Sunday, October 19, 2014

Some Questions for Derrick Robinson and FFCHS

Why do you collect targeting information from TIs? How is this information used? How do you screen out false or delusional claims that might otherwise hurt TI's chances of getting real help or which help to make the entire TI community look like a bunch of fools who will believe anything they might read or hear? Or do you even bother to? Why do you encourage TIs to send their stories to government bodies, no matter how unbelievable they might be? Do you think that this helps TIs in any way? Do you think that it encourages TIs to be believed?

Isn't it possible that you could actually be monitoring TIs for the government perps who run the mind-control and targeting programs, and that you're looking for certain types of people that would be good candidates for various mind-control programs? And speaking of mind-control, why isn't any information about the psychological techniques that are commonly used included with all the other material you have on your website? Is it because you don't want TIs to be aware of these techniques? Why do you promote material from the likes of Robert Duncan, who has absolutely no credibility to speak of (I checked), who has even admitted on a mailing list that you and other FFCHS directors belonged to to being a perp, a liar, and a paid government infiltrator (I have the evidence), and whose claims about the technologies he describes deserve the closer scrutiny that he continually avoids? Psychological mind-control techniques are directly related to targeting as much or more so than the technology he promotes as real, and mind-control is one of the essential objectives in most or all targeting programs. Being able to identify these techniques should be the first step taken in avoiding the intended result of targeting, whether it be through electronic technologies or anything else. If you had any credibility as an advocate for TIs, you would know this. You also completely ignore the issue of COINTELPRO tactics (and even engage in them yourself), and these are very important for every TI to learn about and understand if they want to avoid the many purposeful traps that are constantly being laid by government perps to derail efforts at exposing these organized targeting programs. You only reflect certain parts of the whole picture on your site and through your published material, and for such an organization as yours, prominently positioned in the TI community and filled as it is with 'ex'-government agents from such unscrupulous agencies as the NSA, DOD, etc., who should therefore be quite familiar with COINTELPRO tactics, and claiming to be going to all this effort for all these years to help TIs, I'd think that these things would be very obvious to you and just as important to inform TIs about as anything else you promote as fact.

Of course, at this point I don't expect you to actually be considrate enough to provide any answers to my very valid questions, given the fact that you've consistently failed to do so in the past, both with me and with anyone else who has asked you these sorts of very important questions that deserve straight answers. Instead, you responded in typical COINTELPRO fashion by posting an announcement on your website warning TIs about 'organizations' who seek only to destroy your credibility, and state that you're 'saddened' that you can't unite with them (whoever they are, you don't bother to say), but you offer no means for an open dialogue to resolve what are surely important issues in your own mind regarding how you reflect on the TI community. I would ask you to at least name the parties you call 'organizations' (since I'm told by a number of your long-time members that you consider me to be one of them, even though I'm just one person and certainly not anything that could be called an organization), and explain how their (and my) attempts to establish your credibility can be interpreted as attempts to discredit you. After all, YOU have done nothing in the entire time that FFCHS has been around that would establish your own credibility, or that of the people that you work most closely with (such as Robert Duncan, Julianne McKinney, Max Williams, Timothy White, Ken Wilbourne Jr., etc.) , and so it's come to the point that many of us in the TI community are wondering if you have any credibility at all. Hiding from doing so and making excuses not to only ends up making you look worse in the end. Your track record at being unsuccessful at whatever you endeavor to do as an organization, aside from promoting yourself and certain purposely disorienting disinformation that already heavily permeates the TI community, leads to the conclusion that you are not capable of your self-appointed task and are actually damaging the credibility of real TIs rather than helping them. You owe it to the tax-payers to justify the continuation of your organization's existence as a non-profit establishment, since you, Derrick Robinson, have been personally taking advantage of it through the proceeeds and privileges that it brings you, whether legally or not.

And speaking of legalities, after having looked at your non-profit status bylaws, I understand that your organization is NOT entitled to seek membership fees or involve itself in disseminating propaganda of any sort, and yet you do both of these things and little of anything else. The sort of material you consistently publish and promote (whether directly or indirectly through others who work with you) raises many questions as to its accuracy and the real purpose for promoting it, but since you and anyone who works with your organization refuses to discuss any of this material in order to establish its accuracy, it stands to reason that it is propaganda, since it fits well within that definition and has a definite negative influence on people's perceptions of the truth that could only be advantageous to the perpetrators of all this targeting and mind-control. Only by being open enough to discuss this material can it be shown to be true or false, and this seems to be the only reason that you and those who work with you avoid engaging in such discussions. You KNOW its propaganda, and that promoting it is necessary to your continued personal financial arrangements. Promoting the propagandist material you do is enough for you to lose your non-profit status. The fact that you collect membership fees and spend most of it on yourself is another. What will the IRS do when they find out about all this, as they surely will? If you lose your organization as a financial foundation for you to live off of, where do you plan to sleep at night, Derrick? In your janitor's closet?

It's time you came forward and dealt with the many questions that you have raised in the minds of real TIs. Hiding from them while accusing anyone who asks them of attempting to discredit you is such a weak cop-out! If you want to unite with others, as you stated, you have to show some credibility by your words and actions, which you never have in all the time your organization has existed. Otherwise you're just a criminal and a coward, and more obviously seen as working for the government perpetrators.

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)


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


Other recipients:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

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.


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


Other recipients:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


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?


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

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


Duncan's email address is . 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.


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@ ; rudyrud2004@ ; 'MAES Nelly' ; johnfinch@excite. com ; info@freedomfchs. com ; info@advocaat- dumoulin. be ; julgilliam1@ riversongs. tv ; 'Harlan Girard' ; 'Annemarie Gielen' ; 'Adams Elisabeth' ; eleanor@shoestringr ; dcr618@... ; 'Petrit Demo' ; 'CCHR' ; CarolineLucas@ GreenMEPs. ; ACLA@americancognit ivelibertiesasso ; 'jean verstraeten' ; patsy.sorensen@ ; MCVictimsEU@ yahoogroups. com ; 'GUELCHER Ernst' ; peterpm@xs4all. nl ; mcactivism@yahoogro ; '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, you think I might possibly be removed from this mailing list?


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”
(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!topic/harassment-victims/bwU6xxralKs

[3] “Mind Control Victims Europe – Yahoo Groups”

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

About Facebook

Facebook is fascist. "Fascist Book" would be a much more appropriate name for it. 
I have ALWAYS used my real name online. My real name is Anthony Forwood. You will not find me using any other name anywhere on the internet. Unlike those people whose intentions are questionable, I have nothing to hide that requires that I use a fake identity. As a real targeted individual, I want what I post online to be associated with the real me and not some anonymous person, so that should I ever have to refer to it in my defense, I have a base of evidence to show that I am the person reflected in my words. What others might say about me behind my back or accuse me of without providing any evidence is inconsequential to me... something I can't be expected to control. Only my written words with my name attached, posted here on my blog, can serve to speak for my character, and nothing else. 
A few years ago, I had a conflict with a person on facebook who was using the pseudonym 'OSI Informers', and who was (and still is) promoting a fake lawsuit and trying to get TIs to pay him money to join in on it. I soon discovered that this person's real name was Greg Gamache, although he continually denied it when confronted about it and even threatened me with a lawsuit for somehow having slandered him by pointing out his fraudulent scheme. As soon as I started warning people about him, he reported to facebook that I was using a fake name. My account was immediately blocked and facebook expected me to identify a series of randomly selected photos that had been posted by people on my extensive 'friends list' and tell them who posted them before I could access my account again. As would be expected, I couldn't identify any of them, since they were all obscure photos, none of which could have been expected to be familiar to me unless I had studied and memorized everything that the people on my 'friends list' had posted up until then. I ended up abandoning that facebook account and creating a new one... using my real name again. 
I was able to keep this second account until a few weeks ago, when I posted PROOF that Greg Gamache, 'OSI Informers', and 'Will Litigate' were all the same person. This proof consisted of screen shots of facebook posts where he was using each these various accounts and admitting that he was the same person as the other accounts (see my previous post). Soon after having done this, I found that my account was blocked once again, with the same ridiculous expectation of me to identify a series of randomly chosen photos that were purportedly posted by people on my 'friends list'. I abandoned the account, and facebook as well. Who needs this shit? 
I had tried to inform facebook that the person who was continually reporting my account as fake was himself using various fake accounts, and was attempting to use facebook to scam people out of money, but they apparently didn't care about any of this even though they obviously believed his lie about me, since he's continued to freely use all of his fake accounts since then and still does. I have also reported threats and abusive comments he has made to me on facebook, with nothing at all being done about them. Obviously, facebook supports his lawsuit scam, and by providing him with a platform to promote it, they are criminal accomplices by aiding and abetting him. 
I should also point out at this point that facebook has been an accomplice in other scams in the past as well, by providing a platform for the fake victims of Sandy Hook and the Boston bombing hoax to accumulate millions of dollars in donations from a deceived public. 
I can only conclude that facebook is involved in targeting people by giving excessive leeway to people like Greg Gamache/Will Litigate/OSI Informers, who engage in these activities while hiding behind a multitude of fake names. Facebook is actually designed to make targeting of individuals far easier than it is on any other internet forums, allowing for cyber-stalking by providing the 'follow' feature, allowing for isolation of targets without their realization by using 'sock puppet' accounts to surround them, as well as by allowing users to surreptitiously change public groups to secret (hidden) groups where a person can then be abused or otherwise manipulated without anyone else seeing. Most significantly, facebook makes it very easy to compile personal information on people that can then be used by people like Greg Gamache/Will Litigate/OSI Informers to target selected individuals. I suspect that facebook also provides profiling capabilities to the fascist US government, and may even provide that information to people like Greg Gamache/OSI Informers/Will Litigate, who they appear to favor and give special privileges to. 
Facebook doesn't really care about people who use fake names, although they pretend to. They only care about making targeting easy and allowing perpetrators like Greg Gamache/Will Litigate/OSI Informers to have free reign in conducting criminal activities and targeting of others on their site. 
It's already known that facebook works hand-in-hand with the fascist intelligence organs of the US government who have a desire to identify and incapacitate freedom-lovers and free-thinkers like myself in typical COINTELPRO fashion. Facebook is the world's largest internet forum with millions of daily users. That it would block my account and not allow me any realistic way of proving that I am who I claim to be while people with OBVIOUS fake names are allowed to continue to operate so freely on their site and engage in criminal activities that are geared towards scamming innocent people out of their money or otherwise harassing and abusing them can only mean one thing... that FACEBOOK IS FASCIST and prefers those users who resort to underhanded tactics to get away with their con jobs and cover up their crimes.
I could just as easily create a new facebook account and continue on as before, still using my real name, but because of Greg Gamache's actions and the failure of facebook to deal with it appropriately, I've decided to take this all to a new level and do some things I wouldn't normally do. 
I'm coming for you Greg Gamache. You created a criminal scam to draw in suckers and take their money, but you'll find yourself caught up in your own deceit soon enough.