Talk:Keith Henson/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Need info

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)

Added his articles. --Irmgard 11:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Disputed

This article is biased in favor of Keith Henson.--AI 2 July 2005 04:33 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with that-- simply because the accusations made in some of the links weren't mentioned at all in the article. I don't claim to know anything about the topic, but I think all points of view ought to be mentioned. ekedolphin July 4, 2005 05:41 (UTC)

Well, that presumes that the accusations made in all of the links are all credible or widely-represented enough to justify repeating them here, which is by the nature of the Internet unlikely to be true. =) I mean, someone added an external link to Melissa Joan Hart to an article that claimed that Joss Whedon based the character of Buffy the Vampire Slayer on Hart, because he thought she was the "Chosen One" who would stop the bullying in the Sayville, New York public schools system. Did that mean the article was incomplete for not including that? No, it meant that the external links needed trimming. =) -- Antaeus Feldspar 4 July 2005 15:40 (UTC)

Is what unlikely to be true? --AI 5 July 2005 09:48 (UTC)

One thing is certain: the introduction mentions all kinds of things about Keith but the body of the article only focuses on Keith vs. Scientology. (POV) --AI 01:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Evidence

Feel free to investigate the following information and relate it into the article.--AI 5 July 2005 09:57 (UTC)

Keith Henson the bomb expert

"We look on the Internet, and he's [Keith Henson] a self-proclaimed bomb expert." -- Toronto Police Fugitive Squad Detective Phil Glavin.
--AI 5 July 2005 09:41 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate or useful source. A useful source would be to find the text on the Internet where Keith Henson proclaims that he is a bomb expert (if such a thing does exist) and cite that in the context of "self-proclaimed bomb expert". A police statement is said once and never edited or retracted. The reason that reputable sources are emphasized in Verifiability is due to their reviewed and edited nature. The assumption is that they've spent time trying to verify and correct what it is they're writing. ChrisLawson 18:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This a quote about Keith Henson from the author Ed Regis in his book "Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition; Science Slightly Over The Edge":

"But he knew how to do it, of course, and so he took a two-hundred-pound lard can and put three pieces of primacord inside, looping them around so they completely covered the bottom. Then he poured the ammonium nitrate into the can, inserted sticks of dynamite all around the perimeter, and ran the primacord fuse up to a blasting cap on top of it all. The cap would fire the primacord, which in turn would set off the dynamite, which would crush the mass of ammonium nitrate until the necessary pressure was reached - a true implosion device, just like the atom bomb." -- "Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition; Science Slightly Over The Edge" by Ed Regis, p.50.

--AI 5 July 2005 09:45 (UTC)

WHY are contributors censoring reference to Keith's bomb expertise in their reverts? --AI 01:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It is correct to censor such a general statement. Bomb expert can, especially today, not be put a standalone item to be NPOV, it needs to be qualified. If you say "X is a bomb expert and has voiced strong convictions against the pope" this sounds as if X plans to blow the pope up. If the stuff is put in the correct context "X works as a specialist in an army laboratory developing methods for defusing bombs and is as an elder of the Southern Baptist church strongly opposed to the papal primacy." it is made clear that his bomb expertise and his religious convictions have nothing to do with each other and no one is suspecting X of criminal intentions against the pope.

To say "According to Toronto Police, there exists information in the internet that Henson is a self proclaimed bomb expert." is also no real qualification (has even a touch of Weasel) because such information should be accessible and then be directly used in an encyclopedia, rather than quoting the very vague statement of the police officer (primary sources, where possible).

"Author Ed Regis describes how Henson demonstrated building a bomb.." That's correct, as far as it goes and gives the primary source, but to be NPOV, it should also be said in which context Henson made this demonstration and maybe also why Henson is mentioned in the book - it's a very big difference, if such expertise is demonstrated for fun by a student of physics to his fellow students in the laboratory or by an instructor in an Al Qaida camp. Put in context, I'm sure no one will censor the information. --Irmgard 09:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, I see your point. I might just leave the wording up to others. --AI 12:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I tossed the line "Henson would sometimes dispose of the leftovers--later leading to rediculous claims." [1] because of the spelling, and because it's a forward reference to something that's never resolved, much less explained. Just confusing. -Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.40.145 (talk • contribs) 18:55, October 28, 2005 (UTC)

Keith Henson convicted of copyright violation

"Upon the decision of the court entered on April 15, 1997 granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and upon the unanimous verdict of the jury published on May 12, 1998, final judgment is hereby entered in favor of plaintiff Religious Technology Center and against defendant H. Keith Henson that said defendant willfully infringed plaintiff's copyrighted work known as NOTs 34, and that said defendant shall pay to plaintiff the sum $75,000 in statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504 (c). Defendant is also permanently enjoined from engaging in infringing activities as set forth in the court's permanent injunction dated June 16, 1997 and amended order on ex parte motion for emergency relief dated April 27, 1998." - United States District Judge Ronald M. Whyte. --AI 5 July 2005 09:47 (UTC)

Keith Henson in contempt of court

"On June 22, 1999 this court issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law finding defendant in civil contempt and awarding $7,500 in attorney's fees. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that H. Keith Henson is adjudged in civil contempt and shall pay plaintiff Religious Technology Center the sum of $7,500 towards its attorney's fees incurred." -- United States District Judge Ronald M. Whyte, June 22, 1999 --AI 5 July 2005 09:57 (UTC)

The repudiated accusation that Keith Henson molested his children

"$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)

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)

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)

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.[2] 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)

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)

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)

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)

Lets take a closer scrutiny of your actions. You revert my changes[3] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)" Where is your reference for this claim? Once again, prove it. --Modemac 20:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

Keith Henson the fugitive from US Justice

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)

Canada: Keith Henson excluded from refugee status

"Under this definition [C-36, the Anti-terrorism Act I, Clause E] ...Henson's actions can be seen to be for a religious or ideological purpose. The actions could also be seen to be intentionally committed for the purpose of intimidating a segment of the public - the Church of Scientology. The threat to blow up the Church of Scientology and to kill the organization may be seen as a serious threat to cause death, bodily harm, and a risk to health or safety, property damage and/or a serious interference with an essential service so as to constitute terrorist activity." -- Counsel for the Department of Justice, Canada, Immigration Law Section. --AI 5 July 2005 10:05 (UTC)

"...there is extensive information which shows that Mr. Henson had engaged in many activities which would comprise other offences under the Criminal Code of Canada, namely:

81(1) using explosives;

82(1) possession of explosives without lawful excuse

176(1) obstructing or violence to clergyman

176(2) disturbing religious worship or certain meetings

181 spreading false news

264(1) criminal harassment

264.1(1)(a) utter death threats

265(1)(b) attempts/ threatens assault

318(1) advocating genocide

346(1) extortion

"The Minister's position is that the claimant's persistence, his single-mindedness exhibited against a particular group, the failure to cease harmful actions despite legal prohibitions, the impact statements of the members of the group, when viewed together, show that the claimant committed a serious, non-political crime prior to entering Canada. ... "The Minister's position is that, the specific nature of Mr. Henson's actions are such that they could be regarded as offences under Canadian criminal law, and their cumulative effect sufficiently egregious to warrant exclusion under F(b) of Article 1 of the Convention."

-- Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, March 20, 2002

--AI 5 July 2005 10:15 (UTC)

User:Modemac tried to censor the above information 5 July 2005, 05:02. [4] --AI 5 July 2005 15:49 (UTC)

---

The Canadian Minister of Immigration routinely opposes refugee claims. A letter written by a lawyer for the Ministry sought to "exclude" Henson from consideration as a refugee claimant.

The letter made a number of unsupported allegations. The application to exclude Henson's claim was denied by the immigration adjudicator, and Henson's claim was allowed to go forward.

Including such a letter in Wikipedia without explanation is typical of the Scientology practice of "Acceptable Truth". It is true that the letter was written on behalf of the Minister of Immigration. It is true that the letter alleges that Henson "advocates genocide".

But it is also true that the letter was dismissed by the official it was addressed to, because the allegations are without substance. In accordance with the Doctrine of Acceptable Truth, these pertinent facts were omitted. 69.156.159.38 (talk · contribs)

Please include YOUR letter proving the immigration adjudicator denied the Canadian Minister of Immigration's request for exclusion. You accuse me of not providing something you also do not provide. At least I provided SOMETHING. Furthermore this article is about Keith Henson, his dispute with Scientology is his problem, not Scientology's. Of course you are free to disagree with me but don't expect me to simply agree with any arguments from Keith Henson or his supporting "cabal." --AI 00:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The quoted letter is an application to exclude Henson's claim. Henson's claim was not excluded. The claim's progress has been reported in Canadaian media. I will include an online reference when I can one. When you quoted the letter, you ommitted the pertinent facts that the Canadian Immigration Minister routinely opposes refugee claims (indeed, the Immigration Minister is the opposing party in the refugee process).

Your section title is also incorrect. Henson's claim was NOT excluded.

If you post incomplete, inaccurate, deliberately misleading data and you get called on it, that is not my problem. 69.156.159.38 (talk · contribs)

Innacurate or incomplate maybe, I am not perfect and I am not deliberately misleading. Thanks for your input. --AI 12:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of alleged crimes

Given (the founder of Scientology) Hubbard's claim that "we do not find critics of Scientology who do not have criminal pasts" [5] and his suggestion that critics "may be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed." [6] I wouldn't be surprised if some or all of the above was completely made up. 33° 5 July 2005 13:12 (UTC)

That is a false document and not official church policy. If you insist on referring to Gerry Armstrong's website as a reference, I will take documentation his criminal past as a forger into Gerry Armstrong. This is not a threat, but necessary to discredit the document you are presenting which is coming from Gerry Armstrong and his associates. BTW Gerry is also a fugitive from U.S. justice.--AI 5 July 2005 15:57 (UTC)

Oh of course, because all critics of Scientology are criminals. Jesus Christ. 33° 5 July 2005 17:03 (UTC)

Irrelevant ad hominem.--AI 6 July 2005 01:46 (UTC)

Come on then, what terrible crimes has he committed? 33° 6 July 2005 10:26 (UTC)

What don't you understand? --AI 7 July 2005 02:16 (UTC)

I was asking you about Armstrong. 33° 7 July 2005 21:31 (UTC)

Take it to the Gerry Armstrong discussion page. You can create the article if you wish. --AI 7 July 2005 21:40 (UTC)

Keith Henson has been accused, charged, or convicted of many crimes as already mentioned above: copyright violation, contempt of court, child abuse (molestation), avoiding justice, using explosives, possession of explosives without lawful excuse, obstructing or violence to clergyman, disturbing religious worship or certain meetings, spreading false news, criminal harassment, uttering death threats, attempts/threatens assault, advocating genocide, extortion. --AI 7 July 2005 02:16 (UTC)

And given that Henson is on hostile terms with the Church of Scientology, and given that the Church of Scientology has been known to not only accuse its critics of crimes it knows they didn't commit, but to actually frame them for crimes they didn't commit, the only fair and NPOV thing to do is to be very very careful indeed about separating those crimes of which Henson has been accused from those with which he has been charged from those of which he has been convicted. In fact, one of the charges against Keith Henson is "interfering with a religion" by a supposed "bomb expert", a point the CoS hammers on at every opportunity. Doesn't that sound suspiciously close to the bomb threats, "threats against a Church", that the Church of Scientology got Paulette Cooper indicted for -- and which were later proven to be just another CoS frame-up? -- Antaeus Feldspar 7 July 2005 03:48 (UTC)

Quit wasting my time Antaeus, my references are from Canadian officials, not the Church of Scientology. --AI 7 July 2005 21:37 (UTC)

I'll just bet. Your references about Paulette Cooper would have been from American officials, before American officials found out from the FBI that the whole thing was a frame-up engineered by the CoS from start to finish. -- Antaeus Feldspar 8 July 2005 00:23 (UTC)

Again, what are you talking about? Where did I provide references about Paulette Cooper? I said quit wasting my time. --AI 8 July 2005 02:01 (UTC)

Wow, do I have to make a clay model for you? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Feldspar again!? This guy posts also on my Wikipedia article a lot of crap. Now I find him here covering for Henson. I knew that guy is an anti-religious extremist too. Wikipedia is nothing but another ARS, a sandbox for mentally retarded haters of religion. User: The Original Vivaldi rocks! Barbara Schwarz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.113.91.11 (talk • contribs) 00:47, September 22, 2005 (UTC)

More irrelevant squabbling from Antaeus Feldspar. Antaeus, are you inventing things or hallucinating? Or is the "reality" you are referring to only made of clay on your table? --AI 03:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

AI, please cite these references from Canadian officials, so that we can see them for ourselves. Thank you. --Modemac 13:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I did, I gave name and dates. This info is not from the web, btw. --AI 22:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Modemac's "obscure California law"

Modemac, you write[7] 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)

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)

1971 Supreme Court decision

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)

Revert of talk page

User:MarkSweep please explain why you reverted[8] the page, I have already explained my reverts. --AI 00:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Reverting personal comments has nothing to do with the actual issues over the content of this article. --AI 03:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Still POV

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)

Explosives expert

The article now explains his explosives backround but "somebody" keeps reverting my addition of this to the introduction. Perhaps the intro should say Howard Keith Henson is only an American explosives expert and critic of Scientology. --AI 01:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Antaeus, please explain your revert[9] of my explained edits. --AI 22:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

MarkSweep, same with your edit, you reverted my edit even though I explained it here and you stated in the edit summary "rv. take it to talk" I have offered my "talk" Where is yours? --AI 03:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

You keep inserting the same description of "explosives expert" into the introduction over and over, despite the fact the people have reverted you. Nobody but you seems to think that it deserves to be there. So the burden of proof is on you. Either come up with a better argument why "explosives expert" should be in the intro, or let it go. The fact that you have provided what you call an "explanation" does not automatically give you the right to re-insert the same content over the objections of others. For the record: I consider mention of "explosives expert" entirely irrelevant for the intro paragraph.

A revert does not indicate authority or consensus. Sock puppets or a cabal can falsely create a sense of consensus. In this case, the reverts simply show that there are Keith Henson supporters editing this article as there is evidence that Keith Henson is an expert in explosives. The burden of proof is not upon me, it's already in the article. Where do you get this idea that the burden of proof is upon me? --AI 02:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I've also reverted the TotallyDisputed tag you inserted back to the old NPOV tag. As far as I can tell from the article and this talk page, the factual accuracy of this information is not under dispute. --MarkSweep 04:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

As far as you can tell... I'll refrain from making personal comments about you here in this talk page. I suggest you consider my point of view (which is backed by government documents) as one that is not going to go away. --AI 02:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

There is significant evidence supporting an introductory statement that Keith Henson is an explosives expert. Anyone who would prohibit addition of this material is obviously a supporter of critics of Scientology and allowing his/her bias to influence him/her instead of maintaining NPOV. --AI 03:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I get it. "What are your crimes?". Yep, that's really NPOV, isn't it? --Modemac 12:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

What don't you get? NPOV requires all POVs to be fairly represented. There is a significant POV that Keith is an explosives expert, that POV has been attributed to reliable sources. And furthermore, consensus does not trump NPOV so there is no point in trying to build consensus against representing this POV. --AI 22:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

This POV is already represented in paragraph 3 of the article with quoting Ken Hoden and one para should be enough for the subject. The district attorney had his info from Scientology during the court case (or from what Henson himself said which is stated in the same para), so this is no additional info. --Irmgard 20:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Henson's arrest in Canada by armed police

"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)

usenet

I read Usenet postings of people who bitterly accused Henson of forgery. Very ridiculous is also his belief in being able to multipy his body in space! I pray for his sanity. May the Heavenly Father enlighten his head. User Saint —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.110.19.97 (talk • contribs) 00:22, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Keith Henson deported from Canada!

And what do we have here, Keith? You are deported from Canada. I saw it comming. Please don't come to Utah. You are creepy!

http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/webapp/sitepages/printable.asp?paper=www.brantfordexpositor.ca&contentID=125923&annewspapername=Brantford%20Expositor

User The Original Vivaldi rocks! Barbara Schwarz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.113.91.11 (talk • contribs) 00:43, September 22, 2005 (UTC)

The note above was written by one of the scientologits who camps out on alt.religion.scientology. She seems to be unaware that Wikipedia is not a forum for taunting the people one's cult is persecuting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs) 02:48, November 30, 2005 (UTC)

Henson leaving Canada

I've added a short text about Henson leaving Canada. I'd say a segment is ending, and another segment of his life is beginning. Feel free to improve the text. Tilman 17:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Tilman

There are posting on Usenet that Henson just says he leaves Canada but that he will continue to hide there. My guess the new segment in his life is prison. Can happen to you too, Tilly. User: The Original Vivaldi rocks! Barbara Schwarz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.113.91.11 (talk • contribs) 00:41, September 22 2005 (UTC)

Rm section

I have no idea what this concerns, but:

"Dead Agent" accusations against Henson

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 [10].

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)

I wonder if this is the same Meinel as the security expert Carolyn Meinel. --Maru (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

Yes, but I question her expertise in the security realm. Lippard 07:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

Religious Freedom Watch Links

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)

• Removed RFW links see previous discussion of the nature of this sort of partisan website information at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arnaldo_Lerma#RFW_Page

Maureen D 13:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Druid Days

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)

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)

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)

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)

Cryonics

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)

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)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Keith Henson/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*1 image, 22 citations. Active current event... Smee 06:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Last edited at 06:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)