Subject: Thanks a lot for your open mind ness and attention for the mind control subject. Another article and some "good arguments" in mail.
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.
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
> said that it does not suggest all people participating in
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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
> interview, adding that nothing came of his request for a
> investigation. "