[leps-talk] Cherubini's conspiracy theories

Grkovich, Alex agrkovich at tmpeng.com
Mon Oct 6 17:22:48 EDT 2003


I'm on YOUR side on this...First, the Monarch CONTINUES to do well (the
Monarch is the proof, as Ron said)... 

Second, the request for "$100,000,000" is rather like the recent "request"
for $87 billion to continue murder and occupation in Iraq...Why
$100,000,000? Why not $50,000,000? Won't THAT suffice?

Monarchs are all over the place here in New England...Last time I visited
Point Pelee National Park in Ontario (in Sept. 1997 or thereabouts) they
were all over the trees...

The $100,000,000 would go a long ways toward providing health care for
suffering American citizens...


PS Liar? Dishonest? Right now I would say not...the Monarch is sitting, so
to speak, on the witness stand, and speaking otherwise...and does not ask
for $100,000,000...

-----Original Message-----
From: neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk
To: tils-leps-talk at yahoogroups.com
Cc: leps-l at lists.yale.edu
Sent: 10/6/03 5:09 PM
Subject: [leps-talk] Cherubini's conspiracy theories

Ron Gatrelle wrote:-


> Your post was practical and fair. Sadly, what this long time debate >
comes down to is that some think the Brower et al and Monarch >
situation is mostly to fully plain old fraud. Thus, there is an > annual
accusation that there is an annual fire-in-the-theater cry. > The "fire"
never comes to pass and so the cry goes out the next year > and the
next. The funds keep coming in, the programs go on, and > personal fame
swells. The Monarchs? They just keep keeping on.


You are grossly in error. I am sorry that we find ourselves at odds but
there is no question but that you are WRONG! 
I regret that yet again I have to tell everyone about Paul Cherubini's
record and I grow weary of doing it. I have to say this but there is no
question about it. You are not examining the data properly but are going
on OPINIONS rather than established facts.

The only thing we know about what Professor Brower said is what Paul
Cherubini says. We differ in what we say about believing Paul. Your
mental pathways let you believe in things on faith and you believe him
on faith. Mine say question everything and I have found by checking what
Paul Cherubini says that Paul Cherubini is dishonest . (I question
everything INCLUDING what Professor Brower says.)

I have been investigating Paul Cherubini's claims for years. They have
repeatedly been found to be false. I have also noticed that you have
followed matters on faith without checking the data. You, for example,
previously accused Prof. Brower of fraud on the basis of a false
Cherubini misquote without looking at the written original. The written
original PROVES your concusion FALSE.

What really causes me to dislike Mr Cherubini is his dishonesty. Over
the years he has been repeatly caught misquoting and misrepresenting
facts,  figures etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam. He is shown conclusively to
be wrong on one list and he just goes to another one and repeats the
same rubbish. He has even used false identities to do this.

Two examples amongst dozens. He lied when someone asked for help in
saving the world's rarest butterfly. He falsely accused her of
campaigning to raise funds. I know beyond any shadow of a doubt that
this is false, because I helped her post the message and I designed the
website and there is not , and never was, any appeal for funds. We just
asked people to write letters.

He posted distorted satelite data to try to claim that there was no real
deforestation in Mexico. He didn't realise that the website he had
appropriated the data from would be located and it would be shown that
he had picked low resolution data because they suited his purpose when
the high reolution data showed a different story. This if it happened in
a scientific journal would probably ensure that he would never be
published again. This is the internet though and any nut can get on.

There is further evidence to back up his lack of credibility. That is
his medical history. I am not saying this to be nasty but the survival
of the monarch roosts in Mexico is an important issue and his
credibility is being discussed. According to Sue Halpern's book Four
Wings and a Prayer he apparently confessed that very similar theories
about scientists were classified -  BY -  HIS  - PSYCHIATRIST- as

A look in the archives of various lists will show people saying that he
was an "Oddball" etc., long before the book was published.

On the Entomo-l List, which is dominated by professional scientists, he
is treated as a laughing stock. His lack of honesty in debate there has
frustrated many people. This first example shows a fellow entomologist
venting his frustration at blatent misrepresentation for political
purposes. The colourful language is his not mine but does accurately
reflect many people's feelings. NOTE Cherubini has been MISREPRESENTING
the poster!

Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 19:17:23 -0600 From: Richard Fagerlund

"It is normally hard to trip my trigger but Cherubini managed to do it.
I don't really give a rat's ass about his cockeyed opinions, but he took
two of my messages totally out of context. He appears to have a reading
disorder. I will try to control myself in the future as I dislike being
profane. "

Here another person has noticed clearly what Mr. Cherubini is up to.

Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 10:56:27 EDT From: John Mclaughlin

"Paul has made his case - you can accept or reject it, but you will get
nowhere arguing with him or trying to present evidence to refute his
claims. He is not in this to be pursuaded or to in any way deviate from
the official company line. I made earlier analogy to "scientists" and
other of his ilk who, for years, clouded the scientific issues
surrounding the obviously highly addictive and health-affecting habit of
smoking tobacco. Paul is cut from their cloth and is comfortable and
skilled at their tactics." 

I don't know if I'll convince you you are wrong Ron. The likelihood is
that you will continue to BELIEVE Paul Cherubini by FAITH and that I
will continue to KNOW he is not credible from the FACTS.

He will probably not be cured of his problems and will continue with his
odious postings. 

My advice to others is don't believe a word he is saying and don't
believe a word of what I am saying. CHECK IT OUT and then you'll find
that I am correct. 

The fact is that in real scientific terms Paul Cherubini's arguments do
not stand up. Let's put the issue simply. Deforestation is a problem in
many many many places. (Or is this just part of a conspiracy?) Monarchs
live in roosts in forests (Is this fact a part of  a conspiracy?) If the
trees are cut down the monarchs will have no where to roost. ( or is
what we know of Monarchs part of the conspiracy?)

Now I don't know about the accuracy of Professor Brower's predictions
but I have read much his work and it is well researched and his
conclusions follow logically from what is known like any good science.
Paul Cherubini on the other hand is not credible at all except to what I
would politely call "the credulous".

Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.butterflyguy.com/
"At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn
Bog National Nature Reserve.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US &

TILS Motto: "We can not protect that which we do not know" © 1999 

Subscribe:  TILS-leps-talk-subscribe at yahoogroups.com 
Post message: TILS-leps-talk at yahoogroups.com 
Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TILS-leps-talk/messages
Unsubscribe:  TILS-leps-talk-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com 
For more information: http://www.tils-ttr.org 


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

CAUTION PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this transmission is
intended to be sent only to the stated recipient of the transmission. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the intended
recipient's agent, you are hereby notified that we do not intend to waive
any privilege that might ordinarily be attached to this communication. Any
dissemination, distribution or copying of the information contained in this
transmission is therefore prohibited. You are further asked to notify us of
any such error in transmission as soon as possible at the telephone
number/email address shown above. Thank you for your cooperation.  


   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:


More information about the Leps-l mailing list