THE REAL
'HORRIBLE TRUTH'
ABOUT THE
TRANQUILEYE

An open letter about the individual codenamed 'tranquileye' Mr. John H. Stevenson!

I once wrote to Mr. John Stevenson also known as 'tranquileye' that the issue is whether the government is so corrupt that it can murder even the president in order to hide the truth about the UFO invasion and then keep it secret. He replied (7/1/92) that this "would be an interesting question if there were any reason to believe that it happened." However, he sees "no credible evidence for that belief."

I think an equally important question is whether Mr. Stevenson AKA tranquileye is part of the conspiracy. Is there any credible evidence for that suspicion? I'm afraid there is: his e-mails to me.

The alternative is that he is just another mind-blind intellectual/genX cyberhead, but that contradicts so much of the rest of my impression of the man that I cannot accept it. Furthermore, that hypothesis assumes that it is pure coincidence that he looms so large in both your and my (and probably in a lot of people's) experience in pursuing the UFO question, and of course also pure coincidence that except for this one issue, he and I agree with virtually everything he says.

I realize I'll never know for sure, but the preponderance of evidence seems to point to the first conclusion--that Mr. Stevenson part of the conspiracy (that is, the MJ12/Secret Government's secret plan to keep us in line). That makes it an interesting question, and leads to the further interesting question of his motivation. Among the possibilities there is that it is his own well-intentioned decision. That would mean there is a huge gap between the way he and I perceive the world, which would have to be accounted for somehow. What does he know (and won't tell us) that we don't, etc.

The fact that he offers no counterarguments doesn't mean much either. He didn't really argue with me either, as you recall. It was not a dialogue. He did not respond to my arguments. He simply chose parts of what I said to re-launch his own arguments. The fact that he is apparently just writing you short notes means, no doubt, that he is tired of the subject. He figures he has said everything he has to say on the subject. Yes, my argument is "lucid," that is, it logical if you accept certain premises, like the fact that Truman and/or V. Bush couldn't act alone, that it was a government conspiracy, and that it was a high-level government conspiracy. But I'm sure he will say if you press him that he doesn't accept any of these premises, because he sees no credible evidence that they correspond with reality. So your argument is lucid, clear and easy to understand, but still completely without any factual basis. He hasn't changed his mind a whit. He's just hoping you'll get off his back.