Fence at Gold - Dcp00493a.jpg (1/1)

Fredric L. Rice noted:

Excellent photograph, Brent. The barbed wire is on the inside designed to keep people in. I wonder if the DA or police ever asked the organization why they have barbed wire up like that.

Brent Stone wrote:

That is really nasty looking... I don't know about being so barbed as much as looking like knives. Guess the pattern would be barbed. Could the wire have been existent when the property was bought, or was it placed there after $cn bought?

Feisty answers:

Gerry Armstrong might be able to answer that, as would Tabyonon (sp?) The thing is, there's no reason for any of the security at the facility unless it's all designed to keep people inside from escaping. Nobody on the outside would want to enter into the compound for any reason unless, perhaps, criminal investigators, law enforcement, or maybe news media trying to dig up bones or something of that nature. Who else? I can't think of anyone at all.

Trained Federal agents would go right through that fence like it was made of butter, using ignitor devices to cut right through the iron with the throw of a single switch and, knowing the organization knows that, I can't believe that the organization's motivation is to stop professional law enforcement agents. No, they have some other nutter motivation, I have to guess.

Like the 103 or so video cameras the organization has all over downtown clearwater, there's apparently no sane explanation, no sane rationale, no sane excuse for such behavior. If you could get one of the leaders to explain themselves, it would be quite an insane and paranoid delusional nut rant, I would expect, yet we'll probably never know what their reasoning is. The Judge in Clearwater asked the organization to "let citizens know when the invasion is" and he specifically told the organization that he "just don't get it." So the Judge also had no idea what the organization's no-doubt-freakishly-bizarre motivations are for such bizarre "security."

On the other hand we _do_ have reports of people going over the wall trying to escape and being recaptured by individuals within the organization. The problem with those reports is that I don't believe a single one of them has ever been verified. Certainly there's never been any police report filed else we would see it plastered all over the Internet as nose-rubbing material.

And on the _other_ hand, we have _confirmed_ reports of at least one escapee in Clearwater fleeing from people who were questioned by a police officer who observed the attempted escape. So we know that the organization has to deal with escapees.

Put two and three together and it comes up: The devices are all designed to keep people inside, I believe.

If the mindset taught to the members is not fearful enough, God, I can't imagine what that would make members think.

Followers are doubtlessly told to believe it's for their own protection some how.

Doesn't there have to be a permit justifying a cause to use such high security measures or equipment? What if there was a fire for example, people could get killed trying to escape. Same for locks and other security features if there are any other places such as this. Keeping such high security sounds like it would intend to -not- to have people escape to tell what the hell is going on there.

For fires the victims would simply move out of doors and collect out in the open far from any combusion products. As for the cameras and fences keeping an eye on their followers, the highway et al., it's all on their property and there's no laws against businesses setting up cameras to record vehicles on the highway and take down their license plate numbers.

I'd expect it's a violation of privacy but then it would be the same thing standing on the side of a freeway during bumper-to-bumper traffic and writing down license plate numbers. It's not enough of a violation of privacy to get any law enforcement agency interested, I'd expect, nor any Civil Rights group.

Look at what the organization _doesn't_ have, though, and perhaps your question would be better answered. If it were at all possible for the organization to have an electrified fence -- either a class 1 discomfort fence or a class 3 "submission" fence -- I would expect them to have it by now. Since they don't I assume it means they couldn't come up with a credible explanation on why they would need one. It could be that what we see is the best they could do given the maximum the law allows.

Also of particular note is the dry river bed. There have been reports that the organization sends out armed followers to brandish weapons and beat up people who walk through the dry river bed -- reportedly beating up someone looking to collect snakes or otherwise performing High School class research. I've seen no police reports on any of those claims so I couldn't offer an opinion on their validity only to suggest that it's at least consistant with what's known of the organization's history.

With the advent of inexpensive video cameras mated to expensive telephoto lenses, and with the advent of inexpensive short range audio collection and retransmission to such video camera equipment, the organization needs to be caught on camera engaging in this behavior -- or even better, a police officer needs to accompany human rights activists along the dry river bed to determine whether the reported behavior is accurate.

As you may recall, the organization allegedly blocked the highway with a tractor and allegedly "kidnapped" German television reporters while allegedly -- and I use the term very losely -- "brandishing" firearms. As I recall, there were some arrests arising out of that yet damned if I can recall if any of the organization's bad guys went to prison for it. That was all in "Missing in Happy Valley," as I recall.


The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.

Any text written by other authors which may be quoted in part or in full within this exposure of the Scientology cult is provided according to U. S. Code Title 17 "Fair Use" dictates which may be reviewed at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html If you're an author of an article and do not wish to allow it to be mirrored or otherwise provided on The Skeptic Tank web site, let us know and it will be removed fairly promptly.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank