Thursday, January 17, 2013

Re Paul Stayton's Comment - A Question of Substantiation

In response to your coming to my blog and criticizing what I have to say about NSA agent Julianne McKinney, I decided to google you to find out more about you. I quickly found your posts at the FFCHS website and read what you have to say about your own unsubstantiated claims about your targeting. I notice that you referred to McKinney's 1992 article at the very top of your first post, and seem to use that article as a basis for substantiating your claims about your attacks. From all that you wrote, you appear to not have ever done much research into this subject at all. You've apparently taken the first thing you've read or heard or as complete truth (never mind whether it might be or not, or who wrote it). You failed to consider the possibility that there might be other reasons for your symptoms and perceptions, or that much of the information that is put out about these perpetrators and their technologies (particularly by NSA agents like McKinney) might be purposeful distortions of more accurate truths. This latter point is what I've been trying to point out to TIs for years, and why I question the motivations of McKinney, who treats people on her forum the way she does. I don't trust NSA agents, CIA agents, FBI agents, etc., with very good reason. You say in your posts to FFCHS that you don't know who to trust, and yet you've already bought into the word of an NSA agent, and come here attempting to defend her. What do you think that says about your ability to make judgments?

But even worse than believing the first thing you hear, you automatically assume a number of things about your attacks, with no substantive evidence that would eliminate other possible answers. For instance, you assume without considering any other possibilities that people are hiding behind your walls because you can hear their muffled talking. Perhaps you hear ordinary voices of ordinary people talking in other rooms who aren't even involved in your attacks. What did you do to substantiate this assumption? Anything?

Then, after viewing some videos on the FFCHS site, you used them to substantiate your suspicions. Fair enough, to a degree, but then, according to your posts, you start thinking back over your life to look for anything that matches what you've just learned. So you started buying into what FFCHS promotes as substantiated fact even more, still without any further consideration of other possibilities. It must be right if so many others apparently claim it is, right? You gave consideration to the possibility that the video you saw might have been carefully created or selected to promote certain beliefs, right? I'm not trying to suggest that it's all false, but I would say that at least 10% of what's put out there by such organizations and supposed TI advocates is absolutely false and has no real substantiation whatsoever, much of it being founded on prior disinfo that has been promoted over the years by similar people and groups to mislead and hide the more accurate truth.

You also assume that those who you say are tormenting you are agents of the government, without ever having any substantiation beyond what you've bought into through what certain others claim. Well, McKinney was/is an NSA agent by her own admission, past members of FFCHS have been NSA agents (Derrick Robinson, for one), and many others out there who pretend to be TIs or TI advocates are in the employ of the NSA or CIA as well. This is all easily verifiable, if you bothered to take the time to look before jumping to conclusions. The perps attacking you might just as easily be Freemasons, Satanists, or some little gang of delinquents who built a homemade weapon out of a normal microwave oven. But like many other people, you choose to accept the very first thing that sounds good. But don't feel bad or get angry with me, since that's all intended as part of the psychological tactics that are purposely used by these perps. It's a fault of human nature to tend to accept the first thing we hear, and to let it influence our later perceptions. The PTB know this very well, and use it to their advantage in many ways. You see it being used on the evening news every single day to influence opinions and perceptions.

I should point out that, if you used a search engine to look for websites catering to TIs, you would undoubtedly come across FFCHS in the top listings. This is as much to do with the ability of the CIA and NSA to keep their own imposter sites at the forefront, since they have control over these search engines and also know very well how to use search engine optimization techniques so that these sites will always come up first. Thus, you and so many other TIs are drawn to sites like FFCHS where you'll be sure to be exposed to the disinformation early on. Don't just doubt me. Investigate these things for yourself. How better might you substantiate anything?

You also state in your posts that these perps had you "stewing in a lonely room with no means of escape." This leads me to wonder, were you actually locked in, as you seem to imply, or was this just an exaggeration? And where's your substantiation? You say nothing about being attacked at any time outside of your home, so why didn't you leave? Your statement sounds like it was purely intended to make your case sound as bad as possible. Excuse me if I'm wrong and you actually were a prisoner in your own home, but saying this sort of thing in this way adds a certain level of apprehension to other TIs who read it. I try to always avoid making statements that are emotionally laden or which exaggerate the truth in any way. I'm very much against other TIs who do it because it doesn't help any of us to create unnecessary fears that can otherwise be avoided. It's FAR worse than making claims that might be considered by some to be unsubstantiated.

You go on to assume in your posts that because you're still alive, it's because your perpetrators want you around to abuse, and nothing else. Substantiation? None given. You also claimed that because of their attacks on you, you heart is permanently damaged. Did you substantiate that for your readers? No, you didn't. You didn't even bother to state whether or not this was a doctor's diagnosis, or just your own. You want to bitch about my supposed lack of substantiation (even though I provide the actual dialogue between McKinney and myself, as others have also provided on my blog from their own experiences with her), yet in your own case you completely omit anything at all that would substantiate your claims.

Do you get my point yet?

Whether or not your claim is true, and you got this diagnosis from a doctor, they are very often wrong, and harboring the idea that your heart is permanently damaged will have a definite physiological effect on your body's ability to repair itself. That's a scientific fact. Think about this in terms of how many of those who read your post will be influenced. These sorts of claims have a contagious psychological effect on others, especially with those who already have a weakened physiology because of their built up fears of such things occurring. And if they're being attacked with EM weapons, they'll be even more susceptible to the physiological effects that you might trigger in them through the idea of heart problems. I'm not saying don't ever make such statements, but just be careful about what you say and think about the effect it can have on other TIs by the way you say it. And if you're going to bitch at someone like me for supposedly not offering substantiation for my claims, you better damn well make sure you substantiate yours! I know that there are many, many perps out there posing as TIs who put out material that is purposely intended to affect TIs this way. Some of them have been or are affiliated with FFCHS, and when I've approached them and challenged them on their claims when I know they're lying, they've proven to be the lowest form of scum I've ever come across in the TI community. I've written about at least two of them elsewhere on my blog - Robert Duncan and Mell Mellhedek. Your timing in coming back to my blog a second time and criticizing my post on McKinney for not being substantiated has already made me very suspicious of you, since it comes immediately after I raised some issues about the credibility of FFCJS on facebook. These creeps would like to silence me because I threaten their crooked game. But they just urge me to go further when people like you defend them without giving any substantiation for doing so. Whose side are you on?

I have to point out that, like many questionable claims made by people falsely claiming to be TIs (and many legit TIs as well), your posts to FFCHS instill many ideas and images that only add to the fears of those who read them. This is what the perpetrators want, and an organization like FFCHS (which has long been infiltrated by NSA agents) just loves to have these kinds of posts on their site for TIs to read and be psychologically and physiologically influenced by. They do nothing at all to really help anyone. These types of people and organizations go through the motions to make them appear legitimate, but they achieve nothing while TIs continue to wait, in the hope that one day they will. Did you really expect that their representing TIs at a commission made up of some of the top-level perpetrators who are doing this to people like you and me would really get anywhere? It's all meant to waste the time of TIs who expect others can do something for them. You have to do things for yourself, and that starts with educating yourself about the enemy and their methods. You can't stop once you think you have accurate knowledge after only reading a few articles or watching a few videos or talking to a few people. You have to keep going and get down to the intricate details - the history of the perpetrators and their technologies and the science behind the weapons they use. You also need to study the psychological aspects of it all, since that's one of their greatest weapons. There's so much superficial and misguided BS being spread around that it's imperative to question things more deeply than you normally would with anything else. Don't take the word of someone just because THEY claim to understand the science behind it. Learn it for yourself in as much detail as possible. These perps lie and misdirect. They know most TIs won't do their homework because most people are lazy and not very intelligent. If you're really fighting for your life and your freedoms, you will make the effort. If you're actually mentally ill, or just entertaining yourself with the idea of being targeted, or even intentionally lying about it to scare others, you won't bother. Make your choice.

You go on to state in your posts, "This insane sadistic abomination doesn't make any sense to me, but I suppose that's only because I'm not in the loop, and there's nothing I can do about that." Well, educating yourself as much as possible is something you can do to be 'in the loop'. You should always be asking questions to learn more and to substantiate what you learn. Taking more time to check out someone and their claims helps, too. It's the only way to substantiate anything.

You stated in your posts to FFCHS that you've been emailing TI websites and trying to make contact with other TIs, and that you're particularly interested in finding out about getting tested for implants, and the only response you've gotten was a very brief one from Dr. John Hall, who told you to contact Jesse Beltran at ICAACT, which is another organization I have suspicions about. First of all, I have to wonder why you seem to have bought into the idea that you have implants so quickly. Is there any reason for this, other than because you've heard that so many others claim to have them? As it is, you're being directed to a group that will very likely tell you that you have implants whether you do or not (Jesse claims that from 83% to 99% of the people he's tested have them). And just because Jesse has an EMF reader to test for them, doesn't mean that what he might find if he scans you is going to be accurate. These EMF readers can be triggered by any number of things, including microkinetic influences (intentional or not). This microkinetic effect has been scientifically verified by psychic researchers (such as Dean Radin, who has published two nooks on these findings). It has been found through many empirical tests that we all have some ability to psychically affect matter on micro-scales. EMF readers are extremely sensitive pieces of equipment that are very susceptible to being triggered in this way. I could explain this in more detail, but this post is already getting quite long (perhaps I'll write something up on that topic sometime in the future).

As I've said, organizations like FFCHS and probably even ICAACT are a farce, as are people like Julianne McKinney with her TI 'support' forum on Yahoo. Maybe one day more people will realize that. What sort of information or advice did you get from FFCHS after you posted there, if any? Nothing that's really been any help to you, right? Was it substantiated in any way? If so, how?

You yourself ask, "Why do I keep getting the feeling that most of the purported TI support sites out there are unwilling to communicate with me?" In my opinion, they are either websites set up by TIs who lose interest in running them when they get no activity, or they're imposter sites that are used to feed TIs false information, and to monitor and manipulate those who fit a certain profile. The CIA and NSA who create or take over these sites use advanced psychological profiling systems to assess people (such as Dr. John Gittinger's PAS), gathering information on them through computerized data-collection systems like ECHELON. They apply their mind-control programs on the most qualified targets. You need to read up on these for yourself before you decide to claim that this is unsubstantiated. These are advanced topics that I can't really explain here, since it takes a lot of learning time before a person can grasp the means and purpose behind it all. As I said earlier, you have to really study the history and science behind all this. That's the only way you can really substantiate any of it. Start by reading what's available online by John Marks. He's an authority on MKULTRA. Jis work is based on thousands of FOIA documents he acquired the CIA, and you can't get much better substantiation than that!

But getting back to this matter of substantiating your own claims... You state that you went to a number of different professionals and explained your situation, and they pretty much all diagnosed you as mentally ill. But you rejected this, so I have to wonder what you would ever accept as substantiation for anything, if what is said by qualified professionals doesn't suit your fancy? I'm not saying these professionals were right. Not at all. I know that the system is rigged to deny TIs help.

At this point, I think I've more than made my original point regarding the issue of substantiation and how you're no better than me or anyone else in making unsubstantiated claims. I see from your posts that you're still at a very elementary level in understanding your targeting, so anything further I have to say is going to be beyond your current level, and I doubt you'd be willing to take my word on any of it, anyway. Only time and personal research on your own part will substantiate what I've said here and elsewhere. I write what I write based on my personal experience as a TI and my many years of research into the perpetrators of these nefarious activities and the methods that they employ, and if TIs don't want to believe what I say, that's their problem. However, I will suggest that you look at my numerous articles at www.scribd.com/aforwood. I recommend 'The Network' as a starting point. It will explain a lot to you.
I hope you appreciate the time I've put into responding to you and my attempt to provide some useful information - more than anyone else has, I'll bet. Sorry if it doesn't substantiate my claims about McKinney. I don't know what more you would expect me to provide.

Anthony Forwood

18 comments:

  1. My my, the things one comes across when one occasionally googles one's own name! Well, since I'm here, and since you've been so wantonly callous as to pick at your chicken dinner in public again without a Handi-Wipe, I declare that it's only fair that I add my own words to your ongoing diatribe. After all, the title of this pretty little site does have my name in the title.
    Now our adoring fans (fan?) will be waiting with bated breath for you to delete these words as well, just as you did when I first pointed out your inconsistencies in your premature accusatory judgment against Julianne McKinney.
    Had you simply left our last correspondence as a private email meant only for my edification, I would have been happy, honored and respectful at the outcome; however, being as it is obvious that you are unable to accept the premise of your own fallibility, and seem somehow drawn to the flame of Public Spectacle, I have no recourse but to respond to your publicized allegations using your own chosen format. Tit for tat, Chuckles.

    First things first:
    In all truth, sir, it must be pointed out that, just as with yourself, if I choose to speak for myself, I of course run the risk of attracting the attention of someone who doesn't particularly appreciate my point of view. Let us just for the moment disregard in this particular case that the someone to whom I refer is he who wishes to be acknowledged as The Grand Supreme Know-it-all of his measly little Almighty Kingdom of Irrefutable Online Rhetoric, and that's that, nyaah-nyaah and cocky-poo-poo to all the insignificant naysayers who have the gumption to challenge his flimsy arguments.
    You apparently hold yourself in high esteem, as many of us do when we try to insulate our opinions from critical analysis by deleting what we find too much of a reality check for our precarious footing in our majestic climb up the lumpy mound to blog notoriety.
    You say one thing, and at the same time you prove by your actions that you're doing exactly the opposite. You're not trying to help or enlighten me, or anyone for that matter; you're just giving yourself another excuse to climb up on your soapbox. Well, pardon the rest of us who don't go around slandering people's names just because no one has, of yet, turned off the torture for TIs everywhere.

    Here's some of YOU, quoted:

    “I'm not trying to suggest that it's all false . . . “
    Of course you're trying your damnedest to suggest exactly that. You disagree with my observation that you're maligning another person without any proof, and so you feel have no choice but to attack my descriptions of my own publicized experiences on the JeffPolachek.com post. Your inept accusations were threatened and you lashed out. And you lashed out online, where you can gleefully and at a distance do the most damage to the person you have already maligned. You're no better than a perp.
    Hmm . . .

    “Do you get my point yet?”
    More on that in a bit.

    “You also assume that those who you say are tormenting you are agents of the government, without ever having any substantiation . . .”
    That's right, I'm assuming, and therefore I'm not substantiating anything. I never claimed to have proof for my assumption. That's why you recognized it as an assumption. And so, at least one of us, between you and me, makes things perfectly clear when and where he's merely assuming something. If one would read my post on JeffPolacheck.com, you'll see that. These are things I believe, and I'm attempting to describe what I'm experiencing to the best of my ability. What I am NOT doing is pointing out any specific individuals by name and declaring them enemies of the State. How could I? I have no proof.
    You suddenly seem quite interested in using the word substantiate as long as you yourself are not beholden to the word's actual definition.
    More to come . . .
    Paul S. Stayton

    ReplyDelete
  2. “I should point out that, if you used a search engine to look for websites catering to TIs, you would undoubtedly come across FFCHS in the top listings.”
    Yes, and I should point out that, because of your insolent decadence in smearing the names of people who disagree with your errant darts of colloquial disinformation, it is become public knowledge that the great and terrible Anthony Forwood wishes to ride on the slandered coattails of his own chosen targets, and thereby increase his own networking capabilities in order to further impart his own skewed version of the truth to the hungry masses. Did God grant the exclusive right to the self-serving, chest-beating desire for popularity in the public domain solely to Anthony Forwood?
    If I choose to describe my own experiences in an open forum, to a sympathetic audience that is willing to non-judgmentally relate to my particular situation, then that is my business and my right to do so, and with any hope left in this dismally corrupted society we can share some of whatever hope is available and even perhaps share any of the burden of grief that may be too much for one person to bear.
    But my experiences do not include and encompass an ability to decry the purported experiences of another person; and they certainly don't give me immunity from critique if I were fool enough to call that person a traitor or worse without proof.

    “Do you get my point yet?”

    It is plain to see that far too many unsavory characters with self-serving agendas have contaminated every facet of everyday life. Do you know why? Because they simply can no longer help themselves. We both know what a sad state of affairs that is in the case of some TIs who have been driven to the edge of desperation and are only seeking help. But what happens when it gets to the point that they begin to lash out at anything they see as a threat to them—and a threat to all of their millions of measly little Almighty Kingdoms of Online Rhetoric; and then any good they might have been able to do for another person in need is buried beneath that same panic-stricken rhetoric.

    Anybody can say anything about anybody; you and I both know that. If I were to start my own little blog we both know that I can be the Great and Terrible Grand Poobah of that measly little blog. Why, I'd even be able, and yes, willing, to start publicly condemning anybody who objected to anything I “officially decreed” in my Royal Bullshit Edict. Moreover, I could officially decree, in my great royal poohbahness, that two plus two equals five, and that the sky is blue because Julianne McKinney and Derrick Robinson are NSA perps, and that is why I am still being continuously tortured by microwave radiation everywhere I go, because Julianne and Derrick haven't stopped the torture.
    And good lord! Nobody I have corresponded with has been able to help me stop the torture—not even the Mighty Anthony Forwood!
    Therefore, Anthony Forwood is a perp! As a matter of fact, the plain fact that he knows so much about all that's happening is all the proof I need to make that nailed-down honest-to-goodness fact; and gosh by golly, to the devil with any and all who may label my fact a presumptuous miscalculation.
    Oh, and furthermore, if you are reading this now, it is is your patriotic responsibility and civic duty (hoorah! fireworks, please) to ostracize, humiliate, and pooh-pooh Anthony Forwood and everything he stands for, and to send him out of town on a rail, BECAUSE I SAID SO. No head shall be higher than King!

    ReplyDelete
  3. We're all entitled to our opinions. It's when we begin to lose sight of the forest for the trees that the unsubstantiated rhetoric starts flying. Keep trying to do the right thing, sir. Your above response to me, though almost as blatantly egotistical as this response of mine is to you, did have a couple of insightful perspectives. I would appreciate the advice more if it were not veiled in a fabricated, condescending illusion of magnanimity, posted on a megalomaniac's manipulable blogsite. You should have left it as a private email, as I thought you had when I first received it at my email address.
    I shall continue to educate myself, and hopefully with your assistance. But if you insist on smearing other people's names and reputations, without definitive evidence, simply to bask in the paltry sparks of your self-important arsonistic invectives, you can expect my reply forthcoming.
    Your ball, Chuckles.

    Paul S. Stayton sspaul@hotmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  4. You failed to address my questions, and instead took this as an opportunity to try to marr my character instead. Very well. Perp tactics get ignored. Enjoy your delusion. which it has to be if you can't properly explain your assumptions with logic and freason.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The main thrust of your argument--the premise upon which you base your entire specious campaign of vindictive rhetoric--is that you have declared Julianne McKinney to be an active NSA agent who has instigated a deceptive illusion of transparency in an effort to further bamboozle and confuse her victims unto their impending destruction by her nefarious hands. The irrelevant questions you decided to raise, due to my consistent observation that you have no proof to validate your above declaration, have absolutely nothing to do with the very cogent matter at hand: That you have no proof to back up your accusations about Julianne McKinney. You have a self-convenient talking-point diatribe of circumstantial referents that do not add up to your arrogant conclusion. My observation of your inconsistency is not based upon whether you're right or wrong about Ms. McKinney, or about whether or not you believe that anybody who disagrees with your rhetoric should be lambasted online. It's about a supercilious fool who won't come to grips with the fact that his refutable assumptions in a vapid grandstanding blog site can and will be challenged in the light of reasonable objection, especially when he persistently finds himself unable to admit that HE REALLY DOESN'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT HIS DECLARATION IS FACTUAL. The biggest crime here is that you won't admit to yourself that you don't really know one way or another about Ms. McKinney, and yet you carry on as though you were a perp surveilling her every move.

    ReplyDelete
  6. No, you blather. You fail to address my points, so I won't waste my time with you. You've proved me correct enough regarding your sensibilities.

    Ebnjoy your imagination...

    ReplyDelete
  7. My my, but aren't we the lofty King of Blogdom! So, you don't have any more time to waste on mere mortals such as I; and here you went to all the trouble to create a page in my honor!
    Honestly, Chuckles, do you ever stop to think of the pain—the anguish—you may very well heap upon another human being with a simple little typety-type-type of unfettered hubris unleashed from your own hyperactive imagination?
    No. You know nothing except how to deceive yourself into imagining that waving me off translates into “bowing out gracefully.”
    Once again you've made use of that age-old, wondrously tactful strategy of liars, by waving me off with one more “Ain't gonna waste my time with trivial facts” harumph of veiled disentanglement.
    You started this page, moron. I know how much it would grieve you to take my advice at this point, but you really should just close down this page. You don't have the conscience or the balls to retract your unsubstantiated allegations, either about me or Julianne McKinney. And now you can't be bothered?
    You are the one who blathers, sir. You shot your wad with your evasive opening diatribe, and since then all we're getting out of you is “nanny-nanny-poo-poo, I'm covering my ears now!”
    Perhaps these witless blogs are, for you, the only means you have left in life to bolster your illusion of control over something. If that is the case, I truly hope that your next uncoordinated effort to beat your chest online leaves intact your desire to leave your unsubstantiated allegations unchallenged—“untainted,” as it were—by the light of healthy skepticism. I mean, really, Bozo, in this forum? Know this: It is a dead certainty, in this particular forum, that the accused—whom you have so distastefully slurred by creating this page to begin with—is persistently going to hand you back your stinky sack of bullshit for as long as this page exists.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Paul. you're attempting to draw this away from your own specious claims.

    ReplyDelete
  9. No sir. I'm showing you that you have shown me nothing by way of your own accusations. You have attempted to deflect the matter at hand--namely, the fact that you have no concrete evidence to back up your initial claim that you have specific knowledge about Julianne McKinney that you know very well you don't have. And my guess is that the reason you don't have this knowledge is because it probably isn't true. It really seems to me that you're a self-serving, self-important, despicable fiend. If it weren't enough that you had already deleted my first messages to your blog page about Ms McKinney--messages that were in no way disrespectful, or obscene, but simply averse to the skewed misdirection your blog was attempting to plant--now you wish to continue to deflect the initial matter at hand by refusing to show me or anyone else the exact proof you claim to have which has so distorted your reasoning to the extent that you are now going to imagine that flaunting your apparent unconcern is somehow edifying to anyone at all. You simply wish to make a name for yourself by smearing others online. How's that going for you?
    They really must have made as much of a mess of your life as they have of mine; but that will never be a good enough reason--for me, anyway--to start naming blogs after my own chosen targets. I suppose you think I should be grateful to you for your naming this page after me. You threw down the gauntlet and now you want to do your Mexican tap-dance around it as though it were sport for you. Of what specious claims do you speak, that I must acknowledge? Do you wish to state that I have no proof that I'm being targeted unto ruin and ultimate murder? Why not blame EVERY TI for that factoid?
    Admit it, sir: you have no proof to back up your claims about the people you are specifically naming and maligning online. You have circumstatial referents at best; and if that's good enough for you to bring one more iota of grief to one more TI, then God help you.
    All you need do is admit that "This is what I think, this is my opinion." But this is the very thing you have chosen NOT to do. No, you have the unmitigated gall to continue this facade of standoffish evasion and deflection, at the cost of other people's reputations and lives.
    Looks like I'm going to have to keep on checking in, from here on in, since it is obvious you are never going to do the right thing by retracting opinions you have masqueraded as truth. Once again, tit for tat, Chuckles. Maybe you really aren't a self-serving dispicable fiend; but that's my opinion, right? At least I'm admitting it's only MY OPINION. Now all we need is for you to back that up with the evidence you seem to always have at hand and at the ready.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Paul, you hacked this site. Now I'm ccertain of what you are.

    You never sounded much like you were really suffering like your post at FFCHS claimed, anyway. You perps need to learn how to act better.

    ReplyDelete
  11. BTW, I don't bother reading your poor attempts atsounding smart. You're wasting your time whining at me. Go chase your 'perps' and quit worrying about the fact that I question your integrity. I'm done with you. The blog stays up as a warning for others. They can read what I've said and then read how you deal with it. The proof is in the pudding...

    Adios, perp!

    ReplyDelete
  12. I consider it my duty to answer every single one of your lies with retrospective reason. You can wave it off and scoff at it all you want, Chumley. An intelligent person can read right through your smarmy response above and see exactly how grating this is to you. It galls you.
    You are a liar and a fool. You are the perfect example of how the real perps have won against some of us. Everyone who dares to disagree with your unshakable belief in your own contrivances is supposed to be a “perp.” If that doesn’t explain to anyone reading this exactly how shallow and monomanaical you are, nothing will.
    Once again it seems to fall on me to speak the truth; and it doesn’t matter how many times it must be reiterated, if that is what the situation requires. It is because of closed-minded fools like you—fools who despise the challenge for authenticity—that so many Tis are afraid to speak up or to gather the courage to explore the world past their own paranoias. You have the unmitigated gall (that’s your trademark, Chumley) to call me a “perp” when you don’t even know me beyond the fact that I have in the past tried to reach out for help among others in the TI community. And yes, I have corresponded with jeff Polachek, and Derrick Robinson, and Julianne McKinney, and many others; and while each of them was at least courteous and forthcoming in their respective responses, none of them have been able to help ease my suffering from the microwave torture I am to this day experiencing.
    However, all it takes is one self-important asshole such as yourself to bring my suffering at the hands of the REAL treasonous maniacs out there to a NEW level of grief—grief I would not have had to suffer, but for the fact that I made the unwitting blunder of challenging your contemptible excuse for what lesser minds might mistake as unbiased research and journalistic integrity. Ah, 20/20 hindsight. I was new to the blog game, and to the prevalent horrible disorder that electronic harassment and torture has brought to so many lives—including, it seems, your own.
    What astounds me is that you seem to have absolutely no idea that you are contributing to to the anguish. It seems that you actually believe that you can exploit your contemptible lies, slander and disinformation—in exactly the same smug manner as the perps you claim to oppose—and that nobody is obligated to require something more from you than UNSUBSTANTIATED TALKING POINTS. Oh, and in case you’re still struggling to understand the term, calling somebody you don’t know a “perp” is a perfect example of an UNSUBSTANTIATED TALKING POINT. It is a flimsy rash reaction that indicates your typical style of expounding nonsense at the cost of honesty just because it gives you fleeting aggrandizement and—you hope—the pretentious aura of “omniscient mystique.” Oooh. Spooky! As though you had more of an inside scoop than of the rest of us in the TI community. You despise the truth; hence your incessant need to lay the “perp” line on anyone with half an ounce of critical thinking ability.
    But the truth is still here, Chumley, and it won’t go away. I am NOT a perp, and you ARE an irrational self-important asshole who thinks he can once again wave off the truth as if it were trying to grub change from him on the street. “Oh leave me be, you wretched peasant! Can’t you see I have loftier quixotic missions to attend? Perp! Nyaah-nyaah.” The grandiloquent Anthony Forwood razzes yet another insignificant dissenter. Bravo, Chumley. Show us once again—I beseech you!—who it is that simply won’t take the truth seriously.
    Or, spare us all your typical self-important posturing for once, and admit that you’re wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yopu have been given PLENTY of time to respond to the original post. Time's up, perp. You can no longer post on this blog.

    Anthony Forwood

    ReplyDelete
  14. To That Witless Shit Paul Stayton

    Paul Stayton, you really need to pay careful attention to how things are worded, since as you say, the devil is in the details. You insinuate that I'm slandering someone, and yet I fail to see where I've ever done so, and you haven't shown anywhere that I have. Where I say that FFCHS shows every indication of being a government operation, or that Julianne shows every sign of being a perp, or whatever else, I'm careful enough to say exactly what I mean to say and not anything else (unlike some people). But even if I slandered anyone, let THEM come out of the woodwork and deal with it. YOU are just acting like a stalker, hounding my blog like a viral dog that needs to be put down. You obviously have some psychological issues that you need to deal with that really have nothing to do with me, as anyone else reading your rants can see.

    And Paul, I'm not hiding behind anything. It's not at all unlikely that one or more mind-controlled FFCHS cultists would come around here as soon as I posted something about that organization, and I seem to have hit the nail on the head, since I did notice that you and a few others crawled out of the woodwork just as soon as I posted about FFCHS. That's a rather interesting coincidence, to say the least. That you would complain about my prescience is laughable. You've been so busy filling my blog with your psychotic rants detailing all the twisted fantasies you have about me that I gave up trying to find anything worth responding to. I just left you to go on presenting yourself however you chose to do. Good job! Ever thought about getting counseling? After all, some people who claim to be TIs really DO have mental issues, and FFCHS eagerly supports these people as much as anybody and even encourages their delusions. This is a fact that's evidenced in the way they operate and the information they promote as much as it's reflected in the sort of people who associate with them. That you were posting on the FFCHS website and that you arrive here just as soon as I post about them and start defending them and acting the way you do leads me to think that this isn't a coincidence. Why don't you tell your friends Derrick Robinson and Julianne McKinney to answer for themselves, instead of hiding from my attempts to ask them about their conduct and motives? Why do you act like the obedient dog whose job is to guard the hen house with your noisy, rabid barking?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Somewhere in your rantings you even attempt to blame ME for your targeting. That's a great attitude, Paul! Blame someone else for your problems! No wonder your targeting experiences you posted on FFCHS's website sound so... imagined. You're either one of those people who just want to excuse all the problems in your life and claiming to be a TI gives you that excuse, or you're posing as that sort of person to make real TIs look like a bunch of idiots. So go fuck yourself if you think I'M responsible for anything that happens to you. Grow some balls and take it like a man instead of sniveling like a baby, trying to make your life out to be worse than it is. If your perps were punishing you for posting here, as you say, then why in the fuck did you come back again? Are you really that stupid, or just that full of shit?

    And do you really think that I have nothing substantial to show that what I do is worthwhile to TIs? Have you read anything I've published besides what's on this blog? I use my targeting experiences to expose the perps, and I've done a lot to uncover what's going on. It's certainly a lot more than you've done, so you have absolutely NO reason to criticize me. What have YOU done, other than post bullshit targeting claims for FFCHS to use, and rant about your twisted fantasies of me because I questioned you? At least do your fucking homework on me more thoroughly before you castigate me and try to paint ME as some monster, you little creep. Don't expect that I have to bend to your demands to provide further evidence just to satisfy YOU. And if/when you find anything SPECIFIC that I've ever stated that you have an issue with, THEN come back and explain exactly WHAT it is and WHY you do, rather than to just generalize and attempt to waste my time. Otherwise, take responsibility for your life and your beliefs and the consequences of your actions for who you choose to associate with and quit whining to me about it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. People like you are a disgrace to the TI community. You have no basis to claim that you're a TI beyond your own imagination. You pose these imaginings as fact without showing ANY signs that you investigated them at all to assure your accuracy. Instead, you choose to quickly buy into the exaggerated bullshit that FFCHS does its best to spread as facts without second thought, and you join their legions of crackpot mental cases who really don't have any justification to claim that they're being targeted. They believe or at least promote the belief in technology that is scientifically unrealistic, making others think that this is what is being used for targeting, and even little shits like you who buy into then turn around and attack real TIs who DON'T describe this unrealistic technology as part of their targeting. I'll tell you from personal experience that an infestation of bedbugs can drive a person to as much distress as a zap with a satellite-based weapon. So why would the perps need those fancy weapons that defy physics? They don't. They just need simple harassment techniques like planting bedbugs while having some dipshit like you make fun of that fact. You're a sick and stupid little fuck, you know that, Paul?

    FFCHS is an NSA psyop. "The role of psychological operations (PSYOPS) is to influence the perceptions, attitudes and behaviour of selected individuals or groups with the goal of achieving political or military objectives while preventing effective use of these activities by an enemy or adversary." (NATO MC 402 1997) As such, FFCHS is only interested in gathering those people around them who will make the TI community look like a bunch of mentally deluded fools, by encouraging ANYBODY who jumps at shadows to believe that they're being targeted, and by the most outrageously unscientific means and improbable methods imaginable, based largely on props that have been purposely planted in the public record, such as the 1976 Robert G. Malech patent and the 1992 John St. Clair Akwei court filings. In all the time of them being in existence, they have done absolutely NOTHING to help TIs. If I'm wrong, then someone fill me in on what real help they've ever provided anyone and what achievements they've ever made.

    See my document at the link below for a more detailed understanding of how psyops are used in the online TI community:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/124594946/Psyops-and-Perception-Management-doc

    ReplyDelete
  17. Those of us who have legitimate targeting experiences stand to lose out on ever getting proper recognition as long as crackpots like you blindly support self-professed NSA agents like Julianne McKinney, Derrick Robinson, and Robert Duncan. And yes, I HAVE tried to communicate maturely with each one of them, only to have them become rude before running and hiding instead of answering for themselves in a professional manner. So now I can only discuss what they say and do from the vantage point where all can see, and anyone who has any reasonable objections are free to make them. That will have to exclude idiots like you who can only rant about their obsessive personal fantasies of me.

    My investigation into this highly questionable NSA agent-filled organization and its affiliates will continue, irrespective of whiney little shits like you coming here to act like the mind-controlled freaks you really are. I have reason to believe at this point that FFCHS is directly connected with Michael Aquino and his satanic Temple of Set, and that they're capable of computer generated electronic attacks through their website. I'm willing to suffer a few more attacks to confirm this, so it's not over yet.

    ReplyDelete