“Truth? You can't handle the truth!”

[Apoceclipse]

I am starting to get it. The thing is - some of YOU, ARENT.

We do, though. Sadly.

Even without those other members chipping in saying so, we're an ageing audience with similar interests. I know it's a safe bet I'm not the only one here who's already quite aware of the various government-sponsored programmes. We've watched THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE (both versions) or read the novel. We've kept up with THE X-FILES. And now there's STRANGER THINGS. But to say we don't know the background that inspired the aforementioned works of fiction is, frankly, insulting.

I doubt also I'm the only one here who's aware of the various survivor networks and investigators who genuinely believe as do you. The difference is we've reached different conclusions, based on much the same information.

Your contention we aren't aware simply because we don't agree with you is as equally rude as anything you've taken personally.

If you were going on FACT, you would be correct. But see, 'opinion' is not even accurate, because certain events are infact taking place in real life, so if your standpoint is disagreeing with that, you are simply wrong.

Live it, and then comment. You are just talking, I am TELLING (more ways than one)

Also, you must not have thoroughly briefed these organizations of survivors like you claim... there are many court cases involved, with VERY credible evidence....

I am not talking about general information, I am talking about specific information, nice argument, if it was factually based, and not inserting words/meanings into 'my posts' (not mouth? eh)

Carry on...

[Apoceclipse]

As for the rest of the posts: wow, you guys seem to have more problems than me! hahah, good luck sorting all that out. Whatever the problem actually is. Interesting social dynamic here... very interesting.

Still, no comment about the notarized letter? I mean if you think it's BS, state why, and we can continue with substantial dialogue... all this petty talk about more or less 'nothing' just speculation, does not serve much purpose...

I mean, address something specifically, and I will reply specifically, but taking cheap shots and being vague about what you think is BS - is not doing much. This whole thing does not round up into one clean category...

[JOE SOAP]

As for the rest of the posts: wow, you guys seem to have more problems than me! hahah, good luck sorting all that out. Whatever the problem actually is. Interesting social dynamic here... very interesting.
Still, no comment about the notarized letter? I mean if you think it's BS, state why, and we can continue with substantial dialogue... all this petty talk about more or less 'nothing' just speculation, does not serve much purpose...

I mean, address something specifically, and I will reply specifically, but taking cheap shots and being vague about what you think is BS - is not doing much. This whole thing does not round up into one clean category...

Personally, I took no cheap shots and don't know why you think that or try and use the same tactic - nevermind the historical footnotes of this issue but I've no way of knowing whether your personal claims are "bullshit" and this forum isn't really the place to try and prove something of that nature - it's certainly not reasonable to think it is.

It'll be hard to prove any such claim of historical abuse committed on your person on an internet forum - it's hard enough doing it in an official court - and anything of such a serious nature can only be addressed in a broad social context - sometimes with a little humour - but not on an individual basis. This forum wouldn't last long if the latter were the case and wouldn't be fulfilling its primary remit as a comic forum.

*Being notarised just proves you signed the document and had the signing witnessed. A Notary Public's role is to verify the identity of the person signing the document and to make sure they understand the implications of what they're signing - not to prove that the content of what is being signed is true.

[Apoceclipse]

As for the rest of the posts: wow, you guys seem to have more problems than me! hahah, good luck sorting all that out. Whatever the problem actually is. Interesting social dynamic here... very interesting.
Still, no comment about the notarized letter? I mean if you think it's BS, state why, and we can continue with substantial dialogue... all this petty talk about more or less 'nothing' just speculation, does not serve much purpose...

I mean, address something specifically, and I will reply specifically, but taking cheap shots and being vague about what you think is BS - is not doing much. This whole thing does not round up into one clean category...

Personally, I took no cheap shots and don't know why you think that or try and use the same tactic - nevermind the historical footnotes of this issue but I've no way of knowing whether your personal claims are "bullshit" and this forum isn't really the place to try and prove something of that nature - it's certainly not reasonable to think it is.

It'll be hard to prove any such claim of historical abuse committed on your person on an internet forum - it's hard enough doing it in an official court - and anything of such a serious nature can only be addressed in a broad social context - sometimes with a little humour - but not on an individual basis. This forum wouldn't last long if the latter were the case and wouldn't be fulfilling its primary remit as a comic forum.

*Being notarised just proves you signed the document and had the signing witnessed. A Notary Public's role is to verify the identity of the person signing the document and to make sure they understand the implications of what they're signing - not to prove that the content of what is being signed is true.

Totally, yeah I didn't even reply to what you said, because you didn't say anything to upset me, I am really falling off here (obviously). Haha. I dive in manic for a bit, then move on. Sometimes, I could lose my cool and get real childish and talk enough to get me kicked off. It's hard living with D.I.D. - and I take full responsibility, not trying to excuse behavior or anything etc. etc.

Anyway, yes I do generally agree, and I did state clearly twice that I overcompensate due to being bias/sensitive. And I say one thing, but another part of me says another, and I feel like I have to equally present. See, the dynamics of communicating with someone who has D.I.D (well, DDNOS to be 'specific') can be complicated, let alone trying to understand it on a forum, when 1) I am not adept to communicating on this platform anyhow; and 2) You all are just 'meeting me' and have no chance to know my usual behavior from another 'part'; and 3) ok I'll stop numbering, point is, there WON'T be a lot of sense to my behavior. Not in an easily interpretable manner across this platform within the recent time frame specified at least....

I didn't write the letter, and the content was what I was getting at. Not the fact that it was notarized, anything can be notarized... doesn't make it true. Yes, we realize that. It's what the letter says, what I say, what happened, and who was involved. I blanked it out, because it exposes my person, and others. We have already moved forward with it, but the lawsuit failed, and the would be defendant is now deceased regardless.

The lawsuit failed due to statute of limitations, in NY it is ridiculous for child abuse. Failed doesn't quite hit it. Fell flat, is more like it.

Like I said, I have nothing to 'prove' to you guys, but that doesn't increase my tolerance for what people like me would consider bigotry. Yep, some people seem like biggots talking the way they do in response to this.

The thing is, if I don't know 100%, but small children are involved, or women, children, you get it - THEN I WOULD TREAD LIGHTLY. Out of respect.

I know this is a comic book forum, and I am not losing any sleep, and I have said it, I stand firm, because I lived it, and I network with TONS of people who have as well (and are 'coming out') so I don't need you all to believe, or even know. But I won't stand for the childish BS either. Not directing towards you, good sir, but in the general direction, that is away from me. Hahaha

When I was talking about the 'rest of the posts' I was referring to the obvious history I had missed that preluded the awkward social dynamic (funny comment coming from me) that unfolded, which was just flabbergasting to me, considering what we were in the middle of discussing.

Of course there are two sides to that, you all's (for the most part generalizing everyone that has not lived this), which would be taking this topic lightly, naturally, and my side (who lives it, and has seen and felt horrible things, dude) - so I mean - I get it. I repeat - I stand firm!

Hahahah do you see the duality?

Good day kind sir!

[Apoceclipse]

To be clear, I am not trying to PROVE anything. Just saying this and that, and sharing a few things that I won't take too personally if people don't believe it, enticing me to post what would be much closer to actual 'proof', exposing people.

At the same time as not been hellbent on proving it, I am not going to be exactly tolerant of what I don't like, and consider rude, disrespectful behavior. The being careful badmouthing thing - if you are not 100% positive thing - regarding the kids - ya know?

Other than my little rants, most of my comments are begging answers, I want to learn what goes through peoples heads. I don't have a common past experience with most people, so it is harder to relate. I am very different. Maybe some ways more thoughtful, maybe some ways more impulsive, maybe both.

It really does just drop my draw to see, what in my opinion, is very petty talk and childish behavior due to the gravity of the situation. Although we exist in different perceived situations, so I understand. The thing is,  my perception is of experience, and knowledge, while others concerning this issue, is of mostly speculation, and guessing, with varying degrees of base knowledge of the subject.

I still want to know - what do you think they do for whatever top special forces assassin training? What type of candidate would they look for? I mean the best, we have to beat all the other countries. It is your job to devise the whole program. This is the Olympics, ok? (haha) What do you do? If you were willing, of course.


You understand the exercise...? things get messy, real quick...

Now tell me - if you are a Commando in the 160th, and part of your job may be what is commonly known as 'body laundering' - where do you think they teach that? In a classroom? Open your eyes, think about what must be done, for the tasks...

I don't care if you think my damn neighbors made me eat some dead body flakes as a kid - I don't even remember that specific incident, I was too young. I got other stuff that keeps me awake at night. Way worse than what you can read about there. Point is, I am saying - open up your mind, and eyes, and realize that the best damn training to do certain things, would be apprenticing under a mortician from young - such as in a generational funeral directors home/family. Perhaps we could test them for viability, and enlist them.

I mean, tell me that it doesn't make sense? Desensitizing and training, from young, when it counts. HELLO.

[Apoceclipse]

Do you see what I am saying, forget my personal claims, lets talk about the meat of the subject - the claims period.

Special Forces selection and grooming, and eventual routing being handled domestically by the CIA (big no no domestically). Maybe I should just talk about that in general...

They are starting to publicly do some very weak research into deliberate dissociation in special forces...

http://publications.amsus.org/doi/abs/10.7205/MILMED-D-14-00081

just interesting

[NapalmKev]

While I don't doubt that certain things go on behind closed doors, I have trouble believing what you are saying.


They allegedly made you eat skin! To what end? How does it link to brain washing?

You've claimed that hundreds of people have gone through the same process as yourself but you're all walking around freely, openly discussig how the C.I.A/Goverment have allegedly mind-Fucked you. Why are there no reprisals? I've known your governing authorities take a hard line stance over much less!

What is your take on Bin Laden and September 11th? Is he likely to have been brainwashed or was he just a Cunt!

Did we ever land in the moon or is it complete Horseshit?

Is the Earth flat?

Do you believe in God?

Answer or ignore at your leisure, convince me that I'm missing the point somehow.

Cheers

[Woolly]

Can a mod please un-ban Thryllseeker and set him loose here? You never know, him and Apoceclipse might cancel each other out or something.

Cue another 50 posts about how I'm not taking this seriously enough... 

[The Legendary Shark]

NapalmKev - I'd like to address a couple of your points.

Firstly, why no reprisals by the authorities? From direct, personal experience - I was arrested for a the crime of breach of the peace. I was alone in my own home at the time, with all doors and windows locked. The police had to force entry, smashing down the front door and, when this failed, the bedroom window. I was locked up for 26 hours. I was never taken to court over the crime I was accused of committing and was instead brought before magistrates to answer for a crime I did not commit - assault on a civilian police officer inside the police station during my unlawful incarceration. At the magistrates' court, the police called two officers to testify and their stories did not match and the only piece of evidence which could have proved my innocence/guilt (cctv footage of the alleged incident taken by cameras inside the police station) was unavailable due to a "corrupt hard drive." Despite these facts, and my previously spotless record, I was found guilty of assault.

When I pointed out these things, the Police Complaints team and magistrates' court did the following: They "looked at" the testimonies of one of the witnesses and, because it tallied with what was said in court, concluded that there was nothing wrong (how can you investigate the claim of conflicting stories if only one story is investigated?), and invited me to take them to court to make my case. This is simply the employment of the tactic of stasis.

My case, compared to what is being talked about here, is trifling. It shows, however, how legal reprisals can easily be stalled indefinitely through loss of evidence, partial investigation presented as conclusive investigation and invitations to discuss the matter in another (expensive and time/will consuming) venue. If such methods can be employed to such small cases as mine, then a scaled-up version can be applied to more serious cases. It takes a lot of time, money, support and effort to overcome such "constructive inertia" (as "Yes, Minister" dubbed the process) - one only has to look at the Hillsborough case to see that.

Lack of reprisals, then, is not necessarily an indication that nothing untoward happened or is happening.

Secondly, conflating Bin Laden, 9/11, the moon landings, flat Earth and the existence of God into the argument has no bearing on the topic at hand. All this argument does is throw out a smokescreen and attempt to condemn Apoceclipse's arguments through guilt by association. We all know there are many wild and unreasonable theories concerning Bin Laden, 9/11, the moon landings, flat Earth and the existence of God, and an attempt to drop Apoceclipse's claims into the same bag is an attempt to dismiss them en mass. Each claim must be assessed on its own individual merits.

[NapalmKev]

NapalmKev - I'd like to address a couple of your points.


Lack of reprisals, then, is not necessarily an indication that nothing untoward happened or is happening.

Secondly, conflating Bin Laden, 9/11, the moon landings, flat Earth and the existence of God into the argument has no bearing on the topic at hand. All this argument does is throw out a smokescreen and attempt to condemn Apoceclipse's arguments through guilt by association. We all know there are many wild and unreasonable theories concerning Bin Laden, 9/11, the moon landings, flat Earth and the existence of God, and an attempt to drop Apoceclipse's claims into the same bag is an attempt to dismiss them en mass. Each claim must be assessed on its own individual merits.

Are you suggesting that I asked those questions just to take the Piss? If so, you assume too much!

I'm under the impression (perhaps wrongly) that Apoceclipse is the sort of guy that latches onto (possible) conspiracy theories to find some sort of peace within himself and find answers to questions that he has. This train of thought led me down the path to inquire further on Apoceclipse beliefs and if he has any evidence to support it!

I only took the piss with my 'Cluedo' comment, and that didn't bother him or you it seems!

Cheers

[The Legendary Shark]

Certainly not.

I was suggesting that the one thing has no direct connection with the other and that belief in one thing does not necessarily reinforce or nullify belief in another. For example, Arthur Conan Doyle's belief in the Cottingley Fairies had no bearing on his beliefs in contemporary (for his time) medical or legal practices.

[Hawkmumbler]

The Cottingley Fairies where always debunked as a hoax though (yet the children, even as adults, still insist the Goblin photo is legit...) and Doyle was believed to only be invested in the nonsense for public interest and the sake of his own image.

[The Legendary Shark]

Precisely. He did not abandon medicine in favour of fairy dust nor suggest bringing all court cases before King Oberon for judgement.

[sheridan]

Precisely. He did not abandon medicine in favour of fairy dust nor suggest bringing all court cases before King Oberon for judgement.

Sounds like a setup for Dandridge...

[M.I.K.]

The Cottingley Fairies weren't properly debunked until the 1970s, with the sisters admitting they were fake in the early '80s and explaining how they did it. However, there was that aforementioned photo that one of them said was real, (the other disagreed), and both maintained that they really had seen fairies, but hadn't been able to photograph them.

Doyle was believed to only be invested in the nonsense for public interest and the sake of his own image.

Don't know where that idea came from, but I don't think it's accurate. Arthur Conan Doyle almost certainly believed that the photographs were real, was deeply involved with spiritualism and massively fell out with Houdini because Doyle was convinced Houdini had actual paranormal abilities in spite of Houdini's insistence that his tricks were just illusions.