The Matter of Richard A. Grove

Note: My links aren’t working today so I’m pasting in the urls to hyperlinks. (You can use your courser to find the links; they are there in the relevant text, just invisible.). I’ll also add recent photos to break the text-monotony.

A couple posts ago, Kimberlie (not Mellyrn) commented that she trusted Richard Grove of Tragedyandhope.com as a source of information. Okay. My problem here isn’t just that that Grove is almost certainly a mole and should therefore be carefully viewed as such, but it’s his meme of ‘intellectual self defense’ and ‘critical thinking’… given what you will read and view below, Grove brings hypocrisy to its highest, most disgusting level.

A while back I did a post titled ‘My List So Far’ (link: http://blog.banditobooks.com/my-list-so-far/) The matter of Richard A. Grove was pretty far down. (Run your courser over the words ‘My List So Far’ and you’ll understand the problem I’m having, and how to solve it. I’ll work on fixing this.)

I did make the mistake of ‘burying the lead,’ by not having my email exchange with Grove/Arbecheski up front. Their utter gall and hypocrisy still has me shaking my head (my teeth-grinding has abated). Cutting to the chase, you can scroll down to the list of Corbett-URLs in the first Grove email.

Anyway, with some minor futzing, here’s the whole mess (and I apologize in advance to those who have no interest in Grove or Tragedyandhope.com):

21) ‘Grove’

Refers to Richard Andrew Grove, about whom I’ve had recurring thoughts since I spent a week with him and (his now wife) Lisa Arbecheski in Connecticut just as I hit the road in the summer of 2014. I had corresponded with them since coming across their Tragedyandhope.com website, which I found to be a valuable asset in figuring out HTWRW. One reason I was so interested in Grove is his history as a ‘9/11 Whistle Blower.’ I was so impressed by Grove’s story that not only did I go out of my way to meet him, but contributed to his ‘truth’ efforts over $1,000 in cash and equipment.

I was suckered again. You want to really experience the extent to which I was suckered, go back to my first post of this blog (link is in bold), in July of 2014. I did a search for Rich’s name on this blog and found my condition was even worse than I remembered. I couldn’t seem to keep my trap shut about how great Rich is (plus his now-wife Lisa).

There is something very wrong with Richard Grove, although he’s quite good at what he does.

To those who are big fans of Tragedyandhope.com I have two things to say: I understand why you’re angry right now, and please bear with me.

First, as it turns out, Grove is not a ‘9/11 whistleblower.’ In response, Grove would no doubt say that he never claimed to be one, which may be true, but he’s also never corrected anyone who labels him thusly (and there are dozens). James Corbett, for instance. Grove is near the top of Corbett’s list (link) of 9/11 whistleblowers. (https://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20100305_911_whistleblowers.htm)Oh, but it also says ‘Wall Street whistleblower,’ which – they both would say – gets them off the lying hook. I say, Nahhhh.

Grove has a harrowing 9/11 story (link: https://archive.org/details/911_Whistleblower_Richard_Andrew_Grove__May2806) (which I’ve read, heard on podcasts and videos, and which he told to me over dinner at his house). It describes how he survived 9/11 only because he got caught in traffic on his way to a meeting on the 96^th floor of WTC 1, and watched from his Porsche heading downtown as his colleagues died, the first explosion coming from on or near their floor. The meeting he was to attend was to ‘blow the whistle’ on financial shenanigans by the corporate giant he was working for. Thing is, nothing whatever came of his attempted whistleblowing, although he claims to still possess the documents that prove his ‘case,’ and which he was bringing to the ‘meeting’ (the scare quotes mean I’m quite sure the whole story is bullshit).

Addendum: For one thing – and it’s a biggie — of the five ‘colleagues’ supposedly killed that day, as of 2013 only one appeared on the Social Security Death Index, which lists anyone with a SS number who has died. I also looked into the names and found that none had an Internet footprint of any kind prior to 9/11. In my view, some or all of them are fictitious. Many of the ‘casualties of 9/11’ — especially at the WTC — are of this ilk. Completely fabricated. The real WTC death toll was probably a few hundred.

Why has he never made these documents public? This question becomes more urgent when taken in context: Grove strongly hints that he was lured to the WTC on 9/11 so he – along with his colleagues – would be killed, presumably for the information he possessed – the documents he’s never made public.

He also refuses to name the ‘executive’ who apparently saw to it that he would be in the WTC when it was destroyed, which means the exec had foreknowledge of the attacks.

Does this sound like a whistleblower? He sure sounds like one in this documentary, made by a buddy of his. (link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHOujO-Qnlw)

This is how it works: Grove has a harrowing 9/11 story to tell and in fact has been in court on a whistleblowing case. So the ‘9/11 Whistleblower’ label sounds sort of right, if you don’t think about it.

No, his ‘official whistleblowing’ comes later, in a completely separate incident, having nothing to do with 9/11. (In spite of his harrowing, near death experience on 9/11, and his critical thinking skills, Grove went right back to corporate America for work, as if he hadn’t learned anything from 9/11. I guess he’s slow on the uptake…. Does R Grove seem like he’s slow on the uptake? Watch how he out-blabs me in this interview at his studio (link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5q0hk8gBf-0)

Here’s the story, the second one: In 2003, Richard Grove became a ‘Wall Street whistleblower,’ exposing still another major financial conspiracy, one that could cause – in his words – ‘a financial collapse.’ Wow, lots of whistles. The problem is that someone looked into Grove’s claims, which did go to court, as he claims in the documentary film (made by a buddy) 20/20 Hindsight; Censorship on the Frontline.

Quoting extensively from the court records, the exposé shows that virtually nothing Grove claims about his ‘whistleblowing’ is true, and the above film is pure crapola. (Here’s the URL: https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2015/07/18/spin-job-the-odd-case-of-richard-andrew-grove/)

Addendum: The above link is all you really need to understand who Grove is. 

I might also add that Grove claims that his behavior in the following court case events was ‘extremely naïve,’ re what to expect from corporate executives. Given his 9/11 story – how one exec tried to murder him (and did murder his ‘colleagues’) how could this be?  Really. Think about this, especially if you’re a big fan of his. Given what (he says) happened to him on 9/11, how he be shocked when the Wall Street scumbags (in 2003) involved behaved badly?

I was tempted to paste a slew of passages here, but there was too much of an embarrassment of riches, so to speak. I didn’t know whether to quote Grove’s lies or the judge’s exposure of them. And besides, the only people who’d be interested in this stuff will be Grove fans – and these folks will want to read all of the above exposé. (Don’t give me shit until you’ve done so.)

A compromise. Two quotes from the judge, summing up what I learned about the actual ‘case’ of Grove’s whistleblowing:

‘There is, however, no evidence that Grove ever raised concerns with Legato or EMC management about the potential abuse of the product. That is, he never blew the whistle on this situation. Therefore, he did not engage in any protected activity in connection with this issue.”’ (page 25) [emphasis added]

So no whistleblowing, except in the story Grove tells, which is rife with his selfless motives of ‘doing the right thing,’ even adding, ‘Mother would be proud of me.’ (These quotes are from the interview linked above. (link) You can go to 1:51:30. Or listen to the whole thing, to understand how I was suckered by this very smart, very eloquent, very dishonest ‘truther.’)

His real motive was reflected here, in the judges words:

…it is clear from context that the complaints that Grove raised with Legato officials concerned his compensation rather than GAAP or any other perceived violations of securities laws.

Yeah, it was about money, not ‘doing the right thing.’ What the fuck else is new?

The above actually should not have come as a surprise to me, given a ‘tell’ that Grove exhibited within minutes of my arrival at his house in Connecticut. We went to his office/studio and sat down, whereupon I put a $100 bill on the table, saying words to the effect of ‘Keep up the good work.’ This was the 4^th or 5^th time I’d contributed, usually $100, via Paypal.

Grove quickly, reflexively (it appeared to me), snatched the bill from the table and stuffed it into his front jeans pocket. I don’t remember him thanking me; maybe he did, or maybe Lisa Arbecheski did; she was there too. I was in a state of minor shock at the subtext of his quick move — which shock I immediately repressed (but did not forget). After all, this was the guy who’d given up a promising Wall Street career to tell us all the truth, about 9/11, and especially, about critical thinking and ‘intellectual self defense.’ I didn’t want to think about the way he’d grabbed the money — as if instinctively preventing me from taking it back.  

But back to Grove’s catastrophic loss in his court case (link: https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2015/07/18/spin-job-the-odd-case-of-richard-andrew-grove/): ‘Sure,’ you might say, as Grove himself surely would, ‘he was screwed by the ‘system.’ The easiest way to debunk this one is to quote Grove himself, when asked why he didn’t appeal the judge’s total rejection of his complaint:

(from the 20/20 Hindsight film)… ‘they’re not going to decide against a multi-billion dollar corporation, whose founder is the ambassador of Ireland to Ireland for president Bush at that time. Right? Or, I believe he might have stepped down at that time as an ambassador at that point, but he was still Bush buddies, and Bush was still in office, so… ‘(raises hands in air in defeat).” (part 6 – 5:46 – 6:11)

Notice that Grove says nothing about the evidence, nor does he accuse the judge of lying, which would have to be the case if Grove was a true ‘whistleblower.’ Instead, he inserts a red herring about some vague conflict of interest involving George Bush. He doesn’t even use money as an excuse (he represented himself, so there were no legal fees).

The judge’s written decision is so adamant (that Grove is in effect a huckster) that by not appealing or at the very least by not being outraged, Grove gives the game away. He gave it a shot – suing for big bucks for wrongful termination — and blew it.

But let me get to the real point of how I know there is something… wrong… with Richard Grove. Those of you who have not read my ‘Open Letter to James Corbett’ (link: http://blog.banditobooks.com/an-open-letter-to-james-corbett/) will not ‘get’ my outrage. When I forwarded Grove my Letter a couple years ago, the response I got was this:

Allan,

I just want to point out, that James Corbett has covered both Sandy Hook and the Bean Town false flag…

https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-656-james-corbett-on-the-boston-bombing-and-conspiracy-theories/

https://www.corbettreport.com/sibel-edmonds-on-the-boston-bombing-the-us-roots-of-chechen-terrorism/

https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-655-sibel-edmonds-on-the-boston-bombing/

https://www.corbettreport.com/boston-bombings-financial-pirates-quake-swarms/

https://www.corbettreport.com/the-fbi-fosters-funds-and-equips-american-terrorists/

(that link above is just a good example of his work on false flags)
https://www.corbettreport.com/the-sandy-hook-controversy-james-tracy-on-grtv/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIoiYLp6R8Y

https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-578-dr-james-tracy-on-the-sandy-hook-controversy/

Also, on another subject…

https://www.corbettreport.com/tag/israel/

https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-824-eva-bartlett-documents-the-struggle-of-the-palestinians/

https://www.corbettreport.com/tag/palestine/

https://www.corbettreport.com/usrael-vs-palestine-a-two-faced-rejection-of-a-two-state-solution-preview/

https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-967-new-world-next-week-with-james-evan-pilato/

Hope that helps clear things up further. [smiley face]

This is a guy who goes on and on about logical fallacies and critical thinking and intellectual self defense? Talk about red herrings! (None of the links is remotely relevant to the issue at hand; nothing even about 9/11, let alone the Pentagon) So I emailed this:

…You do all these podcasts on critical thinking and truth then claim to not understand my essays?…

If he doesn’t have any idea what hit the Pentagon then why did his video repeat TWENTY THREE times (including Mineta) that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon?

When I pointed this out, I got this:

I understood your post.  You took James out of context, and now even with his clarifying what he believes about the Pentagon and 9/11, you choose to ignore his own statement [his ‘statement’ was that he ‘doesn’t know what hit the Pentagon’] and continue to misinterpret his words at some random event. [The ‘random event’ was his first appearance at a major ‘9/11 Truth’ symposium — in Kuala Lumpur. Meaning he carefully crafted his speech]

And:

Frankly, it makes me wonder about your critical thinking skills… perhaps you should take a break from this and re-visit with a clear hear and new perspective… not one that is angry and (seemingly) vindictive. [emphasis in the original]

And:

… so sell crazy someplace else cause i’m all stocked up here.

‘Crazy,’ huh? Okay. This is what’s known as ‘gaslighting’: trying to make someone doubt his sanity with deceit. About as low as you can go. But I merely repeated: 

Please try again. Critical thinking. What does it MEAN that a truther repeats a monumental lie [Fl 77 hit the Pentagon] over and over for a half hour at a ‘truther’ conference. help me out here.

I reminded him of my contributions, which total over $1,000. So I get:

If you would like, I will refund your past contributions… just let me know what paypal account to send it to. [ditto]

I replied Yes, I want my money and my camera back, and gave the address and Paypal account. I never heard a word after that, no money, no camera. (When I gave him the Gopro camera I warned him that I’d need it back if something happened to the other two I have. This is in the interview we did.)

This of course further demonstrates a lack of character (money is more important than one’s word), but given the way he swiped up my $100 and stuffed it down his pants, I’m not surprised.

It gets worse: When I recently went to tragedyandhope.com to download something, I found I was banned from the site. Wait. My contributions were way more than what I needed for a lifetime membership to the ‘community.’ Why would I be banned? This is why: Grove didn’t want me posting anything embarrassing on the T&H forum; something like what I’ve written here. (Jay Dyer and Dr. Joseph Farrell have done the same thing, banning me from their sites. But at least they refunded my money. Funny thing about Dyer: He refunded my money even though he has no forum for me to embarrass him on. He just didn’t want me reading his stuff! (Jan Irvin and Simon Shack both banned me, too.)

Hey, I must be doing something right.

By the way, I originally emailed the Open Letter to James Corbett (link: http://blog.banditobooks.com/an-open-letter-to-james-corbett/) to Richard Grove, with a cc to Lisa Arbecheski. All the answers came from her, with the assurance that ‘Rich agrees’ (with whatever she says). What does this mean? This: Grove didn’t want to put the utter horseshit in the emails in his name, so he told Arbecheski to answer. Another giveaway of a lack of character and balls, plus disrespect towards his wife.

But what’s behind all this? My Open Letter plus Corbett’s reply means that Corbett is almost certainly a disinformation/limited hangout (LH) shill. That Grove replied as above – defending Corbett even with transparent logical fallacies — means he is one also. Corbett and Grove are thick as thieves on the Internet.

More evidence: Up until about 2013, Jan Irvin and Richard Grove were close associates, then something happened. Now they never mention each other. Before my Open Letter to Jan Irvin, Irvin emailed me that Grove was ‘a thief’ and ‘no good.’ Adding ‘no good’ to ‘a thief’… I wonder what that means? How much worse can someone get?

 And one more, from none other than Simon Shack! (link: https://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=462&start=30) (Yeah, I know, I ‘outed’ Simon as disinfo but, actually, the way he suddenly dropped accusing Grove himself as a disinfo agent… Notice how he had Grove on the ropes re Grove’s supposedly murdered colleagues, then suddenly shut up: He either realized or was told that they’re working for the same side.)

Folks, as I’ve pointed out before, the alt media is absolutely riddled with LH shills and moles, of various ‘depths,’ i.e., targeted at people of different levels of awareness. With the possible exception of the murderous pedophiles they work for, there is nothing lower than this manner of scumfuck.

#

Anyway, that’s my take on the matter of Richard A. Grove. I’ll try to have something more to say soon, if not tomorrow. Maybe I’ll look into the Chinese moon mission, as a couple of you have suggested.

By the way, I’m getting so much robo-spam to ‘moderate’ that I quit reviewing comments that aren’t regarding the current blog post. So if you want to post comments about old posts, make a comment about the current one first and I’ll okay you. 

Allan

Anyone who wants to defend Grove, please begin with the email response to my Open Letter to Corbett, maybe explain how a critical thinking/intellectual self-defense advocate could defend Corbett’s repetition of Fl 77’s striking of the Pentagon based on Corbett’s ignorance of what hit the Pentagon.

 

.