Unfortunately, before we can move on we’re going to have to plow through a few things to better understand the rest of this story. First, we need to talk about the Cicada 3301 puzzle and the actors involved in it because the drama, harassment, defamation and damage that some of these people have caused is probably 30% of the problem we’ve seen in both the Wikileaks community and the current operation to grift and psyop innocent people using the “we’re debunking Qanon” excuse as a platform.
The second thing we need to address is Trevor Fitzgibbon, who continues to be at the epicenter of at least part of this story because of whistleblower attorney, Jesselyn Radack, and three of her associates who, if I’m pulling statistics out of my arse, account for another 30% of the problems. Two of these associates, Beth Bogaerts (@HumanOfMind) and “Lestat” (@Tafoyovsky), were members of Cicada and precisely like what Radack and these associates have done with Thomas Schoenberger, they’ve made Fitzgibbon into a larger than life figure who has not only infiltrated everything (!!!), he apparently controls the entire destiny of WikiLeaks, the transparency movement, and possibly the universe. So yes, there’s going to be like a Rabbit Files 5.3 or 5.4 or something before we even get past March 2017. Sigh.
Another 30% can probably be attributed to the Assange community’s gatekeepers, Suzie Dawson, the actors involved in Dawson’s pro-Assange campaign called #Unity4J, and organizations like Courage Foundation and WikiLeaks that gave the campaign legitimacy. #Unity4J includes some of the same actors already mentioned in this series like “hacktivist” Ray Johansen’s associates, Aaron Kesel and Kitty Hundal. And I realize that the whole “debunking Qanon” thing didn’t arrive on the scene in a big way until the fall of last year but these particular “debunkers” that started it are literally some of the same actors that were involved in the “Who Spoofed the Seth Rich Files,” Cicada 3301, and the Fitzgibbon v. Radack case (and other court cases). And at least four of the actors involved in the White Rabbit debacle were members of Cicada, two of which are also associates of Johansen and Jesselyn Radack.
So the last 10%, you ask? Well, it’s the people who won’t speak out against others they know are grifting, welcoming fascism into an activist campaign, deliberately harming and abusing others, or gaslighting and threatening other activists “because of muh cause.” Worse, it’s the people who promote them or who don’t demand any evidence from these actors to back up their defamation campaigns or confront them with evidence showing that they are, indeed, running disinfo ops. Abuse, grifting, and fascism don’t get a free pass just because you want to save a man sitting in Belmarsh prison.
There’s no need to rehash the entire history of Cicada 3301 (you can find more here), so just know that the first puzzle showed up online in January 2012. It returned with a new puzzle in both 2013 and 2014, but then it went missing in 2015. Some speculate that Ian Murdock and Bruce C. Clarke Jr. were the creators of the puzzle. Clarke passed away in October 2015, after retiring in Vienna, Austria, and Murdock died under mysterious circumstances in December 2015.
In 2016, the puzzle returned and then did so again in January 2017, with the infamous message, “A Fludd approaches. Chart the stars. A Chord of would Warms My I.” My understanding is that Thomas Schoenberger was running the puzzle at this point and the issue surrounding it was that the clues didn’t have the PGP signature of the original Cicada puzzles leading to speculation and criticism that the puzzle is fake.
When Did Bogaerts Meet Vetter?
Beth Bogaerts, an associate of White Rabbit, Radack, Lestat, and Johansen, says that she was introduced to Cicada 3301 by someone named “Vetter” who was using the Twitter handle “@Bernies4_Trump” and the name “Vetter” at the time. Although she initially believed that Vetter and Thomas Schoenberger were two entirely different people between the time period of 2016 through approximately early to mid-2018, she now claims that Schoenberger was controlling the Vetter account the entire time without her knowledge in order to deceive her. She also claims that she didn’t meet Schoenberger as the real “Thomas Schoenberger” until late June 2017, while still believing that Vetter was a different person. So let’s look at the Vetter account and when Bogaerts met them because it’s intricately linked to Cicada 3301.
Bogaerts has long claimed that Schoenberger was controlling the Vetter account back in 2016 when she says the account approached her via Twitter. Schoenberger, on the other hand, initially told me that he gained control of the account in May 2017, but he recently contacted me and told me that was incorrect. He now says that he didn’t gain control of the account until September 2017. Personally, I have no idea which date is true, if either.
It’s also important to realize how vague the question “When did you guys first meet?” can be and thus can be answered in a myriad of ways. For instance, does it mean when you and someone else first spoke publicly online, say, tweeting to each other? Or when you first spoke privately? Was it when you first joined a private group with the other person but you two didn’t speak to each other for the first two months? Or was it when you two first spoke directly to each other? Is it when you first spoke on the phone? Or when you first met in person?
The same problems hold true for “When he first reached out to me…” Does that mean when he first reached out publicly on Twitter? Privately? Via email? Signal? On the phone? Face to face? When it comes to “meeting” someone online, everyone seems to have their own definition and you have to keep that in mind when you listen to what other people are actually saying. So according to documents like Bogaerts’ initial complaint in Bogaerts v. Schoenberger et al; a Medium article that Lestat published on behalf of Bogaerts’ behalf, and a 42-page document that Bogaerts wrote herself which is almost identical to the Medium article that Lestat published:
“On or about December 15, 2016 and May 25, 2017, I met the Defendants [Schoenberger et al] online and soon after our meeting I was contacted by them and offered to enter into a mutually-beneficial business transaction.”
“I met Mr. Schoenberger and the other co-defendants somewhere around December 15, 2016, and May 25, 2017, online when I was contacted by them…”
“In late 2016 I had two accounts [Vetter and Fitzgibbon] reach out to me via Twitter…”
“During late 2016 I had two accounts [Vetter and Fitzgibbon] reach out to me via Twitter…”
What she’s saying is that she met Schoenberger and Trevor Fitzgibbon somewhere around December 15, 2016, but what she actually means is that she met someone using the name “Vetter” sometime around December 15th, who she now believes was Schoenberger the entire time. This means that zero communications should exist between Bogaerts and Schoenberger—as himself—prior to when she claims she first met him as himself: June 2017. There should also only exist communications between her and Vetter—as Vetter—between the time she said she met Vetter and the time she said she met Schoenberger as Schoenberger. As for the “May 25, 2017” date, that’s when she says she first met a Youtuber by the name of Manuel Chavez a.k.a. Defango.
However, there isn’t a single screenshot or communication that Bogaerts has ever released that shows her in private communications with either Fitzgibbon or the Vetter account during 2016, and if you ask around virtually everyone else will tell you that they’ve never seen any evidence either of an exact date when private communications started between these parties.
If she was able to claim in court documents a very specific date in December when both Vetter/Schoenberger and Fitzgibbon “reached out” to her and/or when she “met” them, then surely she must have something to back that up? So why haven’t any of those initial communications been released from any of the parties involved? Did I just miss them?
Additionally, keep in mind that nowhere does she say that when they reached out to her in December that that was the first time. What I can tell you based on the only Twitter records still available is that Bogarts and Vetter were publicly tweeting to each other almost four months prior to when she claims they met:
As for Fitzgibbon, according to another Medium article, this time posted by Ray Johansen on Bogaerts’ behalf, it reads, “Since the first time I met Trevor he was on disposable [Twitter] sock accounts.” Bogaerts also told me personally that he first approached her using the Twitter account @torlife101, which appears to have been created sometime in 2016. But Twitter records show that the first tweets between @torlife101 and Bogaerts weren’t until March 20, 2017, unless, of course, she’s deleted her tweets as she is known to be a serial tweet deleter.
The @torlife101 account no longer exists so Fitzgibbon’s tweets aren’t available but anything Bogaerts tweeted to @torlife101 should still be online unless deletion occurred. I’m not saying older records or communications don’t exist from 2016, I’m saying that I have yet to see any, nor am I aware of anyone else that has seen them. And why would you delete your own tweets involving conversations you had with someone you have now accused for over three years of harassing you? Wouldn’t you save that shiz for the authorities, court, and your Twitter audience?
The earliest tweet I see to @torlife101 wasn’t until January 8, 2017, from the @FreeMartyG Twitter campaign thanking him for his support. As you might remember, the #FreeMartyG campaign was initially promoted by Ray Johansen’s associates and Bogaerts joined the campaign in early January 2017. So did Bogaerts ask Fitzgibbon to join the campaign or did she get involved in that, too, using his contacts?
Vetter and Cicada 3301
Throwing one more source into the mix, according to DMs between Bogaerts and blogger/journalist Steve Outtrim, “During the election bc of my Wikileaks…[Vetter] introduced me to the concept of Cicada..I had not heard of it.”
And according to Lestat’s Medium article and Bogaerts’ 42-page document, she stated, “Through a series of months Mr. Schoenberger used the ‘Vetter’ account to gain my trust and familiarized me with the concept of Cicada 3301.” But what will become a recurring theme in this story is that we have no evidence of dates for any of this. When did Vetter familiarize her with Cicada? Between December 2016 – March 2017, or was it later, say, between March 2017 – June 2017? Why is this information so secretive? And why haven’t any communications between Vetter and Bogaerts before June 2017, been released? To be clear, I haven’t seen a single private communication between Bogaerts and Vetter between the periods of December 2016-June 1, 2017.
For instance, since Vetter was Bogaerts’ alleged source of how she learned about Cicada 3301, why haven’t we seen any communications about that before June 1, 2017? It seemed like Bogaerts was already a member of Cicada when, on Jun 6, 2017, White Rabbit told Trish Negron that he was invited to join Cicada. He included this screenshot in his message to Trish:
The entire picture of what White Rabbit sent to Trish isn’t available but it’s fairly easy to track down the full statement: “Those that would destroy our lives with lies will themselves be destroyed by the truth,” which was found on Bogaerts’ Twitter account as early as May 12, 2017, almost a month before White Rabbit said he had been invited to join Cicada.
The origin of the statement comes from a Cicada message that was posted on 4chan on June 1, 2015, which is identical to what Bogaerts posted minus where she swapped out the word “who” for “that.” It also sounds similar to Julian Assange’s October 2011 statement that he made in Trafalgar Square, “If wars can be started by lies, peace can be started by truth.”
It would certainly appear that Bogaerts was a member of Cicada before White Rabbit which means she must have “joined” through Vetter, not Schoenberger, because she claims she didn’t even know who Schoenberger was until late June 2017. And yet, we’ve seen zero conversations that took place early on between Bogaerts and Vetter about her joining Cicada or him teaching her about Cicada at all.
Cicada Hints and Clues
Personally, I was introduced to Cicada 3301 by Youtuber Tracy Beanz sometime in February or March and, admittedly, I found it entertaining for a couple of weeks. I even learned about one of the clues that Cicada dropped in early 2017 that led to the coordinates of the famous Mojave desert phone booth. However, I have since learned that the phone booth was owned by someone named Lucky225, another associate of Johansen who keeps reappearing in this story time and time again.
Lucky225 was the one who gave Cicada permission to use the phone both for their LARP, and yes, even Bogaerts herself described Cicada 3301 as an “Alternative Reality Game” when she filed for Cicada’s trademark. However, there’s no evidence to suggest that Lucky225 was personally palling around with members of Cicada to promote the puzzle. In fact, it appears that he wasn’t terribly impressed with anyone who followed it based on some of his tweets.
Anonymous Scandinavia and Cicada 3301
As I noted in my last article, leading up to the first week or so in March, WikiLeaks dropped half a dozen Vault 7 hints, while Anonymous Scandinavia (@AnonScan) dropped their own clues and promoted Tracy Beanz’ videos (and by extension my own blog posts that Beanz covered in some of those videos). During this time period, both before and after WikiLeaks started publishing Vault 7, the Vetter account repeatedly tried to tie or connect Cicada 3301 with the @AnonScan account, WikiLeaks, and Julian Assange.
Making things worse, AnonScan appeared to play along by being one of the first big Assange support accounts, if not the first, to push an erroneous story about DNC worker, Warren Flood, being behind the Guccifer 2 persona. This, two months after Cicada dropped the hint, “A Fludd approaches,” and knowing full well that people were trying to connect Cicada to WikiLeaks and Assange. The story about Warren Flood was completely untrue but @AnonScan, other pro-Assange supporters, and even WikiLeaks promoted it anyways.
So throw in a hot bowl of Cicada believing that they could predict the future into the whole Vault 7/Cicada dumpster fire and you get the gist of how much of a hot mess this was. However…after seemingly playing along with Cicada 3301 with the Warren Flood story, on March 16, 2017 (approximately two weeks after they started promoting that story), @AnonScan announced that they were not involved in Cicada and that they had no special interest in it. This was a big deal at the time because accounts like Vetter were pushing the connection and Youtubers like Tracy Beanz seemed to be buying Vetter’s story.
During this same time period, and as early as February 6th, Bogaerts was tweeting to @AnonScan and in return they acknowledged and liked her tweets. We’ve also all seen her June 2017 message where she said that she “loves” the @AnonScan account, right? Right.
Meanwhile, Bogaerts had only met Vetter three months prior, she had no idea who they were, they introduced her to Cicada, and she was clearly following the @AnonScan account at the time they said they weren’t interested in Cicada. So…you would think that Bogaerts would have gone back to her friend, Vetter, and said, oh, I don’t know, maybe something like, “Yo dude, @AnonScan said you guys weren’t linked, they have no interest in Cicada, so why do you keep posting that you guys are linked?” I mean, where are those conversations? They never happened? She never questioned this at all with either the Vetter or Anonymous Scandinavia account?
And if those conversations for some odd reason never happened (i.e. she never saw @AnonScan’s tweet and no one ever told her about it) then why didn’t Bogaerts ever tweet that Cicada was linked to @AnonScan and Assange, too? Was she told not to? By who? Where are those communications? What’s even more odd is that no one even questions this story and how it makes no sense based on the evidence, or lack thereof, that we’ve been given.
Also note that in the above screenshot that Bogaerts tells the Vetter account (later changed to @GumboInOrleans) that she’s just a researcher and “addicted to WikiLeaks,” as if they’ve never had this conversation before. This DM is from June 25, 2017, six months after Vetter and Bogaerts allegedly first met and after Vetter let her join Cicada. And didn’t Bogaerts at one point use the fact that she tweets WikiLeaks documents as a reason why “Vetter” and Fitzgibbon first approached her (if that’s even how it all went down)? So wouldn’t Vetter already know that she’s a researcher and allegedly addicted to WikiLeaks? I’m not manufacturing or trying to twist anything. I’m asking a question about something that doesn’t make any sense to me.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear that @AnonScan entirely stopped playing along. WikiLeaks’ Vault 7 clues only lasted for six days during which time they asked their followers things like, “What is Vault 7?” and “When is Vault 7?,” while Anonymous Scandinavia, on the other hand, continued to put out videos filled with hints and clues for months, even years, and for what purpose exactly, most of it I still don’t know. Some of them seemed to make no sense whatsoever unless you were in on the joke, especially the ones they dropped before Vault 7. But when you look back on the 2017 timeline, the use of puzzles and hints and clues technically originated with Cicada at the start of January.
Interestingly, after posting six days of clues, on February 13, 2017, WikiLeaks released a hidden message that said, “Conspiracy theories only benefit those who seek out destruction. Stop them.” And on April 4, 2017, Cicada also released a message that said, “Beware of false paths,” this time with a message that was PGP-verified. But rather than go after the alleged “fake” Cicada 3301 or whatever conspiracy theory and false paths WikiLeaks and Cicada were referring to, @AnonScan started targeting a random Twitter account named “SwimSwam,” who was also dropping super random hints and making it appear that they too were involved with Vault 7.
@AnonScan threatened to shut down my Twitter account in the process and accused me of being SwimSwam’s friend because I had added some of their hints to my Vault 7 blog posts, myself having no idea who @AnonScan, SwimSwam, or virtually anyone else was for that matter. This was only the beginning of the gross levels of censorship, threats, and defamation I would see in the coming years within the Assange support and hacktivist/Anonymous community.
Anonymous Scandinavia is also the same account that personally and privately vouched for Bogaerts’ associate, Ray Johansen, claiming that he would “never sell out.” Meanwhile, Johansen has openly threatened innocent people, all of whom are activists or journalists like myself, he has tried to dox journalists, and he’s been caught in a myriad of lies. And yes, I personally believe that Johansen had access to the @AnonScan account meaning he basically vouched for himself.
My response back then about @AnonScan hasn’t changed in the least. IF you’re such a badass hacker then you of all people know who has been lying vs. who has been telling the truth, you know who has threatened and psyop’ed activists, and you know who has been operating whisper campaigns within the Assange community for years. And yet, you have repeatedly chosen the abusers, the liars, the wrongdoers, and, at the end of the day, the wrong side of history. Perhaps because you’ve been in on it the entire time.
The Other White Rabbit Video
Keep in mind that a month after the Vault 7 clues and the SwimSwam debacle, and while WikiLeaks was publishing Vault 7 documents and @AnonScan was pushing the Warren Flood story, an Anonymous group called AnonIntelGroup started a #QuestionWikiLeaks campaign where they basically accused Assange of working with the Russians and getting Trump elected.
A month later their Twitter account was suspended and Bogaerts publicly asked that Twitter reinstate it, obviously indicating some level of interest on her part in the group. In fact, it appears that in the same Twitter thread she also called members of AnonIntelGroup “amazing friends.” Members included Johansen and his associates like Aaron Kesel, Kitty Hundal, and @raincoaster (the one who wrote the press release for the #FreeMartyG campaign). The group also included someone with a remarkably similar name as Bogaerts’ Twitter handle: AnonFoxfire.
I mean, this seems like a lot of disinformation and chaos being put out by some of the same actors: Cicada tied to WikiLeaks; the Fludd approaches and Warren Flood; @AnonScan videos that make no sense, Twitter accounts being threatened, Assange working with the Russians…don’t worry, imma make another timeline after the next article. As for @AnonScan, in December 2017, they tweeted this out with a song by Jefferson Airplane:
At the time that this was posted, Johansen claimed to be having some sort of online sexual relationship/non-relationship with Mrs. Bogaerts, and Bogaerts, who was knee-deep in Cicada by this point, was also a friend of White Rabbit who had joined Cicada six months prior after the thumb drive debacle. As I noted on my website three years ago after covering a host of videos that AnonScan had made, even I was a little sketched out that they posted this:
“@AnonScan posted a ‘White Rabbit’ video on Twitter…I’m guessing that those who follow the Q Anon, white, glowing rabbit stuff are loving this because the song used in the video is actually called ‘White Rabbit.’”
One thing to keep in mind is that, yes, the video could have been a nod to Schoenberger, Bogaerts, and White Rabbit, or even to Qanon, but it could have an entirely different or double meaning, as well—especially with Johansen’s ties to Anonymous Scandinavia. The woman who started the fake Guccifer 2 Twitter account mentioned in The Rabbit Files 3.0, Cassandra Ford, used the name “Alice” online in reference to Alice In Wonderland. She was also part of an Anonymous group called #BunnySec; she was eventually interviewed by the Mueller investigation because of the fake G2 account; and I believe that the investigation looked at all of her devices. As for Johansen, he apparently wasn’t very pleased with Ford at one point, nor was #BunnySec with him:
Keep in mind, this is all just speculation on my part. As a side note, Ford was also part of #OpISIS, an Anonymous operation started by the collective #Ghostsec that both Johansen and Kesel claimed to have taken part in. @AnonScan has also tweeted about #GhostSec in the past and in July 2017, they were still following @GhostSecGroup, a group of hackers that were part of #OpISIS and worked directly with U.S. intelligence.
This group eventually left Anonymous all together and started their own company, “Ghost Security Group,” and they continue to work with state intelligence agencies. Johansen’s associate, Aaron Kesel, tweeted that he had worked with the CIA during #OpISIS and then changed his story and threatened me after it was exposed on my website. And yes, this whole thing with the US government being involved in #OpISIS was a big to-do in the Anonymous community at the time. It’s also one of the reasons I wrote previously that I thought #OpISIS was ground zero for infiltration after the Sabu arrests.
In 2016, @AnonScan tried to explain away members of Anonymous working with U.S. agencies—the same agencies that want to, continue to, and has taken down hackers—claiming that it was a “known fact” that GhostSec was assisting them but that didn’t mean they were “working with” them.
I mean, according to Kesel who admittedly is a notorious bullshitter (he’s claimed repeatedly that he’s mentioned in the Mueller report—he most definitely is not), Anonymous was feeding intel (doxing) on ISIS to the U.S. who was then passing the information to the PKK. The PKK then used it to engage in extrajudicial killings so there’s that little nugget you can chose to believe or not. The bottom line is that @AnonScan’s White Rabbit video could have had multiple meanings: Schoenberger, Bogaerts and White Rabbit; Qanon; or Cassandra Ford. Or maybe @AnonScan was just trolling everyone.
Warning: Never use a lit match or open flame to check your fuel level. Ten pages of disclaimers to follow —
If you were mentioned in this article because your associate(s) did or said something stupid/dishonest, that’s not a suggestion that you did or said something stupid/dishonest or that you took part in it. Of course, some may conclude on their own that you associate with stupid/dishonest individuals but that’s called having the right to an opinion. If I’ve questioned something that doesn’t make sense, that’s not me spinning the confusing material you put out. That’s me trying to make sense out of something that doesn’t make sense.
If I haven’t specifically stated that I believe (my opinion) someone is associated with someone else or an event, then it means just that. I haven’t reported an association nor is there any inference of association on my part. For example, just because someone is mentioned in this article, it doesn’t mean that they’re involved or associated with everyone and everything else mentioned. If I believe that there’s an association between people and/or events, I’ll specifically report it.
If anyone mentioned in this article wants to claim that I have associated them with someone else or an event because I didn’t disclose every single person and event in the world that they are NOT associated with, that’s called gaslighting an audience and it’s absurd hogwash i.e. “They mentioned that I liked bananas but they didn’t disclose that I don’t like apples. Why are they trying to associate me with apples???” Or something similar to this lovely gem, “I did NOT give Trish the thumb drive!” in order to make their lazy audience believe that it was reported they gave Trish the thumb drive when, in fact, that was never reported, let alone inferred.
That’s some of the BS I’m talking about so try not to act like a psychiatric patient, intelligence agent, or paid cyber mercenary by doing these things. If you would like to share your story, viewpoint, or any evidence that pertains to this article, or feel strongly that something needs to be clarified or corrected (again, that actually pertains to the article), you can reach me at firstname.lastname@example.org with any questions or concerns.
This is an opinion piece about my own theories and viewpoint. You should research this story and events yourself and come to your own conclusions.
This is an Op-ed article. The information contained in this post is for general information purposes only. While we endeavor to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information contained on the post for any purpose. The owner of this blog makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site.
The views or opinions represented in this blog do not represent those of people, institutions or organizations that the owner may or may not be associated with in professional or personal capacity, unless explicitly stated. Any views or opinions are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, or individual.
The owner will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information. The owner will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information.