx-xxxx home. (Xoloz has removed the numbers)
This protest has appeared on the page.  Perhaps vandalism, but if so a dedicated vandal certainly.  It appears this material is unfit for the article.  If it is, please source. Xoloz 16:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if this is the same Meinel as the security expert Carolyn Meinel. --Maru (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably, yes, Henson's first wife. On her site there is a para in her bio: "She is a co-founder and for several years the president of the L-5 Society, an organization now known as the National Space Society." This fits together with Henson's bio. If she has written this stuff, or how she thinks of him now, I have no idea.  Irmgard 07:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, but I question her expertise in the security realm. Lippard 07:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Carolyn P. Meinel, which I've just added info to about Keith Henson and the L5 Society - David Gerard 13:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dead Agent" accusations against Henson 

message: Can we (non-scientologists) agree that Religious Freedom Watch is a pro-Scientology website masquerading as a defense against all religions and therefore not covered under NPOV? I don't personally think that they should be eliminated from this page, but rather set aside a called-out for what they are - The biased Scientologist POV. Can anyone enlighten me regarding website policy? I'm new to this. Until then, I am going to edit them aside. Smokey Russell 15:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious Freedom Watch Links

message: In this section the sentence "The company occasionally did seismic work that required explosives." is just sort of hung in there in the middle. What is the significance of this statement?  Unless it can be made relevant - i.e. Keith Henson used explosives for this company (or something) - I don't see its relevance.  We do not have a sentence that tells us how employees of the company got around in the field (jeep? helicopter?), nor what brand of tools they prefer to buy.  This is because that information is irrelevant.  Without further elaboration, so is the sentence regarding explosives.
I'll check back tomorrow and remove this if no one objects with a reason. ChrisLawson 20:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was included because a good deal (IIRC) of Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition that dwelt on Henson dealt with explosives. As to whether it's relevant, I don't know. Certainly is an interesting hobby though.--maru   (talk)  contribs 23:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I was under the impression that the company referred to was the "explosives company" that Henson is stated as having worked for in this article.  I see on reviewing the article that that connection is not actually stated.  If we can't substantiate that connection, then I would agree that the mention is irrelevant.  However, I would say that since the CoS is trying to paint Henson as someone whose knowledge of explosives is automatically a sign of a dangerous, underground mind, if he instead used explosives as part of a society-positive, aboveground career, it's relevant. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I agree with this completely.  The sentence seemed strange, like an attempt to get us thinking about Henson and explosives in a vague fashion.  Which, for some reason, seems more sinister than simply stating something like "Henson worked with explosives at a geophysics company".  Normally I might not care about something like this, but when POV editors have a serious axe to grind, it seems better to be extra careful. ChrisLawson 19:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Druid Days 

message: Which wife participatated with Henson in Alcor? Carolyn Meinel or Arel Lucas ? For that mattewr, how many wifes has he had? B.K. 22:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More likely Arel is meant.  I knew Keith in the early Nineties; he was active in Alcor's suspension team at the time, and married to Arel.  —Tamfang 04:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cryonics 

message: Substituted at 20:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment