Why Did a Senior Intelligence Official Leak Sensitive Email?

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Re: Why Did a Senior Intelligence Official Leak Sensitive Email?

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:51 pm

Gary wrote:If a writer is doing his job, he will elicit a strong emotional response from his readership.

Apparently, at least for Ray, I succeeded? :-)

If RU does their homework they might be able to connect the dots between NSSO and STAIF, foreign Intel collection etc.


And from your latest nebulous "clue" (which probably means you are shooting in the dark), my emotional response about NSSO appears to have nothing to do with whatever it is you are insinuating. Why don't you just spit it out, Gary? And before you answer with some other nebulous statement about national security, let me ask you point-blank: Do you possess a GOV security clearance?

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA


Re: Why Did a Senior Intelligence Official Leak Sensitive Email?

Postby Gary » Fri Jul 11, 2008 5:24 am

Ray wrote: "Why don't you just spit it out, Gary? And before you answer with some other nebulous statement about national security, let me ask you point-blank: Do you possess a GOV security clearance?"

Ray, AD contested my statement about "Paul Murad of the DIA."

I think I have demonstrated the existence of a Murad - DIA connection, which was also reported by veteran defense journalist Sharon Weinberger, who writes for WIRED Magazine, and the Washington Post.

If RU knew as much as they claimed here, then they would also be aware of the Murad NSSO connection.

Re: GOV security clearance, the answer is "not necessary"; SSR reports on open-source material involving highly speculative future-concepts.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Why Did a Senior Intelligence Official Leak Sensitive Email?

Postby ryguy » Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:17 pm

Gary wrote:Ray wrote: "Why don't you just spit it out, Gary? And before you answer with some other nebulous statement about national security, let me ask you point-blank: Do you possess a GOV security clearance?"

[snip]

Re: GOV security clearance, the answer is "not necessary"; SSR reports on open-source material involving highly speculative future-concepts.


Because you are claiming more "knowledge" than members of RU regarding topics where you speculate about classified matters, and because "RU" includes Ray and a few others who likely have more access to information on these matters than you do, that makes Ray's question regarding your GOV security clearances quite relevant.

You are speculating on matters on which you have access to less data than many individuals here at RU have, yet you are constantly accusing members here of having less information than you do. Ray is essentially calling your bluff, and you can't dodge his question by claiming the answer to his question is "not necessary".

Regarding Murad, we are aware not only of his connections but of his activities regarding a few matters related to funding of new technological research - the point AD is making is that you are overplaying his involvement and making erroneous and 100% speculative conclusions about his role. As Ray correction points out - you have little-to-no knowledge, information, or awareness of what the NSSO is really about. Ray has already made his level of awareness abundantly clear above, and it's fairly obvious that his information about the organization far surpasses yours.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Why Did a Senior Intelligence Official Leak Sensitive Email?

Postby Gary » Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:55 pm

WTF Ryan?

If that was true then why did AD challenge my statement "Paul Murad of the DIA" unless this is a fishing attempt to see how much I know? [-X

As for clearance, I am neither encumbered nor constrained by government security clearance requirements.

More importantly, the material we research at SSR does NOT require clearance, period. To think otherwise would be delusional.

Are you delusional? :-)

Let me put it this way Ryan: Given the counter-intelligence ops history around this field of interest, I wouldn't trust information provided by anyone with a security clearance (including some of our own sources with Top Secret -- Special Intelligence -- TK (SI/SAO) B, G, Q) without some kind of open-source (preferably official government) documentation.

As for our 'speculative' or 'opinion reporting' of other sources' inside information?

It's known as deep background sourcing:

http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=53&aid=61244


Deep background: This is a tricky category, to be avoided if possible. Information accepted on "deep background" can be included in the story, but not attributed. That means there is no way to help readers understand where it is coming from, which is why we discourage the use of deep background. You can also use information received on deep background as the basis for further reporting.


When examining new or unusual research fields, we survey the opinions of multiple parties with differing national loyalties, thus our sources of information might be Chinese, Iranian, Ukrainian, Russian, French, etc. in addition to U.S. and U.S. allies. Likewise, we poll other sources regarding unusual claims, or look to the historical record.

Once again, I challenge RU to show where I have made even one erroneous statement-of-fact that you can challenge using official open-source information, not hearsay from alleged inside sources.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Why Did a Senior Intelligence Official Leak Sensitive Email?

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:21 pm

Gary wrote:SSR reports on open-source material involving highly speculative future-concepts.


Emphasis mine. This is the only admission of yours that really matters. Now let me get on to your answer to my question, which you finally coughed-up.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Why Did a Senior Intelligence Official Leak Sensitive Email?

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:33 pm

Gary wrote:As for clearance, I am neither encumbered nor constrained by government security clearance requirements.


Thank you for finally answering my question. Now I will proceed to reveal exactly why I asked the question. For what we see here from you is the same kind of presumptive speculation about my reason for asking the question that you deride of "RU" in our presumptions about the things you claim to know, but which you conveniently never spell out.

The reason I asked the question had nothing to do with "open source knowledge" or whether or not you HAVE access to any classified information. My reason for asking is MUCH MUCH MUCH more basic than that. The fact that you have no security clearance means you have absolutely NO REASON to not be SPECIFIC about things. But instead of being specific you hide, and dodge, and throw out "clues"... Now if you had a security clearance there MAY be a "cover" for you acting like this... you would be afraid of being thrown in jail. But since you have no clearance, and therefore have no fear of being thrown in jail for revealing information that you do not know if it is classified or not, then the only reason for you acting the way you do is because you are being OVER-speculative... and wishing to stoke the fires of intrigue in the readership who, perhaps, does not know better. It is a great tactic for writers to draw attention to themselves.

So... why don't you just SPILL THE BEAN, Gary? Tell us exactly what you think the NSSO is all about with regard to your citing them here in this thread. You cannot be thrown in jail, because you have no knowledge of classification of any of your speculations. To contrast that statement to make if perfectly clear: Because I *do* have a security clearance, I am NOT FREE to openly discuss projects I am working on that *are* classified, along with any information related to such. Because I *could* be thrown in jail if I did.

Now that you know my real reason for asking the question, you no longer have to speculate. All you have to do now is be clear, and stop playing your make-believe spy games. :)

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Why Did a Senior Intelligence Official Leak Sensitive Email?

Postby Gary » Fri Jul 11, 2008 5:10 pm

Ray wrote: 'Because I *do* have a security clearance, I am NOT FREE to openly discuss projects I am working on that *are* classified, along with any information related to such. Because I *could* be thrown in jail if I did."

And let me be clear: should I ever suspect that classified information is being passed on this forum, I will not hesitate to contact and report to the proper oversight authority for that information.

RU also fails to make a distinction between "sensitive," "confidential," "secret" and "top secret." The later three are USG classifications. The first, found in the title of this thread, is not.

Ray wrote: "The fact that you have no security clearance means you have absolutely NO REASON to not be SPECIFIC about things. But instead of being specific you hide, and dodge, and throw out "clues"..."

Not in the least bit true: http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=53&aid=61244

In some circumstances where a source has allowed us to see something that reporters would not otherwise be able to observe, special problems of attribution may arise.

Journalistic ground rules can be confusing, but our goal is clarity in our dealings with sources and readers. This means explaining our ground rules to sources, and giving readers as much information as possible about how we learned the information in our stories. If a source is not on the record, it is important to establish ground rules at the beginning of a conversation.


We must be careful, when dealing with sources who say they want to provide information "on background," to explain that to us that means we can quote the statement while maintaining the confidentiality of the source.


One alternative to off-the-record is "for guidance." A source may be willing to give us information for our guidance or to prompt further reporting, on the understanding that we will not use his comments as the basis for putting something in the paper. This, for example, was the relationship between Deep Throat and Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Such guidance can be useful even if we can't print it at once.

A further complication may arise if the involvement of the writer becomes part of the story being reported :-)
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Why Did a Senior Intelligence Official Leak Sensitive Email?

Postby Gary » Sun Jul 13, 2008 2:07 pm

Now it's my turn to ask the question:

Are personal email messages, sent in confidence between Federal and State employees and government consultants, concerning issues related to or in reference to government activities, containing personal confidential opinions, "sensitive?"

If yes, then why would a Senior Intelligence Official leak them deliberately to a group known to have applied less than ethical tactics to obtain other email messages, as noted in this RU article:

http://www.realityuncovered.net/ufology/articles/serpo/


Instead of seeing the emails from my RU account, there were a bunch of emails that had been sent to the contact@serpo.org email account - I had forgotten to change the default settings back to my own. Surprisingly, there were a couple of emails that had been sent to Bill by Kit Green and Victor Martinez, both of which were discussing some of the finer points of the Serpo story. I had already told Bill about changing the password, but given the anticipated intelligence value of seeing further "insider" emails sent to the same account, I decided against reminding him.


Thus, emails sent by STARstream Research contain the following signature:

This email transmission and any files
that accompany it may contain sensitive
(and /or confidential) information belonging
to the sender. It was not intended for
transmission to, or receipt by, any
unauthorized persons.

If you are not the intended recipient
you are hereby notified that any
disclosure, copying, distribution or
the taking of any action in reliance
on the content of this information
is strictly prohibited.


Also note that Ryan was covertly obtaining information he alleges originated with Kit Green who remains a USG national security consultant, who also was (at the time) interacting with the former head of Homeland Security, John Gannon:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_hr ... annon.html

"The views expressed are my own. They are shaped by my professional experience working with the FBI during a 24-year career at CIA, during a brief stint as the team leader for intelligence in the Transition Planning Office for the Department of Homeland Security (2002-2003), and during a two-year tour as the first Staff Director of the House Homeland Security Committee (2003 to 2005). They also are influenced my long experience building and managing analytic programs in the Intelligence Community, where I served as CIA's Deputy Director for Intelligence, as Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, and as Assistant Director for Analysis and Production."
-- John Gannon

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/Co ... ?key=48794

Military and Intelligence Methodology for Emergent Neurophysiological and Cognitive/Neural Science Research in the Next Two Decades

So what is the reality behind covertly obtaining information "harmful to the national security?"

From US Code 793 ... http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/793.html

Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation ... obtains information concerning ...any of its officers, departments, or agencies, ... the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States ... (b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any ... document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or (c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, ... or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or (e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, ... or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it ...

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.


That Ryan, is the Reality Uncovered. Everything else here is smoke and mirrors; shimmering light intended to distract the eye and the mind.
Last edited by Gary on Sun Jul 13, 2008 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Why Did a Senior Intelligence Official Leak Sensitive Email?

Postby Zep Tepi » Sun Jul 13, 2008 2:22 pm

Gary wrote:Now it's my turn to ask the question:

Are personal email messages, sent in confidence between Federal and State employees and government consultants, concerning issues related to or in reference to government activities, containing personal confidential opinions, "sensitive?"


Stop twisting what actually happened. I fail to see how person A threatening person B, via personal email addresses no less, could in any way be considered an "opinion". Further, the emails were neither related to government activities nor referenced them. If you carry on twisting the facts in this way, I will take the advice of the staff here and suspend your account.

You have been warned.

If yes, then why would a Senior Intelligence Official leak them deliberately to a group known to have applied less than ethical tactics to obtain other email messages, as noted in this RU article:


Does that still smart Gary? You know the reasons why we were sent those messages and you also know the reasons why that same official spoke to us. Stop being obtuse.

Cheers,
Steve
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: Why Did a Senior Intelligence Official Leak Sensitive Email?

Postby Access Denied » Sun Jul 13, 2008 3:23 pm

Gary wrote:If RU does their homework they might be able to connect the dots between NSSO and STAIF, foreign Intel collection etc.

Nah, it's much more fun watching you trying to connect the imaginary dots for us.

Gary wrote:AD contested my statement about "Paul Murad of the DIA."

No Gary, I contested your statement about “Dr. Paul Murad of the DIA.”

You are deliberating falsifying information through error of omission again. For that alone I should ban you from RU… if not for the so many times I’ve lost count now you’ve done it before.

The implication of that statement in the context you used it in is that Paul Murad is a Dr. (holds a PhD) and works at the DIA (is an intelligence official).

My contention is that Paul Murad does not hold a PhD and he is not an intelligence official.

1. According to his bio, Paul Murad is an Aerospace Engineer with a MS degree therefore he is not a Dr. which means you and the source you cited, Eric Davis’ teleportation study, are incorrect. Furthermore, this fundamental error makes the listing of Murad as working at the DIA even more suspect as there is no requirement for a distribution list to be included in a TR cleared for public release. This leads me to believe Eric included it solely to give his report an illusion of credibility (just because he allegedly sent it to all those folks, some of whom I work with, doesn’t mean they were interested in it i.e. it’s a form of spam) and also it may have been seen as an opportunity to artificially elevate the status of his associate Murad.

2. Paul Murad claims in his bio that he is a government consultant. Government consultants and contractors are not government employees. To be considered a government official one must be a government employee therefore he is not an intelligence official no matter where he works. Furthermore, I do not believe intelligence officials routinely serve on the Board of Directors of American Antigravity Inc. alongside other known pseudoscientific scam artists. Please refer to the U.S. Department of Defense Standards of Conduct Office web site FMI re: Ethics and Conflicts of Interest…

http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/defense_ethics/

3. You claim to have an email from Paul Murad signed with a DoD PKI certificate that originated from an OSD email server. OSD is not DIA and they have their own email servers therefore this email you claim to have (and we have not seen and therefore may not even exist) does not verify the claim he works at the DIA made by you and your sources, Ronald Pandolfi, Sharon Wienberger, and Eric Davis. Furthermore, government consultants and contractors can and do have government email addresses and DoD PKI certificates are issued to everyone with an DoD email account therefore your (currently unsubstantiated) claim that you have an email signed with Paul Marrad’s PKI certificate does nothing to validate yours or anybody’s else’s claim that he is a DIA intelligence official.

I must now ask you to retract your claim or provide independently verifiable evidence to support it or you will be banned.

Gary wrote:Once again, I challenge RU to show where I have made even one erroneous statement-of-fact that you can challenge using official open-source information, not hearsay from alleged inside sources.

Done.

Furthermore, it is my personal opinion that you have absolutely zero credible information or “inside” knowledge regarding any of the subjects you discuss and neither do any of your alleged sources and your only purpose here is to try and create drama and intrigue where there is none.


P.S. My above analysis was done without making a single phone call.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Why Did a Senior Intelligence Official Leak Sensitive Email?

Postby Gary » Sun Jul 13, 2008 3:58 pm

Zep Tepi wrote:Does that still smart Gary? You know the reasons why we were sent those messages and you also know the reasons why that same official spoke to us. Stop being obtuse.

Apparently we don't have the same set of emails, eh Steve? Involving discussions of a State officer and murder investigation?


[Mod Edit: fixed quote]
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Why Did a Senior Intelligence Official Leak Sensitive Email?

Postby Gary » Sun Jul 13, 2008 4:02 pm

Unfortunately I am leaving at the moment and will have to address AD's very important points.

However, AD please address the Iranian nuclear physicist, the attempted recruiting of a well-known web master to "spy" for the Dod, etc.

If you don't know about that, then you are in the dark re: the above.


[Mod Edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Why Did a Senior Intelligence Official Leak Sensitive Email?

Postby ryguy » Sun Jul 13, 2008 7:10 pm

Gary wrote:Also note that Ryan was covertly obtaining information he alleges originated with Kit Green who remains a USG national security consultant, who also was (at the time) interacting with the former head of Homeland Security, John Gannon:


This is about as disingenious as a statement can get. Notice how Gary follows the statement of libel (100% false, by the way) that I, Ryan Dube, was "covertly obtaining information" originating with Kit Green - and follows that with a completely unrelated comment that Kit was interacting with John Gannon. As though the two issues are related in any way whatsoever - and implying that I've somehow intercepted those communications.

I hereby challenge you, Gary, liar extraordinaire, to prove the first point. I'm talking about me here Gary. Not Steve, not RU, but ME..Ryan Dube...as the statement above falsely accuses.

I expect the above false statement of yours to be corrected immediately.

That Ryan, is the Reality Uncovered. Everything else here is smoke and mirrors; shimmering light intended to distract the eye and the mind.


The only smoke and mirrors anywhere is that which you...an admitted disinformationist continue to spread. And I'll be honest, I've just about had it. Starstream and Gary Bekkum clearly deserve a greater degree of investigation given the extent to which Gary actively continues to attack those investigating the ongoing scams. Thank you for making your involvement in this so blatantly obvious Gary. I don't know why I've been focusing so much of my efforts on other matters when clearly your involvement in all of this deserves some further analysis and reporting. In particular, Gary's attacks against a United States intelligence official, and his attempts to publicly reveal classified or private investigative methods of that official probably deserves a greater degree of attention than we've previously given it. We should probably additionally and carefully examine Gary's involvement with any agents of foreign governments as well.

Steve, I suggest we set up another private investigative forum similar to the one you opened up last month, for this particular purpose. I think there's a great deal here we've probably missed - and probably needs to be uncovered. Looks like we need to show Gary how Reality really gets Uncovered.

If our investigations uncover substantial evidence - we may even consider sending a well-written and cited report to the appropriate agency for further action.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Why Did a Senior Intelligence Official Leak Sensitive Email?

Postby ryguy » Sun Jul 13, 2008 8:29 pm

Gary wrote:If yes, then why would a Senior Intelligence Official leak them deliberately to a group known to have applied less than ethical tactics to obtain other email messages, as noted in this RU article:


Here's the ultimate irony - Gary doesn't even accurately remember who the emails were leaked to. LOL

Although at least he got it correct that they were leaked to someone who has applied less than ethical tactics in distributing private emails to others - including specifically Dan Smith and Gary Bekkum. And us. And Ron. And Kit. And on...and on...and on.

You are a moron Gary, you need to review your emails and get your facts regarding the history of the "leaks" correct.

Thus, emails sent by STARstream Research contain the following signature:


Irrelevant since we've never had the need to use any emails from Starstream Research. For the most part any email I've ever received from you has been worthless and lacking any useful information.

So what is the reality behind covertly obtaining information "harmful to the national security."


The reality is that you need to first prove that anything contained in any of the emails in question (including the ones leaked to non RU folks who then forwarded those emails to RU and to Starstream Research, contains information "harmful to the national security.'

The last time you made this claim a few months ago, Gary, I had an hour-long phone conversation with said security officer and asked him about your ridiculous statements. He said two things. First - that it's senseless to argue with you because you "need help." And secondly there was absolutely nothing within any of the emails between the current intel official and the former intel official that could be construed as "harmful to national security." Or even related to any sort of government business at all - the context of the conversation was about an idiotic ufo/alien scammer and the fictional characters those scammers created ffs.

You are being an idiot chicken-little as always.

[i]Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information


Again...your quote of policies is irrelevant since there was no defense information contained within these private email messages. Any attempt by you to imply as much is idiotic and transparently stupid.

Furthermore - your little attempt to fish for additional information is hereby deemed a complete and total failure. I've made sure to share absolutely no additional information in either of my last two posts than that which we've already discussed in this thread and others time and time again. It's pretty clear that Ray's question about your lack of security clearance (or lack of information overall for that matter) obviously offended you. Get over it.

You will never receive anything further from our investigations, and our promise months ago to give you a "heads-up" prior to it is hereby retracted. You are nothing more than a troublemaker and an instigator - and you offer absolutely nothing of value or substance to any of these investigations.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Why Did a Senior Intelligence Official Leak Sensitive Email?

Postby Access Denied » Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:45 pm

Thread locked to preserve data...
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

PreviousNext

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 15 guests

cron