Monday, November 29, 2010

Intro to Ulsterman

For the past several weeks, a writer who goes only by "Ulsterman" has produced a series of interviews with a nameless "White House Insider," who he claims has close access to the inner workings of the Obama Administration. Since the first appearance of the "Insider" in September, "Ulsterman" has published more than a dozen supposed interviews with his own personal Deep Throat.

Some people have completely bought into these stories, while others have been more skeptical.

And for good reason. "Ulsterman" offers no evidence that he's an actual reporter, or that he has any legitimate contacts. The websites that he submits articles to, such as Newsflavor, are for user-submitted content, and have no editorial oversight. He is an anonymous person claiming to interview a second anonymous person. And as time has gone on, more people have begun to believe that the "Insider" is nothing but an attempt at a hoax, as the "interviews" have become increasingly conversational and unprofessional, resembling bad fiction more than actual conversations with a valued asset.

The important question is: can it be proven that "Ulsterman" has made up stories? The answer is: yes. "Ulsterman" has repeatedly made up individual subjects, given them fake jobs and employers, and fabricated whole interviews with these imaginary people. With "the Washington Insider," he kept his fake person anonymous, so that his fraud couldn't be exposed directly. But in multiple other articles, he wasn't so careful, and he simply presented fiction as if it were news.

In all, "Ulsterman" has used fabricated interviews in at least seven articles he wrote and published between September and November. Four of these articles he has already scrubbed. Below, you will see each of those seven articles exposed as the lie it is.

25 comments:

  1. Shockingly, I have just been made aware of your blog. I was thinking about starting one myself, but I've been quite effective in exposing Ulsterman in just comments. First, I wrote this article about Triond: http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/news/2010/11/20/triond-and-lie-machine

    But the real breakthrough was discovering who Ulsterman was: Anthony G. Martin. If you'd like more information, I can provide it. I've googled Ulsterman so many times and never found your blog. I'm afraid that while your work appears to be top notch, your publicity sucks :)

    Anyway, Anthony G. Martin. Check him out. He's already in panic mode, shutting down comments and deleting past ones. He's pretty freaked out, I almost feel bad for him actually, he seems like a decent person. Just a lousy "journalist"

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey, don't feel too bad about not finding the blog before. It just went online last night.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh, I see. Well, let me know if I can be of assistance. Here's a set of pictures of comments between Anthony Martin and myself and others: http://www.flickr.com/photos/56316558@N05/

    There's also a picture of Anthony Martin's twitter page where he says "I didn't do an Ulsterman story today." He may be saying that he didn't write a story ABOUT Ulsterman, but either way he wouldn't have responded the way that he did if he wasn't Ulsterman.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well now my Ulsterman-Insider bubble is burst. He was my last hope for Washington. I'm so ignorant that I believed everything he said. Should I now go jump off bridge?---NOT!

    LOL I knew this guy was a FAKE from the start! I already know his "insider" is not Rahm Emanuel or anyone else in DC. And his consistent use of "kid" sounds like it's right out of a Bogart movie!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I must say that after a more thorough review of this blog, my skepticism of Ulsterman has increased dramatically.

    His articles are fun to read but I'm not willing to grant him any credibility until he comes forward with his identity and debunks these findings with facts.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I will be covering this on my December 5th radio show.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So, Munsterwoman, you've done an excellent job of spreading the word. But I am curious as to what you think about the work I've done. What we've done compliments each other -- you're doing research and fact checking and I'm following the leads and attacking the actual person behind "Ulsterman." But more and more, it's begun to feel like we can only do so much, you know?

    How about a new post exposing the inaccuracies of the White House Insider series? There's a lot in there that's false and there's a lot in there that is laughable -- like the fact that the insider used the phrase "Democrat party" and then when comments noted this it suddenly changed to "Democratic party."

    And the recent story about Ulsterman having a gun pulled on him and taking down a whole precinct of cops. What kind of idiot would believe that? It's so obviously fabricated. I'd like to see some of that addressed here.

    ReplyDelete
  8. No, Anthony B. Martin is not Ulsterman. Mr. Martin completely different writing style. I've seen your post on the Ulsterman site, and as much said so.

    You and Munsterwoman have your own conspiracy going that you accuse Ulsterman of. LOL! Hyprocrisy.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I see my posts refuting the untruths of Munseterwoman have been erased.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Here I go again:
    Concerning one of Munsterwoman's assertions that there is no Media Science Institute and there is no such person as Jan Wendt, there is a Media Sciences Institute in California,which could have possibly had an agreement with Columbia to have courses taught there. I attended such a satellite program myself during my bachelor's education, and was able to take advanced courses from the larger university and for which I obtained 20 hrs credit, thus shortening my masters from two years to 13 mos. http://www.educationhq.org/college-118639.php

    It's not improbable that this Media Sciences Institute did the same thing.

    Also found a Jan Wendt here
    http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/en/fokus_events/fame/mediawebsymposium2010/program/detailed/index.html
    for * MEDIA WEB SYMPOSIUM 2010
    * DETAILED PROGRAM
    Whatever he does, he was considered enough of an expert to speak at this media symposium.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I deleted the two comments you made under the "Stewart's Rally to Restore Sanity" post, because they had nothing to do with that post And because you already reiterated those same comments under the Jan Wendt post, where they belonged. Those are the only two comments I deleted.

    The two on-topic comments you made under the Jan Wendt post were NOT deleted. Rather, I responded to the claims you made earlier today.

    For instance, I pointed out that the "Jan Wendt" you try to claim is Ulsterman's "Jan Wendt" is actually a German dude, not a Canadian woman. How you failed to notice this, I don't understand.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Also asserted by Munsterwoman that there is no such magazine as the Canadian J. of Naturalism, there is a magazine called The Canadian Field-Naturalist
    http://www.ofnc.ca/cfn/index.php

    A university she said didn't exist, does. Since she's erased my proof, I'll have to find it again. However, it does exist.

    Why would a poster who is so interested in the truth erase posts that show the truth? I'm making a copy of this one.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Also found a Jan Wendt here
    http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/en/fokus_events/fame/mediawebsymposium2010/program/detailed/index.html"

    Once again, if you'd clicked on the link in her name, you'd be sent to this page. *That* "Jan Wendt" is a German tech marketer, not a Canadian naturalist. Moreover, as clearly evidenced by the picture accompanying the bio, the Jan Wendt at that conference IS A MAN.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Also asserted by Munsterwoman that there is no such magazine as the Canadian J. of Naturalism, there is a magazine called The Canadian Field-Naturalist
    http://www.ofnc.ca/cfn/index.php"

    Yes, you found a nature journal with a completely different name. What you think that proves is beyond me.

    And once again, I didn't delete your Jan Wendt comments under the Jan Wendt post. They're right here.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Since both my and your comments have been now erased from the article in question (http://newsflavor.com/politics/world-politics/white-house-insider-jarrett-is-the-president/), I have nothing to go on other than your quote from your other site about Jan Wilcox, which doesn't say that he/she is a naturalist at all.
    ** According to Jan Wilcox, a founding
    member of the Media Sciences Institute at Columbia**
    Jan Wendt could easily have been a founding member of Media Sciences Institute if it were a ancillary school of Columbia as I explained about ancillary schools above.

    Where did you get that this person was a female? Or, a naturalist? Doesn't mention it in the article you saved. http://ulster-man.blogspot.com/2010/11/fiction-stewarts-rally-to-restore.html#comments

    And, yes, the names are different regarding the magazines, but that could just as easily have been an error as you seem to have made just now.

    ReplyDelete
  16. And, the Canadian College you said didn't exist, does. Where is that post of mine?

    ReplyDelete
  17. What have you to say about your assertions that there not being a Media Science Institute?
    http://www.educationhq.org/college-118639.php

    ReplyDelete
  18. "I have nothing to go on other than your quote from your other site about Jan Wilcox, which doesn't say that he/she is a naturalist at all...Jan Wendt could easily have been a founding member of Media Sciences Institute if it were a ancillary school of Columbia as I explained about ancillary schools above.

    "Where did you get that this person was a female? Or, a naturalist?"

    From you, in this very thread of comments. You keep conflating "Jan Wilcox" with "Jan Wendt."

    Wendt is identified here as "Canadian professor and devoted naturalist Jan Wendt," in the very first sentence. The article twice uses feminine pronouns in describing Wendt. The accompanying photo (which is actually just a borrowed stock photo) is of a woman.

    Wilcox, by contrast, is cited in a totally different Ulsterman article.

    Do you make any effort at all to *read* these articles before making pronouncements about them?

    ReplyDelete
  19. "And, the Canadian College you said didn't exist, does."

    Nowhere on this site did I say it didn't exist. Why are you making up things and pretending I said them?

    "Where is that post of mine?"

    What are you talking about? It's right here.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "What have you to say about your assertions that there not being a Media Science Institute?
    http://www.educationhq.org/college-118639.php"

    What Ulsterman wrote: "According to Jan Wilcox, a founding member of the Media Sciences Institute at Columbia,"

    What I wrote: "Nor is there a “Media Sciences Institute” at Columbia."

    You, by contrast, have rebutted my observation by pointing to a Media Sciences Institute at a totally different university. On the opposite side of the country. Which has no demonstrable ties to Columbia except those you've made up in your own head.

    If Ulsterman wrote an article quoting the president of the Berkeley University Whiffenpoofs, would you defend him on the grounds that although there is no such group, there *is* a Whiffenpoofs at Yale? Or if he quoted a nonexistent quarterback of the New York 49ers, that there's a real 49ers team in San Francisco, so he's not really lying?

    ReplyDelete
  21. hello there, I believe that Ulsterman reports and White House insider are completely fake and so does the girl who write "White House" parody articles on the same website ...

    like this:

    http://newsflavor.com/politics/us-politics/ulsterman-trump-obama-do-you-ever-actually-write-something-anything-or-all-you-do-is-regurgitate-what-others-write/

    ReplyDelete
  22. eztalk

    dude - do u mind if i call u dude? of course u do - so i shall continue

    you are about the most banal, idioglissic amateur debunker i have ever seen.

    next time you try and debunk a debunker - try and get your stories right

    hokey smokes - i feel like i lost some braincells reading your silly comments.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Thank you. I was fooled for a while myself until time after time there was no results from his "insider reports"
    He is nothing but a cartoon charector.

    ReplyDelete
  24. An anonymous person's critique of an anonymous person’s reporting about an anonymous person. GEEZ!

    ReplyDelete
  25. If you follow and actually read the insider interviews, they have pretty much been spot on. the latest example, on august 2nd the insider says the fed is going to start QE3 to give Obama a boost, in sep/oct.. I immediately shifted my 401k to gold and bought as much as I could afford.

    Last Thursday, Fed announces the start of QE3, gold and silver skyrocket.. Yeah, untruths you can literally take straight to the bank.

    Sure the other posts are anti-obama, doesnt mean they lack credability, just know there is an agenda.

    ReplyDelete