I noticed the list of people on the 911 teleconference... not one has a science or engineering background except Wayne Coste and Dwain Deets... most are activists... including Griffin... and Gage. But they do know who is lying and what is the truth!
When will the AE911 petition finally reach juggernaut strength of 1%?
- Thread starter newton3376
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ae911truth
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
The Ken Freeland/Craig McKee one?
Attendance is changing steadily over time. I'd guess that as much as a hundred different people dialled in during the past two or three years. I have no time to check everyone's background. David Slesinger calls in sometimes, and I believe he is an engineer - I could be mistaken though.
It is ironic that Coste, Deets and Slesinger are usually representing minority opinions on that call
(example: Coste did a couple of debates on the Pentagon plane or no-plane issue, with him presenting the yes-plane side, and when a vote was taken, he was the loser by a wide margin).Mark F
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,746
It appears Mr. Ketcham is going after his 15 minutes and flying in special from Wisconsin just to help AE911T celebrate the Boston Tea Party anniversary with 9/11 woo.
And Hulsey will be there too!
ozeco41
Philosopher
You have to feel sorry for any PhD graduate whose work was supervised by Hulsey.
Talk about "asset depreciation"....
Talk about "asset depreciation"....
Mark F
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,746
A Q&A session in Boston with Mr. Ketcham would be fun.
Q. Mr. Ketcham, while employed at NIST were you involved in any capacity in either the NIST studies of the WTC Twin Tower or 7 WTC collapses?
Q. Did you first have concerns about the NIST WTC building performance reports while you were still with NIST or after you left?
Q. What triggered your concern about the accuracy of the NIST WTC building performance reports?
Q. What is your structural engineering background?
Q. When you started having concerns about the accuracy of the NIST WTC building performance reports did you consult with any independent structural engineers about your concerns?
Q. I imagine after working so long at NIST you must have friends, acquaintances or former collegues there that you could get in touch with, some of whom presumably were involved in the production of those reports. Have you been in contact with anyone at your former employer about your concerns?
Q. You were employed by NIST while the WTC building performance reports were being conducted. Did you at any time hear from anyone at NIST any concerns about political meddling or deliberate falsification of data contained within those reports or in the conclusions?
Q. Mr. Ketcham, while employed at NIST were you involved in any capacity in either the NIST studies of the WTC Twin Tower or 7 WTC collapses?
Q. Did you first have concerns about the NIST WTC building performance reports while you were still with NIST or after you left?
Q. What triggered your concern about the accuracy of the NIST WTC building performance reports?
Q. What is your structural engineering background?
Q. When you started having concerns about the accuracy of the NIST WTC building performance reports did you consult with any independent structural engineers about your concerns?
Q. I imagine after working so long at NIST you must have friends, acquaintances or former collegues there that you could get in touch with, some of whom presumably were involved in the production of those reports. Have you been in contact with anyone at your former employer about your concerns?
Q. You were employed by NIST while the WTC building performance reports were being conducted. Did you at any time hear from anyone at NIST any concerns about political meddling or deliberate falsification of data contained within those reports or in the conclusions?
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Let me quote everything from Mr. Ketcham's statement that is about NIST and its WTC investigations, that Mr. Ketcham knows from his own, personal experiences and research:
And that is it!
What I cut out was
...Ketcham's vita
...Ketcham's feelings about NIST's WTC reports
...what he learned from internet videos
...several questions he asked
In short, Ketcham has only praise for the way NIST conducts business, and has little more to add.
A competent interviewer would get Ketcham to admit that this is actually the full extent of his original contribution to the debate: That NIST, according to his own experiences, is intellectually honest and open to competing theories.
PM Ketcham said:
And that is it!
What I cut out was
...Ketcham's vita
...Ketcham's feelings about NIST's WTC reports
...what he learned from internet videos
...several questions he asked
In short, Ketcham has only praise for the way NIST conducts business, and has little more to add.
A competent interviewer would get Ketcham to admit that this is actually the full extent of his original contribution to the debate: That NIST, according to his own experiences, is intellectually honest and open to competing theories.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
For an internal critique of AE911T's lack of outreach success toward a new investigation, and the organizational reconciliation with Wayne Coste's Truth Outreach/Truth Action Project, see my other post in the "Petitions" thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11624518#post11624518
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11624518#post11624518
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Has anybody seen AE911Truth's IRS Form 990 for fiscal 2015 posted publicly anywhere? guidestar.org doesn't have it yet.
I have a copy that contains at least one gross error - not sure if a correction is in the making and has been done. This would be awfully late, for the absolutely latest day to submit a correct form would have been (around) November 15.
Here is my copy of the 2015 Form 990:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/48905765/permanent/2015 AE911Truth Federal Tax Return 990.pdf
The problem is that Richard Gage, nor any other board member, received no compensation according to the statements in Part VII / page 7 (page 8 of the PDF) - $0, and the check box "neither organization nor any related organization compensated any current officer, director, or trustee". However, Part IX/page 10 (11) lists "5 Compensation of current officers, directors, trustees, and key employees" as $85,000.
This amount is what Gage paid himself in several of recent years, so I assume it''s what he paid himself this year, too.
Also, im Part I, line 12, they list "Total revenue" as $696,542, after $606,571 in 2014.
However, in Schedula A Part II (page 15 of the PDF), they list 2015 Total support as 844,231+833+2,336 = $847,400 - a discrepancy of ~$150,000!? The 2014 value on the other hand does add up - 605,470+1,101 = $606,571.
I wonder if this accounting mess earns them trouble with the IRS.
I have a copy that contains at least one gross error - not sure if a correction is in the making and has been done. This would be awfully late, for the absolutely latest day to submit a correct form would have been (around) November 15.
Here is my copy of the 2015 Form 990:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/48905765/permanent/2015 AE911Truth Federal Tax Return 990.pdf
The problem is that Richard Gage, nor any other board member, received no compensation according to the statements in Part VII / page 7 (page 8 of the PDF) - $0, and the check box "neither organization nor any related organization compensated any current officer, director, or trustee". However, Part IX/page 10 (11) lists "5 Compensation of current officers, directors, trustees, and key employees" as $85,000.
This amount is what Gage paid himself in several of recent years, so I assume it''s what he paid himself this year, too.
Also, im Part I, line 12, they list "Total revenue" as $696,542, after $606,571 in 2014.
However, in Schedula A Part II (page 15 of the PDF), they list 2015 Total support as 844,231+833+2,336 = $847,400 - a discrepancy of ~$150,000!? The 2014 value on the other hand does add up - 605,470+1,101 = $606,571.
I wonder if this accounting mess earns them trouble with the IRS.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
This can be filed in the for what it's worth catagory.
Some will remember that AE911 was reported by California charity registration as "delinquent" in their filings.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11672133#post11672133
This status is still in effect as of 1/30/17. It's due to a filing error they have not corrected from 2013. They did not file a 2012 form 990 with their 2013 RRF application.
This is a letter outlining the problem with a 30 day demand for compliance dated 1/30/17.
http://rct.doj.ca.gov/Verification/...CT0161740162.pdf&document_id=09027b8f802aa708
This is simply sloppy accounting practice.
Some will remember that AE911 was reported by California charity registration as "delinquent" in their filings.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11672133#post11672133
This status is still in effect as of 1/30/17. It's due to a filing error they have not corrected from 2013. They did not file a 2012 form 990 with their 2013 RRF application.
This is a letter outlining the problem with a 30 day demand for compliance dated 1/30/17.
http://rct.doj.ca.gov/Verification/...CT0161740162.pdf&document_id=09027b8f802aa708
This is simply sloppy accounting practice.
Last edited:
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
For years now, I have been blogging about AE911T's petition, and how poorly it has performed in the almost 10 years it's been around.
And now, they put on Facebook a post showing how great 2800+ signatures are.
Huh?
Ah!
We are being mislead
This tells me that the number of people with an engineering degree, aged 25-64, and working full-time, year round is 2.8 million. This excludes all those older than 64 and not working full time, year round, and it doesn't include the architects.
AE, you got your base wrong. If you include all the older and non-working engineers, you'll approach 4 million.
The 2800+ include non-US AEs! The US-only AEs are only near 2,200; engineers number only in the vicinity of 1,500. This is well under 0.05% of the degreed engineers in the USA.
AE911Lies - bringing you woo and disinfo since 2006.
And now, they put on Facebook a post showing how great 2800+ signatures are.
Huh?
Ah!
We are being mislead
No link provided, and I cannot find a recent raw statistic, but this cannot be accurate. I found this - "Pathway after a Bachelor's degree in engineering".AE911T said:
This tells me that the number of people with an engineering degree, aged 25-64, and working full-time, year round is 2.8 million. This excludes all those older than 64 and not working full time, year round, and it doesn't include the architects.
AE, you got your base wrong. If you include all the older and non-working engineers, you'll approach 4 million.
Misleading!AE911T said:
The 2800+ include non-US AEs! The US-only AEs are only near 2,200; engineers number only in the vicinity of 1,500. This is well under 0.05% of the degreed engineers in the USA.
Doubtful. Laughable.AE911T said:
What? Gage is claiming he never exposed any architect or engineer beyond those who signed?? How patently dishonest is that?!AE911T said:
AE911Lies - bringing you woo and disinfo since 2006.
Gage and AE are a marketing operation the purpose of which seems to be to keep them "in business"... but getting donations from naive people who think AE has discovered something and is trying to get officialdom to accept their fiction.
People who sign their petition have NOT studied the events in detail any more than the average person who was informed by the "media" as it happened and in the days, weeks and months immediately after. Probably none of their signers have read any of the official reports... But it's more likely that they viewed 911 truth videos etc on the www.
The evidence does not suggest anything different from the official narrative and there is no reason to believe that evidence has been withheld or tampered with to cover up an inside job.
These disgruntled narcissists will not go away as long as they can make a buck, and feel like a big fish in a small pond. Nothing will come of their marketing... and they have nothing to contribute related to engineering or science.
This has become very boring.
People who sign their petition have NOT studied the events in detail any more than the average person who was informed by the "media" as it happened and in the days, weeks and months immediately after. Probably none of their signers have read any of the official reports... But it's more likely that they viewed 911 truth videos etc on the www.
The evidence does not suggest anything different from the official narrative and there is no reason to believe that evidence has been withheld or tampered with to cover up an inside job.
These disgruntled narcissists will not go away as long as they can make a buck, and feel like a big fish in a small pond. Nothing will come of their marketing... and they have nothing to contribute related to engineering or science.
This has become very boring.
benthamitemetric
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2015
- Messages
- 572
Indeed. Also worth repeatedly pointing out, however, that there is not a single fire science or tall building expert who is signatory to the AE911Truth petition. Not one. Of those with the expertise to analyze and opine upon collapse events in the most detail, Tony and his AE911Truther troupe have managed to persuade exactly zero people re the need for a new investigation (let alone that such need stems from some affirmative evidence of controlled demolition of any of the WTC buildings). And AE911Truth could have hired ARUP or some other group professional forensic experts to conduct their own investigation, but instead they hired a bridge expert who never lead a forensic investigation in his life. Unsurprisingly, this expert, who was obviously not chosen because he was best qualified in any of the relevant areas (tall buildings, fire science, forensic investigations), managed to come to an incredible conclusion (claiming to have proved a negative) while at the same time admitting his team hasn't even finished the work to reach any conclusion. And now the Plasco chutzpah.
It's all a bad joke at this point, but, as long as these jokers are going to invest time and effort deceiving people for donations, then there needs to be a place where people can find their way back to reality.
Last edited:
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
I am dumping a bit of analysis here which will probably be a boring read and perhaps hard to grasp.
This is mainly for my own records.
The background is the fact that AE911T has focused on architecture conventions in the last two years, where they tried to collect on-paper signatures to add to their Petition. They have variously said that they got more than 100 new signatures here and >100 sigs there - and I have previously reported that those numbers did not appear in the online petition, even after many months.
So I decided to look back how the number of "Licensed Architects" increased compared to all others, and to estimate how many "paper" signatures have been added to the online listing.
In February 2011 (an arbitrary "long ago" starting point), the petition had 1434 signatures. 235 of these, or 16.4%, were "Licensed Architects".
In the almost four following years, that percentage dropped to 14.5% (334 of 2308 on December 01, 2014). What happened there is that, while the number of engineers increased by about 60% and the number of non-US signatories by over 80%, the number of architects increased by only 42%.
It seems that Gage, being an AIA architect, had relatively more success with architects in the earlier years of his endeavour: By 2011, he appeared to have signed more than 0.1% of the AIA and of the licensed architects, but hardly 0.02% of the licensed engineers, for example. It seems natural that he would struggle to keep up those rates.
At the 2015 AIA Convention, always held in spring, they announced they had signed >150 new "members", but half a year later, only 6 new licensed architects appeared online - +1.8%, compared to 1.7% for the entire list. This was a time when they simply did not verify new signatures for 5 straight months.
And so it were that on 01 December 2015, the licensed architects were 14.4% of the total signatories - near an all-time low.
Since then, the licensed architects have increased by 53.8%, while all other signatures increased by only 14.5%. The growth rate of the architects exceeds that of all other categories by a factor of 3.7.
The absolute increase was +185 signatures (from 344 to 529).
It seems obvious that the bulk of these are the paper-signatures collected at conventions since spring 2015.
Had the number of architects increased at the same rate as the other categories, they would have picked up 50 new licensed architects (14.5% of 344).
The difference: +185-50 = 135 signatures, is a good first estimate of the number of paper-signatures from 2 years worth of architecture conventions.
There have been 3 AIA Conventions since 2015, and several other architecture conventions, and at least 3 times they claimes to have signed up >100 people. Sounds like 400-500 signatures - but only a third of that is actually there.
On 11/23/2016, I quoted a news item, saying that they had won 100+ supporters for their 2017 AIA resolution proposal. I have checked the names that appeared on the resolution pamphlet they mailed in December:
http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/AIA-Mailer--Reply-Card.pdf
They list 173 AIA members by name, but only 40% of these appear on the online Petition today.
This is mainly for my own records.
The background is the fact that AE911T has focused on architecture conventions in the last two years, where they tried to collect on-paper signatures to add to their Petition. They have variously said that they got more than 100 new signatures here and >100 sigs there - and I have previously reported that those numbers did not appear in the online petition, even after many months.
So I decided to look back how the number of "Licensed Architects" increased compared to all others, and to estimate how many "paper" signatures have been added to the online listing.
In February 2011 (an arbitrary "long ago" starting point), the petition had 1434 signatures. 235 of these, or 16.4%, were "Licensed Architects".
In the almost four following years, that percentage dropped to 14.5% (334 of 2308 on December 01, 2014). What happened there is that, while the number of engineers increased by about 60% and the number of non-US signatories by over 80%, the number of architects increased by only 42%.
It seems that Gage, being an AIA architect, had relatively more success with architects in the earlier years of his endeavour: By 2011, he appeared to have signed more than 0.1% of the AIA and of the licensed architects, but hardly 0.02% of the licensed engineers, for example. It seems natural that he would struggle to keep up those rates.
At the 2015 AIA Convention, always held in spring, they announced they had signed >150 new "members", but half a year later, only 6 new licensed architects appeared online - +1.8%, compared to 1.7% for the entire list. This was a time when they simply did not verify new signatures for 5 straight months.
And so it were that on 01 December 2015, the licensed architects were 14.4% of the total signatories - near an all-time low.
Since then, the licensed architects have increased by 53.8%, while all other signatures increased by only 14.5%. The growth rate of the architects exceeds that of all other categories by a factor of 3.7.
The absolute increase was +185 signatures (from 344 to 529).
It seems obvious that the bulk of these are the paper-signatures collected at conventions since spring 2015.
Had the number of architects increased at the same rate as the other categories, they would have picked up 50 new licensed architects (14.5% of 344).
The difference: +185-50 = 135 signatures, is a good first estimate of the number of paper-signatures from 2 years worth of architecture conventions.
There have been 3 AIA Conventions since 2015, and several other architecture conventions, and at least 3 times they claimes to have signed up >100 people. Sounds like 400-500 signatures - but only a third of that is actually there.
On 11/23/2016, I quoted a news item, saying that they had won 100+ supporters for their 2017 AIA resolution proposal. I have checked the names that appeared on the resolution pamphlet they mailed in December:
http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/AIA-Mailer--Reply-Card.pdf
They list 173 AIA members by name, but only 40% of these appear on the online Petition today.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
If the above is tl;dr for you, here is a summary:
Until 12/2015, "licensed architects" were only about 15% of the AE Petition signers.
Since then (the last 1.5 years), the absolute number of "licensed architects" increased by 54%, while all other signatories increased by only 14.5%.
From this, we can estimate that they added roughly 135 "licensed architects" from paper signatures they collected at various architecture convention.
This number, 135, is far short of the several hundred signatures AE911Truth claimed they got at those several conventions.
In addition, they coaxed 173 AIA members towards supporting their 2017 AIA resolution proposal, but only 40% of those have to-date appeared on the online Petition.
Last edited:
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
10 Years AE911T Online Petition
My first numbers for the online petition, from the Wayback machine, date back to May 2007. The first real entry in my master spreadsheet is:
Date|A&E|Others
05/30/2007|83|38
Initially, they had more architects & engineers than other supporters; I suppose they started off with entering some signatures they had got before anything was online.
As of June 01, 2017, those numbers had grown to:
Date|A&E|Others
06/01/2017|2,874|21,697
These absolute numbers grew like this:
Both categories had their fastest growth in 2009/2010. Since then, the "other supporters" slowed steadily from year to year. The peak was at 12.7 signatures/day. This last year had a record low of 1.8 other supporters/day.
The A&E however rebounded after a record low in 2014/15, and have of late been back to 2010/11 levels. As I explained in my previous posts, much of this increase comes from targeting architects at conventions with paper forms. More than a quarter (and quite possibly half) of the new A%E in the past two years came that way.
I have also been tracking the number of page hits their homepage ae911truth.org has received since that time:
The number of daily page hits has mostly oszillated near the 4000 to 6000/day range since late 2010, with marked peaks at the September anniversaries of 9/11 in most years.
This seems to show stalling interest by the public despite alleged increase in public awareness and support.
Their Facebook page, facebook.com/ae911truth, started somewhat later. For some reason that I can't remember, my first line bears the date 02/28/2009 with 1 "Like". The first documented number of "Likes" that I have was 88,725 on 08/23/2012.
I started monitoring this in earnest in late 2014. Here are my graphs:
I have several times commented on the implausibility that the dynamics would fluctuate so much. Particularly: Between April and October 2016 (7 months), each month saw more than 220, and up to 550, Likes/day. Since then (7 months), it was under 110 Likes/day every month - and negative (-10) in April, when apparently Facebook deleted more than 2000 Likes or accounts.
Here the same, cumulated on years:
2016 had 300 Likes/Day on average, 2017 so far only 1/6 of that.
I am totally convinced that AE911T bought the vast majority of their 110,000 Likes in 2016. I guess that Facebook tipped them off to stop doing that, or else the account might get suspended.
My first numbers for the online petition, from the Wayback machine, date back to May 2007. The first real entry in my master spreadsheet is:
05/30/2007|83|38
Initially, they had more architects & engineers than other supporters; I suppose they started off with entering some signatures they had got before anything was online.
As of June 01, 2017, those numbers had grown to:
06/01/2017|2,874|21,697
These absolute numbers grew like this:
Both categories had their fastest growth in 2009/2010. Since then, the "other supporters" slowed steadily from year to year. The peak was at 12.7 signatures/day. This last year had a record low of 1.8 other supporters/day.
The A&E however rebounded after a record low in 2014/15, and have of late been back to 2010/11 levels. As I explained in my previous posts, much of this increase comes from targeting architects at conventions with paper forms. More than a quarter (and quite possibly half) of the new A%E in the past two years came that way.
I have also been tracking the number of page hits their homepage ae911truth.org has received since that time:
The number of daily page hits has mostly oszillated near the 4000 to 6000/day range since late 2010, with marked peaks at the September anniversaries of 9/11 in most years.
This seems to show stalling interest by the public despite alleged increase in public awareness and support.
Their Facebook page, facebook.com/ae911truth, started somewhat later. For some reason that I can't remember, my first line bears the date 02/28/2009 with 1 "Like". The first documented number of "Likes" that I have was 88,725 on 08/23/2012.
I started monitoring this in earnest in late 2014. Here are my graphs:
I have several times commented on the implausibility that the dynamics would fluctuate so much. Particularly: Between April and October 2016 (7 months), each month saw more than 220, and up to 550, Likes/day. Since then (7 months), it was under 110 Likes/day every month - and negative (-10) in April, when apparently Facebook deleted more than 2000 Likes or accounts.
Here the same, cumulated on years:
2016 had 300 Likes/Day on average, 2017 so far only 1/6 of that.
I am totally convinced that AE911T bought the vast majority of their 110,000 Likes in 2016. I guess that Facebook tipped them off to stop doing that, or else the account might get suspended.
NoahFence
Banned
AE911's mission is to fleece idiots away from their money.
Why are you a fan of that?
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Richard Gage lives in Idaho now.
On AE911Truth's internet resources, I came across a document the other day, dated June 2016, that shows a house and plot labeled "Richard Gage", with the following address:
71 Garden Pond Ln
Sagle, ID 83860
He used to live in Walnut Creek, CA, and is currently still listed as a resident of Lafayette, CA on the AE911T petition.
So I Googled his name and "Idaho" and found the following information:
https://www.beenverified.com/people/richard-t-gage-44524524/
https://www.mylife.com/rich-gage/rich_gage
https://www.facebook.com/RichardGageAIA
They have a little MeetUp group in the Sagle/Sandpoint area:
https://www.meetup.com/de-DE/Sandpoint911Truth/
Interesting topics - every 4th friday of the month is "Rabbit Hole Friday", and on this Tuesday, Richard invites everyone to his home who is "interested in setting up emergency radio communications for our larger Sandpoint/Sagle community as well as here in our Hidden Valley Ranch neighborhood". The instructor will be Ken Pedevilla of the North Idaho Oath Keepers. Gage seems to really have gone down the rabbit hole there in the Idaho panhandle!
(Note: All this information is publicly available on the world wide web)
On AE911Truth's internet resources, I came across a document the other day, dated June 2016, that shows a house and plot labeled "Richard Gage", with the following address:
71 Garden Pond Ln
Sagle, ID 83860
He used to live in Walnut Creek, CA, and is currently still listed as a resident of Lafayette, CA on the AE911T petition.
So I Googled his name and "Idaho" and found the following information:
https://www.beenverified.com/people/richard-t-gage-44524524/
https://www.mylife.com/rich-gage/rich_gage
https://www.facebook.com/RichardGageAIA
- Richard Thomas Gage
- born January 20, 1955 (62 years old)
- Divorced
- In a relationship with Gail Griffen, from Sandpoint, ID (now Sagle)
- Current address: 71 Garden Pond Ln, Sagle, Idaho 83860
- Former addresses: 1862 Cannon Dr, Walnut Creek, CA, 94597 | 3527 Mt Diablo Blvd # 370, Lafayette, CA, 94549 | H* ** # ****, Livingston, MT, 59047
- old Phone: +1 925-9399002 (that's Walnut Creek, CA, not Idaho)
- Email: rtgage@pacbell.net
- Education: Del Valle High School, Walnut Creek, CA (Class of 1973) | University of Southern California (1982-86)
- Used to work as Project Manager at Akol & yoshii architects
They have a little MeetUp group in the Sagle/Sandpoint area:
https://www.meetup.com/de-DE/Sandpoint911Truth/
Interesting topics - every 4th friday of the month is "Rabbit Hole Friday", and on this Tuesday, Richard invites everyone to his home who is "interested in setting up emergency radio communications for our larger Sandpoint/Sagle community as well as here in our Hidden Valley Ranch neighborhood". The instructor will be Ken Pedevilla of the North Idaho Oath Keepers. Gage seems to really have gone down the rabbit hole there in the Idaho panhandle!
(Note: All this information is publicly available on the world wide web)
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I wonder if he's helping with the bills...................