"J. Maynard Gelinas" wrote:
> Hi,
> I've been busy and just this evening found time to read the original
> posted by Wes. After doing so I have a few comments I'd like to make.
I had meant to re-read the original articles before commenting, but I will
respond to your comments.
> For one thing I strongly agree with Jim Drapoou when he wrote:
>
> > OK, you say you know enough to demand disclosure.
> > Now ask yourself,
> > 1.) What Exactly do I know ?
> > 2.) What Prima Facia evidence do I have to support the allegations,
> > that would hold up under intense scrutiny ?
> > 3.) What do I physically have to Prove the allegations ?
> [...]
>
If Jim's article was aimed *only* at the "NSA" document, then I agree.
To me it read as a wider sort of "warning," much of which I agree with but
some of which I thought was incomplete, as I addressed in an earlier
article.
> The document was *poorly* written. Disjointed sentences combined with
> redundant narrative containing a glossary in the middle of the document; he
> never wrote this to get published. For example, The title is presented
> twice, the Berkeley student hostage/suicide was presented twice, and he
> suggests many famous people who have attempted to gain public attention to
> the NSA program, yet he provides no direct testimony by those (who have
> lived) which could confirm as such other than by oblique references in
> their art. He even claims that some, even Curt Cobain, have died trying to
> expose the program. How do we ask the dead?
Perhaps hastily written, but generally I agree. The numbering style, with
very
short paragraphs, is not like most published journals. Some military
writing tends toward that style.
> Why did so many people here respond with affirmation to this? I don't see
> people wondering why the NSA might hire someone with such a lack of written
> skills, nor do I hear many suggesting this might be further disinformation.
> A little skepticism might be of some value right now.
First, there is the instant credibility given by coming anonymously through
the
list owner. This is probably not the major reason people responded with
affirmation, but a real one. To me it was never clear what the purported
background
of the document was. The author apparently never claimed to have worked
for the NSA, according to the "interview" article.
I think the main reason for the reactions is that while the article has some
serious flaws, it does manage to touch on some realities of how the
"controllers"
(for lack of a better term) operate. In this case I speak from my personal
experience,
and I suspect that others with personal experience agree to some
extent. These things are not easy to describe well, and so to see even a few
aspects described well is attention-getting. I think you address similar
issues in your
following paragraphs.
If the article is information it is interesting, though incomplete. It might
make a practical
difference in a victim's life if he or she were to now look out for tricks of
this sort. If it is
disinformation it is still interesting, though questions arise as to what is
being left out
and why, and what the magician's other hand might be up to.
> Still, I'm struck by some the of specific *content* of these
> allegations. For example, the anonymous poster states that they use
> 'thought labels' which are usually tactile or auditory hallucinations
> combined with either a positive or negative reinforcement to generate a
> conditioned response, or combined with a verbal hypnotic suggestion. This
> is *very* much like a Milton H. Ericson or NLP defined 'anchoring'
> technique.
>
> Anchoring, as a technique used by 'therapists,' usually to blunt a
> horrible feeling or uncontrollable phobic response associalted to some
> arbitrary stimulous. The 'therapist' generally uses some tactile (or
> secondary modality) experience to confuse and *link* one emotional response
> to a (usually remembered) situation to the first sensation. At this point
> if the therapist repeats the first stimulus (presumably) the patient will
> reexperience the secondary emotional response (whatever is bothering them).
> Then, they will find some other emotional experience, often completely
> unrelated, which made them feel at opposite ends (usually good) and link
> that to *another* secondary stimulus. For example, one could use a touch
> to the left knee when the patient remembers something horrible, and a touch
> to the right knee as they rediscover good memories of a vacation.
>
> Then, a little later after the conversation has shifted and the patient
> forgets about creating the original conditioned responses, the 'therapist'
> usually says or does something out of the ordinary to confuse the patient
> while they press both 'anchors' conditioned to opposite emotional states.
> The hope is that this will cancel out whatever horrible feeling is
> associated with whatever memory originally bothered the patient.
>
> The use of Christian and religious motifs along with church support
> systems really hit home. I've noticed large numbers of seemingly cult like
> fundamentalist Christians move into high tech here in Massachusetts and
> often I wonder just how do seemingly intelligent people get sucked into
> this crap? Never mind the bible belt demographic inherent in the American
> population. I suppose this could be one possible answer.
I suspect that people who would torture other human beings on an ongoing
basis would generally not worry about impersonating God or violating any
religion
if they thought it would help control their victims.
> About using high speed voice, did anyone notice the speed audio readers
> that were available on the consumer market a few years back? One could buy
> a cassette book and then listen at high speed for faster comprehension.
> Such devices do work, and I'm not at all surprised by the notion that
> repeated tape loops directed toward unconscious processing could be used
> for unconscious hypnotic suggestion; consider the many subliminal studies
> done by advertisers as proof that unconscious systems perceive codified
> stimuli beyond the normal envelope of conscious perception.
>
> One thing that is fact checkable is the assertion that a subject
> deprived of REM sleep for a long enough duration will die. I don't know of
> any studies which suggest this is true. However, I haven't seriously
> researched sleep science and can't say one way or the other - but it's
checkable with an animal study.
I recall that it is indeed true in animal studies, but I would have to re-
check.
> Finally, the issue of electronics which can be pulse energized by
> satellite transmitters. *That*, I believe is technically feasible. Though
> the issue of planting such devices widespread enough for global
> surveillance at the street corner and individual home level strains
> credulity.
Yes, I wondered about the technical likelihood of the these "magic spheres"
scattered everywhere. They were never described in much detail, especially
their mode of operation. If they are so powerful and impervious to detection,
why not just implant them into the people? I do not doubt that advanced and
miniaturized technology exists, but why is it deployed as described, and how
does it supposedly project sounds to individuals when distributed all over?
As has been pointed out on the list, there are multiple technologies and
methods
for achieving the same sorts of mind control results. Even if widely-
distributed
devices like those described in the article are not in general use, hypnosis
and other
con-game techniques could be employed in a similar fashion
in conjunction with more mundane technology that is definitely known to exist.
--
Allen L. Barker
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~alb
**************************************************************
MINDCONTROL-L Mind Control and Psyops Mailing List
To unsubscribe or subscribe: send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the following text: "unsubscribe MINDCONTROL-L" or "subscribe
MINDCONTROL-L". Post to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wes Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, list moderator
