Thursday, October 16, 2014

Are All the People at FFCHS That Stupid??? Or Do They Think TIs Are?

While researching the backgrounds of the various people connected to FFCHS, I came across a few things that are quite interesting.

First of all, I was reading a long and detailed blog post by Bob S. regarding the manipulative tactics that were used to hinder the success of Debra Dupre’s 2006 World Day conference. [1] Bob’s post comprises a lengthy email exchange that took place in the week just prior to that event. What are important to note within it are the time frame (October, 2006) and the people who were involved in that exchange or otherwise listed as recipients of the emails, specifically: John Allman, Julianne McKinney, and Robert Duncan. Further to note about this exchange is that these three people were all working together at that time on a joint project that had to do with preparations for the World Day conference, and there had been no problems with any of them at that time regarding Robert Duncan’s purported credentials. Although he wasn’t involved in this particular exchange, he was listed in the email headers as a recipient, so he was obviously a part of this project. (See the references below for the full exchange.)

Next, after having read this exchange, I began to read a forum thread on Google Groups. [2] Again, what are important to note are the time frame (July, 2007) and the people involved, who were again John Allman, Julianne McKinney, and Robert Duncan. This forum thread took place many months after the previous exchange (discussed above) that was posted on Bob’s blog. Even more important to note here is the discussion about Robert Duncan’s credentials, how Robert Duncan responded to questions about it by John Allman, and how ‘ex’-NSA agent and TI ‘advocate’ Julianne McKinney reacted. (Again, see the references below for the full exchange.)

First of all, John Allman had asked Robert Duncan a very appropriate question that should have been very easy for him to answer, and Allman John gave a very good reason for why he was asking:

Is there a copy of your PhD thesis on the Harvard website, or an abstract, or an entry in an list of those holding Harvard doctorates? What subject was your doctorate in, and what was the title of your thesis? Which year did Harvard award you your doctorate?

Please do not be alarmed. This is a routine enquiry. Before repeating it, I try to authenticate any information that might be useful to our cause, and the support of our cause on the part of somebody with a Harvard doctorate in a relevant academic discipline constitutes information that might be useful to our cause. I'd like to be able (because I have checked the information myself) to repeat the information that you have a Harvard doctorate, and to amplify that information on request, when mentioning you, for example when recommending or commending you to others.

Here is Robert Duncan’s typically bizarre response to John Allman (pieced together from quotes):

From: The Mind Hacking Strategy Group A consortium of scientists from around the world

To: John Allman

Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 4:41 PM

Subject: RE: Harvard - routine authentication check (no cause for alarm)

John,

Please use your resources for something useful and don't violate people's privacy.

I will send you a naked photo if you wish instead of photocopies of degrees.

By the way, if you can be trusted with confidential information, that letter below started an investigation that I have been asked to head on behalf of TIs.

We will see if you can be trusted not to tell others.

After hundreds of emails to this organization, only mine did they agree to.

Be careful how you spend your time.

Short, concise emails.

Study marketing from business and you will help our cause more.

Thanks. Your friend,

The Saint

The next thing to note is the response to this from Julianne McKinney:

Julianne McKinney

26/07/2007

Other recipients: John_W...@hotmail.com, directe...@hotmail.com, chicken...@comcast.net, dave...@aol.com, miav...@myway.com, guid...@hotmail.com, kiri...@hotmail.com, jwls...@aol.com, kathrin...@sonnenkinder.org, lrbr...@netscape.com, luto...@hotmail.com, weiku...@gmail.com, angel...@yahoo.com, xavqua...@hotmail.fr, ocw...@yahoo.com, John_W...@hotmail.com, dbla...@yahoo.com, itzb...@hotmail.com, bas...@cox.net, sel...@waitrose.com, feng...@yahoo.com, bethbuc...@yahoo.ca, keri...@juno.com, lbu...@yahoo.com, bur...@verizon.net, c.bu...@comcast.net, csch...@cox.net, danny...@telenet.be, danu...@aol.com, deepur...@hotmail.com, arb...@verizon.net, dun...@aol.com, joe_...@hotmail.co.uk, marem...@yahoo.com.mx, erali...@aol.com, ahmad...@yahoo.ca, fawk...@cox.net, jesusher...@hotmail.com, cgig...@hotmail.com, ivr...@freemail.gr, jimmja...@hotmail.com, kleinmu...@web.de, infor...@kucinich.us, nle...@juno.com, mbab...@iol.cz, olive...@yahoo.com, demo...@peaceteam.net, cool_t...@hotmail.com, Somer...@aol.com, as1...@juno.com, da...@davidswanson.org, medsp...@yahoo.com, themi...@hotmail.com, samwil...@gmail.com, julianne...@yahoo.com, moe_...@yahoo.ca, janet.c...@hotmail.co.uk, croissant...@planet-interkom.de, gerrydu...@yahoo.com, john...@yahoo.com, don.fr...@yahoo.com, te...@mindspring.com, wlot...@web.de, mel...@hellandfamily.com, monika...@gmail.com, derrickc...@gmail.com, ad...@stolet.com, LAS...@comcast.net, ata...@comcast.net, ele...@shoestringradio.net, harlan...@yahoo.com

That is truly a bizarre response from the alleged "Dr. Duncan." And that's not just counting the errors in spelling and syntax.

"Dr. Duncan," as far as I am concerned, is a fraud and a not-too-effective con artist.

No true Ph.D. would refused to furnish appropriate details regarding the degree awarded -- simple facts, such as, the title and date of his doctoral thesis, the date on which the degree was awarded, and the name of the college and faculty awarding the degree. Offering to send a "naked photo," instead, is simply an attempt at blowing smoke.

Tell you what, "Robert," since you've made this offer more than once, how about sending us the said photo. It will keep us amused, no doubt.

Julianne

This email from McKinney (which btw, along with John Allman’s post, made some excellent points about providing credentials) was followed by this telling response from another person named Ted Jackson, who was also involved in the project with these people the year before (emphasis added):

Ted Jackson

26/07/2007

Other recipients: julianne...@yahoo.com, directe...@hotmail.com, chicken...@comcast.net, dave...@aol.com, John_W...@hotmail.com, miav...@myway.com, guid...@hotmail.com, kiri...@hotmail.com, jwls...@aol.com, kathrin...@sonnenkinder.org, lrbr...@netscape.com, luto...@hotmail.com, weiku...@gmail.com, angel...@yahoo.com, xavqua...@hotmail.fr, ocw...@yahoo.com, dbla...@yahoo.com, itzb...@hotmail.com, bas...@cox.net, sel...@waitrose.com, feng...@yahoo.com, bethbuc...@yahoo.ca, keri...@juno.com, lbu...@yahoo.com, bur...@verizon.net, c.bu...@comcast.net, csch...@cox.net, danny...@telenet.be, danu...@aol.com, deepur...@hotmail.com, arb...@verizon.net, dun...@aol.com, joe_...@hotmail.co.uk, marem...@yahoo.com.mx, erali...@aol.com, ahmad...@yahoo.ca, fawk...@cox.net, jesusher...@hotmail.com, cgig...@hotmail.com, ivr...@freemail.gr, jimmja...@hotmail.com, kleinmu...@web.de, infor...@kucinich.us, nle...@juno.com, mbab...@iol.cz, olive...@yahoo.com, demo...@peaceteam.net, cool_t...@hotmail.com, Somer...@aol.com, as1...@juno.com, da...@davidswanson.org, medsp...@yahoo.com, themi...@hotmail.com, samwil...@gmail.com, julianne...@yahoo.com, moe_...@yahoo.ca, janet.c...@hotmail.co.uk, croissant...@planet-interkom.de, gerrydu...@yahoo.com, john...@yahoo.com, don.fr...@yahoo.com, te...@mindspring.com, wlot...@web.de, mel...@hellandfamily.com, monika...@gmail.com, derrickc...@gmail.com, ad...@stolet.com, LAS...@comcast.net, ata...@comcast.net, ele...@shoestringradio.net, harlan...@yahoo.com

Julianne,

From among your long, long list of recipients, I ccan't find Robert's address. So, what is the point of addressing a question to him that he won't receive?

As far as the 'naked' remark, did John include Robert's entire reply? Or just bits and pieces that seemed to support his contention? Perhaps it was just a flippant remark (like many of your own, Julianne) meant to convey 'I have nothing to hide'.

John, why don't you go ahead and post Robert's unedited reply from which the bits and pieces were taken?

Ted

And then another message from Julianne McKinney a little further on (emphasis added):

At 01:16 PM 7/26/2007, you wrote:

Ted,

Duncan's email address is directe...@hotmail.com . On some occasions, he places his own name in front of it; on some occasions, he identifies himself as "Dr. Robert Duncan," still using the same email address; and on others, he identifies himself as a "consortium of scientists from around the world," again using the same email address. In the above list, he does not identify himself as being the holder of this email address.

Duncan made an identical offer to send a naked photo of himself in an email to Aaron and Derrick, when the issue of his alleged Ph.D. was separately surfaced. This is why I said that he'd offered to send a naked photo of himself "more than once."

I trust that you find John's response to your other questions adequate.

Julianne

The first of her messages suggests that Julianne McKinney had attempted to pretend that she was on John Allman’s side by also questioning Robert Duncan’s credentials. The fact that she excluded Robert Duncan’s email address in the header indicates that she didn’t intend him to get this email, and that it was intended for John Allman’s viewing, and probably certain others as well.

What makes this all so suspicious is that it’s quite provable with simple google searches that Robert Duncan, Julianne McKinney, Derrick Robinson, and various others have had a close working relationship for quite some time, extending from before the 2006 World Day conference right up to the present. So why would she be pretending to question his credentials in 2007? Why are she and Derrick Robinson and others still working with him now? I’ve already been able to confirm by way of a search through Harvard’s registry that Robert Duncan never went to Harvard as he still continues to claim, so it can’t be that any of them were able to later confirm that he did.

It appears that this was a deception on McKinney’s part… doing damage control… making herself look like she’s on John Allman’s side while attempting to keep this from Robert Duncan. Maybe she can explain it some other way… I don’t know. This is exactly the sort of deceptive tactic that government-trained perps will use to retain the confidence of the people they hope to keep stringing along for various reasons. The infighting that they often display among themselves is another deceptive tactic that I’ve come across before, which is used to confuse and distract people or to derail situations. They’re willing to trash each other one moment, and then act like very close partners the next. This display by McKinney over Robert Duncan’s credentials is either a deception, or these people associated with FFCHS are incredibly stupid. I’ll assume the former, but it doesn’t really matter which it is. These people are dangerous to TIs because of their lack of concern about possible government infiltrators (like Derrick Robinson and Julianne McKinney) or complete wackjobs (like Robert Duncan) getting involved in the issues that concern TIs.

After having read those two email exchanges, I came across yet another email exchange that involved John Allman, Julianne McKinney, and Robert Duncan from November, 2007. [3] This one really caught my attention, because it included this very clear confession by Robert Duncan in one of his more honest and semi-lucid moments:

"R. Duncan" <duncan@higherorder. com> wrote:

Dear John A. and others whose full time jobs are accusing,

I have been trying to confess for a long time. I am a perp. I am paid by the US government to conduct psychological experiments on you. I am deceitful sometimes and I am wrong sometimes. I even accidentally tell you a truth now and then. But they dock my pay when that happens.

So, now that you have a full confession. Can we move on and have constructive conversations even knowing that I am trying to hurt you through intentional bad information and theories? Greed is what drives me. I get extra-CIA pay when I can lead you towards irrational and unfounded belief systems. Perhaps it is good mental exercise to be able to critically reason while knowing that a sophisticated perp like myself is guiding you away from God and truth intentionally?

Perhaps like with evolution theory, we should separate church and state. Use one as a personal guidance and an information drug to inspire you, and the other that has proven more useful in predicting the immediate future and to explain the physical world where brain chemistry and the mind intersect. Always be skeptical of information that you read. This should not be something new. However, personally attacking someone shows a lack of ability to understand the science and argue on that basis. We are back to the Christian inquisitions and will get nowhere. Just assume in every email that you are required to think for yourself and not be lazy wanting to rely on someone’s reputation. In fact, in a perfect intelligent meritocracy, where no names were attached to information exchanges, you would have to learn to do this.

Why does thinking and arguing in a professional exchange about this topic in a scientific and strategic manner, pain you so much? Why do you spend so much time talking about the useless and nonsensical aspects? Get over your classicism and take everyone as if they have something important to say. Filter, don’t respond negatively. I for one have nearly fully given up my defense research and public speaking because of the constant barrage of negativity. I found that I can help more people and other groups with other problems who are more grateful of my sacrifices. You aren’t winning allies or friends and you haven’t figured it out that negativity is highly infectious and the most obvious quality to instill into people and groups to isolate and disassemble them. If you haven’t figured out just the very basic psychological strategies being used against a group assembling by reading military and CIA methods, you haven’t progressed in this chess game at all. This is why I have lost hope.

I could say a lot about some of the hypocritical things he says here as they pertain to his own actions, but that would distract from what I’m attempting to point out. The important thing is that he admitted to these people that still work with him even now that he’s a perp who is set on deceiving people. Nothing further needs to be said about this here, since it couldn’t be stated more clearly, right out of the horse’s (or asses) mouth.

This time, however, Julianne McKinney’s response is completely different than before, even suspicious in her easy acceptance of Robert Duncan’s bizarre confession:

From: Julianne McKinney

To: duncan@higherorder. com ; 'M. Hosny' ; 'John Allman'

Cc: 'Julianne McKinney' ; 'Monika Stoces' ; robalandes@telus. net ; 'Thea Vangossum' ; soleilmavis@ yahoo.com ; rudyrud2004@ yayoo.fr ; 'MAES Nelly' ; johnfinch@excite. com ; info@freedomfchs. com ; info@advocaat- dumoulin. be ; julgilliam1@ riversongs. tv ; 'Harlan Girard' ; 'Annemarie Gielen' ; 'Adams Elisabeth' ; eleanor@shoestringr adio.net ; dcr618@... ; 'Petrit Demo' ; 'CCHR' ; CarolineLucas@ GreenMEPs. org.uk ; ACLA@americancognit ivelibertiesasso c.org ; 'jean verstraeten' ; patsy.sorensen@ payoke.be ; MCVictimsEU@ yahoogroups. com ; 'GUELCHER Ernst' ; peterpm@xs4all. nl ; mcactivism@yahoogro ups.com ; 'Pam Farnsworth' ; 'Anna Bisetti' ; 'John McMurtrey'

Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 5:23 AM

Subject: RE: "You are weakening our noble movement by these negative tendencies!"

Confession is good for the soul, I've heard. Don't think of it as falling on your sword, however. Think of it as castling your king.

Meanwhile, ...do you think I might possibly be removed from this mailing list?

Julianne

At the very least, all of this should make you question why any of these people continue to work with Robert Duncan at all and why they are not more careful about who they work with, given their knowledge of COINTELPRO tactics. Robert Duncan proves himself time and again to be completely off his rocker, even sociopathic, and is therefore NOT suited to represent or help TIs in any manner whatsoever! And if these other people are so na├»ve or otherwise unconcerned about this man, they shouldn’t be representing TIs either! Only infiltrators who work for the government perpetrators would allow this!

This is all more evidence that all of these people, who ALL claim to be ‘ex’-government agents, are purposely working against the TI community.

I suggest that readers read the entire second email exchange for themselves, since it provides further evidence of Robert Duncan’s psychotic nature, as well as showing why it should be DEMANDED that he produce proof of his credentials. You will see that he makes excuses not to do so and acts very strangely whenever he’s questioned about anything – exactly the way he’s consistently acted in emails to me (posted elsewhere on this blog as further evidence).

Robert Duncan should be charged with fraud and false impersonation at the very least, and kept at a far distance from any TIs. Those who insist that he’s trustable and choose to associate with him should also be regarded as potentially dangerous, since he might very well be using mind-control techniques on them and using them to lure in other unsuspecting TIs.

* * *

[1] “All World Day Emails - www.COINTELPRO Continues Today.org”
(Recently removed from internet, including Wayback Machine's archives.)

[2] “Re: Harvard - routine authentication check (no cause for alarm) - I sincerely hope that so-called Dr Robert Duncan won't turn out to be a fraud! - Google Groups
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/harassment-victims/bwU6xxralKs

[3] “Mind Control Victims Europe – Yahoo Groups”
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/MCVictimsEU/conversations/topics/1095



2 comments:

  1. Anthony, come and join us on peacepink, we regularly link to your blog and work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the invite. I appreciate it. Maybe I will at some point..

      Delete