Talk:Trementina Base

Oh that is funny ! Secret Base ! Return here after intergalactic travel! hahahahahaha. Terryeo 19:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, by the way, do you suppose that the Vatican archives their earliest copy of holy documents, or that various groups like the Mormons, or the Freemasons have archived copies of thier first documents?

Neither of these comments are relevant to the editing of the article. wikipediatrix 22:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, good point. b .. bu . . . but the page was so fresh and clean and unspoiled I just had to LOL. Terryeo 23:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)That's just soooo amusing. HEH ! Terryeo 05:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This comment *is* about editing the article. If the original vault is now on public property, Wikipedia authors in that area should go take a look and get photographs. Be sure to have detailed maps and be sure your route does not cross scientology property. You should also first ask the BLM people if scientology has a lease on the property with the vault. If you do go out there, consider asking a sheriff to come along or at least be sure you can reach one by cell phone or radio. If someone can get a look at the BLM records, it would be very interesting to know who the person was who signed the papers for the land swap.(comment left unsigned at 05:41, 11 May 2006 by User:Hkhenson and annoted (field work for wikipedia) Terryeo 14:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That "comment" *is* about original research. WP:NOR (no original research) applies. If a person did such research they could not include that reasearch in a Wikipedia article unless that research were published by a recognized publication organization, such as a newspaper, or a book or the like. Even the publication sort of "essey" of a personal website is not to be included into Wikipedia articles. Maybe you should consider a profession in journalism? Terryeo 07:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Field work might be skirting close to original research. AndroidCat 15:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Re-reading OR, maybe not. AndroidCat 15:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason a person should not satisfy themselves. Research away ! But to suggest that the results of personal research could be included into this article overlooks WP:V which states, "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability" and that verifiability references to "published to the public". So, the way to go about actually doing that would be to have a reporter along who could write a newspaper article which could then be quoted and cited in the article. Terryeo 18:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vault location

Is there anything documenting that the vault and surface building were built on the first tract of land? I've seen some speculation that the transfer was to correct a previous error, and the value of the building/vault wasn't included in the value of the land transfered because it was already on the second tract. As well, news reports imply that the vault is still under CST control, especially the KRQE video. AndroidCat 13:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have put links in the body of the article to the Claims Court ruling and to an excerpt from a form submitted by CST to IRS that discusses work done on the original Trementia site prior to the land swap. What I see in the video is a facade, with attestations that a vault is behind it. The video report is also inaccurate about the amount of land by a factor of 10, saying that the property is "40 private acres," when the Federal Register record specifies 400 acres in each tract.

The video report and the facts of federal record contradict. I believe that the federal record must prevail over a superficial news piece that was done so superficially that it doesn't even report or address the land swap, or investigate any actual records--that have to exist--of what construction was actually done on the two properties.

As for the recollections of the police officer interviewed, he is said to have "toured the vault 12 years ago." If it were, instead, 14 years ago, it would have been before the swap. Although he is specific about certain details, I saw nothing in the video to confirm unequivocally that he ever toured a vault on the property currently owned by CST.

Altogether, until the records of construction on both properties between at least 1986 and the present are investigated and revealed, minimally, the facts of federal record are far more reliable than the inaccurate and superficial local news station piece.

The Claims Court ruling says unequivocally: "Vault construction in New Mexico was begun in 1986 after the construction of staff living quarters, access roads, and water supply." There is no mention in the video report of such a vault or other developments on the original property. Indeed, KRQE seems completely oblivous to the fact that there ever was an original property, or that it was traded to the federal government. Furthermore, CST had the original property from 1986 to 1992, six years, and apparently spent millions on it, though the federal records, to speak frankly, seem to be helping to obfuscate the exact amount CST spent on that property before trading it.

Unless or until there is something significantly more concrete than a very superficial TV story of a few minutes, the June 1992 Claims Court findiing that vault construction had begun on the original site 6 years before, in 1986, and all the other evidence of record, indicates that there is a vault on the site traded to the federal government. There also is no known record of any such vault construction being done at the second site. CST could not have constructed a vault at the second site while owning the original site because the site they ended up with was public land from 1986 to 1992. Huntley Troth 17:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought: I probably should have put my last sentence first in my post above, but I also wanted to directly address this: "I've seen some speculation that the transfer was to correct a previous error."

I'd have to characterize that as very airy speculation indeed, since the Federal Register says nothing about any such "error." It clearly identifies two discrete pieces of property and very clearly records a trade of ownership of the two inarguably separate pieces of land.

Also, although I didn't include it in the body of the article, and perhaps I should have, the land swap was proposed on March 8 1991, the proposal actually entered into the Federal Register on March 15, 1991, as follows:

Realty Action on Proposed Land Exchange in San Miguel County, NM Vol. 56, No. 51 56 FR 11268 Friday, March 15, 1991

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Number: G-010-4212-13/G1-0108; NMNM 83264

I won't attempt to reproduce the entire record here, but the language is similar to the final record, and the subject is "Land Exchange," not correction of any error. One other issue that this raises, though, which also isn't in the article, is that the transaction was pending at the time of the Claims Court case, whose ruling wasn't issued until June 1992 (reissued, with some kind of corrections, originally issued May 1992). To me, it's a bit disturbing that the Claims Court made no mention of this fact.

I just thought I ought to add these additional facts here. Perhaps they should be worked into the article itself to forestall any more chasing of unfounded speculation. Huntley Troth 18:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this one of those HeadleyDown sockpuppets that were blocked [1] ? Terryeo 11:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use?

The image from Google Earth seems to only be fair use for discussing Google Earth, according to the license template on the image. --Davidstrauss 05:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've wondered about that. Google of course goes to a lot of work and certainly some expense. I don't know the legals of it, but at least some attribution to Google would seem to be in order. Is there a forum for asking question of this nature? Terryeo 18:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

some minor problems with the article

The article states, "The actual name of the base, which is patrolled by armed guards, is unknown." well, the title of the article is Trementina Base. Knowing Scientology, they probably refer to it as "the organization at Trementina" or just, "trementina" or something. isn't "an actual name" just plain unnecessary? Terryeo 05:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then the second thing, the "armed guards" statements. That is unsubstantiated. The permimiter is quite large, for sure. And it is way out in the country and most of it doesn't have any road access. How many "armed guards?" What hours do they patrol? What newspaper said so? What date was that? Such a piece of information should have a citation. Terryeo 05:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The end of the article says "Another similar compound is the Gold Base in Hemet ...", but Gold is located driving distance from Los Angeles, has a swimming pool, is used to create films, has a town nearby, doesn't store Hubbard's works on stainless steel, wasn't involved in a land swap, etc. etc. etc. Yes, both are large tracts of land, but their use is quite different. So we have this article with an unatributed "armed guards" and one man's statement that Gold has some weapons. Is that the similarity which is so inflammatory that both properties are "similar?" Terryeo 05:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. The newspaper article from 1994 presents heresay, "Jose Mufniz, who is building a house near where the road leaves paved NM 419, said he has never visited the ranch, but has heard that armed guards protect it." Jose is located 12 miles along a dirt road from the base and "has heard" that "armed guards protect it", therefore the article presents, Is protected by armed guards. I see. Well, that is very poor writing because it takes a heresay and presents it as a fact, and even the heresay is unattributed. The whole "armed guards" thing should be attributed or come out. Terryeo 05:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article states that the contents of the Trementina vault, "if any," are unknown. However the Washington Post article states that the contents of the vault were shown on national television in 1998. Is there another source that contradicts this? If not then the article should be amended to reflect what its sources actually say. I can do that, if no one else steps up to it. Psuliin 23:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

masonry

hey.. if anyone has links to freemasonry - please post.. i've heard of 'em, but haven't seen 'em.. well.. only one so far. and if anyone has ideas on what these 1.8 million steel things are used for (building a tunnel? `shrugs`) i'd be much amused. (13:43, 10 July 2006) (edit) 158.80.8.2 (Talk)

Hey .. U got something to say, create an identity, and sign your posts with four ~ Terryeo 22:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terryeo, you're still on probation for causing disruption on Scientology related pages, I'd recommend you stop biting the noobs. There is absolutely nothing wrong with users editing from IPs. --InShaneee 03:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another, Similar Base?

The last paragraph of the article states: Another similar compound is the Gold Base in Hemet, California, where Scientologists have, according to former member Andre Tabayoyon, been illegally stockpiling weapons and ammunition for unknown purposes. [7] What is the similarity? It very much sounds like pasting in a contentious stockpiling weapons (poorly referenced, anywhere), into an article to disperse the real value of this article. This article talks about an owned piece of land which is similar to two other which the Church owns, used (apparently) exclusively to archive sacred texts. The Gold Base has swimming pool, buildings, produces E-Meters, films, etc and is manned with traffic in and out of its gate. What's the similarity? Where does the "this equals that equals that equals [[WP:BEANS], stop?". Terryeo 19:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]