maandag 17 november 2008

To Paul Walton, Thanks a lot for your open mind ness and attention for the mind control subject. Another article and some "good arguments" in mail.

From: Monika Stoces <>
Date: 2008/11/17
Subject: Thanks a lot for your open mind ness and attention for the mind control subject. Another article and some "good arguments" in mail.

Hi Paul

Thanks a lot for your open mind ness and attention for the mind control subject. It is not an easy topic to cover, because hardly anybody really knows something about it, reactions of non believers are nearly cruel sometimes, and  it takes a while before the problem is a bit clear to any outsider, or before knowing a bit who is who in the community, and indeed, the community is big and keeps growing.

This is maily  why I wanted to talk to you a few minutes, but missed you and had the answering machine;
I will try tomorrow once more it that is ok. But I will write a few things in this mail, so you have more information.  I would also like to ask if it is possible you could inform me where I could reach the judge who allowed the court case. Because the claim is correct , the accusations are "wrong" , by mistake of course , but it could be good to understand for the judge, or the lawyer of Mr Rose. Accusing the wrong person, may be less convincing than saying this is global.  

One detail, the mail you cited in the article yesterday,  came indeed under my account so my name, but was send by my college John Finch. From Australia, it is not so important, but just wanted to let you know J


I Will list a  few very good arguments supporting the victims,  that demanding an investigation on this is a very reasonable demand, while keep ignoring it, and refusing an investigation, is in fact totally absurd. Those arguments may  inspire you on the subject some more, for any future articles, and help to   justify yourself  for writing about  it towards sceptics that dare sometimes to be really brutal ;

I know this from experience, and having good arguments helps. I will list them below, ok ?  


The first one  is of course that there is so many people telling the same and  comes from a recent article in the New York Times. I at the same time wanted to let you know about.

 Sharing Their Demons on the Web By SARAH KERSHAW November 13, 2008

The extent of the community, Dr. Bell said, poses a paradox
> to the
> traditional way delusion is defined under the diagnostic
> guidelines of
> the American Psychiatric Association, which says that if a
> belief is
> held by a person's "culture or subculture,"
> it is not a delusion.> Dr. Bell, whose study was published in the journal
> Psychopathology,
> said that it does not suggest all people participating in
> mind-control
> sites are delusional, and that a firm diagnosis of
> psychosis could
> only be done in person.


Another, the second  one is that it is too much to be coincidence, (statistically relevant)

A sudden sharp rise in incidence in 2000, and a combination in symptoms that are very specific, and don't match any known mental or other illness, and are normally not even related, and all this at the same moment and all around the world,  How can that be "imagined" ,?  Statistically monitor it would be very easy, and the results would be clear especially the sudden rise in incidence world wide.

The few objective "facts" we have  lets say, or what things ti"s all complain about.

Rapports of Ti's mainly include following 3 things.

(Ti's are targeted individuals) J

Here you can find a sample of one of them with maybe 100 respondents

A -Most ti's rapport physical and mental symptoms they experience from the moment they consciously experience the technology starts to affect them.

B  -Most ti's rapport interception of mail, interception and alteration of telecommunications, telephone and internet communications and dysfunctions of all kind of electronic devices and cars electronic to start simultaneously.

C  -Most ti's experience "Organized stalking, which they explain in a few possible ways", and that in most cases starts earlier than the typical symptoms and physical sensations named electronic harassment". 

In 2000 a sudden SHARP RISE IN INCIDENCE occurred of people from who rapport (some kind of) remote "attack" or manipulation. The number of complaints coming from every continent of the planet keeps growing, they point to a GLOBAL problem Those tree things (nearly) always go together without that the people know each other from all around the world, and the number of new people reporting this started to increase in 2000 exponentially till the present. This should at least raise the question how the complaints can be unrelated.   


The third and  very scientific argument, to at least investigate this,  is  that science should be "objective"   Objectivity is defined as :
Objectivity (science) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An objective account is one which attempts to capture the nature of the object studied in a way that does not depend on any features of the particular subject who studies it. An objective account is, in this sense, impartial, one which could ideally be accepted by any subject, because it does not draw on any assumptions, prejudices, or values of particular subjects. Objectivity should not be mixed up with scientific consensus: Scientist may agree at one point in time but later discover that this consensus represented a subjective point of view.


The last and important philosophical argument, supports  the idea science is NOT  always "objective" and indeed is in some cases on  unexplainable new facts,  a while be  totally wrong  ,is  best  to explain by  citing Thomas Kuhn, who described the evolution of science in history  as Following.   
In (his book) "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," Kuhn argued that science does not progress via a linear accumulation of new knowledge,  but undergoes periodic revolutions, also called "paradigm shifts" , in which the nature of scientific inquiry within a particular field is abruptly transformed. In general, science is broken up into three distinct stages. Prescience, which lacks
a central paradigm, comes first. This is followed by "normal science", when scientists attempt to enlarge the central paradigm by "puzzle-solving". Thus, the failure of a result to conform to the paradigm is seen not as refuting the paradigm, but as the mistake of the researcher. As anomalous results build up, science reaches a crisis, at which point a new paradigm, which subsumes the old results along with the anomalous results into one framework, is accepted. This is termed revolutionary science.



So as you see, there is several pretty reasonable and "scientific  objective and philosophic criteria, to consider it very seriously to be real, and rather consider "absurd" that the academic world reacts like it does mainly, and refuses any investigation on this. How absurd to refuse to investigate something, isn't it? J

Look at the reaction Jim Guest Describes in same article from the NY Times from colleges.

> And the users of some sites have found the support of Jim
> Guest, a
> Republican state representative in Missouri, who wrote last
> year to
> his fellow legislators calling for an investigation into
> the claims of
> those who say they are being tortured by mind control.
> "I've had enough calls, some from credible people
> — professors — being
> targeted by no lethal weapons," Mr. Guest said in a
> telephone
> interview, adding that nothing came of his request for a
> legislative
> investigation.
Very nice greetings meanwhile from Belgium, Monika
Monika Stoces
Oudemansstraat 22
2000 Antwerpen

Geen opmerkingen:

Over mij

Mijn foto
Ben in 2005 "overvallen" door mindcontroltechnologie, meer algemeen noem ik het nu Artificiele Intellentie, actief wereldwijd met netwerken hierover, en het in kaart brengen van de problematiek als samenhangend geheel. Hoop dat spoedig dit erstige aandacht (die het verdient) krijgt als zowat het belangrijkste etische vraagstuk voor de mensheid en toekomst.

Mijn lijst met blogs