-Caveat Lector- Could somebody please repost the NSA papers. I seem to have missed it and i am intrigued by this current thread Thanks RoadsEnd wrote: > > >Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Received: from rly-zd02.mx.aol.com (rly-zd02.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.226]) by > air-zd02.mail.aol.com (v55.5) with SMTP; Wed, 06 Jan 1999 03:26:22 > -0500 >Received: from afterburner.sonic.net (afterburner.sonic.net [208.201.224.12]) > by rly-zd02.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) > with SMTP id DAA14271 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > Wed, 6 Jan 1999 03:26:21 -0500 (EST) >Received: (qmail 3739 invoked by uid 24); 6 Jan 1999 08:26:19 -0000 >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-envelope-info: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 03:27:29 -0500 >From: "Allen L. Barker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Organization: X >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.35 i686) >X-Accept-Language: en >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [MC] NSA Papers >References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Precedence: bulk >Reply-To: "Allen L. Barker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII >Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit > >"J. Maynard Gelinas" wrote: > >> Hi, >> I've been busy and just this evening found time to read the original >> posted by Wes. After doing so I have a few comments I'd like to make. > >I had meant to re-read the original articles before commenting, but I will >respond to your comments. > >> For one thing I strongly agree with Jim Drapoou when he wrote: >> >> > OK, you say you know enough to demand disclosure. >> > Now ask yourself, >> > 1.) What Exactly do I know ? >> > 2.) What Prima Facia evidence do I have to support the allegations, >> > that would hold up under intense scrutiny ? >> > 3.) What do I physically have to Prove the allegations ? >> [...] >> > >If Jim's article was aimed *only* at the "NSA" document, then I agree. >To me it read as a wider sort of "warning," much of which I agree with but >some of which I thought was incomplete, as I addressed in an earlier >article. > >> The document was *poorly* written. Disjointed sentences combined with >> redundant narrative containing a glossary in the middle of the document; he >> never wrote this to get published. For example, The title is presented >> twice, the Berkeley student hostage/suicide was presented twice, and he >> suggests many famous people who have attempted to gain public attention to >> the NSA program, yet he provides no direct testimony by those (who have >> lived) which could confirm as such other than by oblique references in >> their art. He even claims that some, even Curt Cobain, have died trying to >> expose the program. How do we ask the dead? > >Perhaps hastily written, but generally I agree. The numbering style, with >very >short paragraphs, is not like most published journals. Some military >writing tends toward that style. > >> Why did so many people here respond with affirmation to this? I don't see >> people wondering why the NSA might hire someone with such a lack of written >> skills, nor do I hear many suggesting this might be further disinformation. >> A little skepticism might be of some value right now. > >First, there is the instant credibility given by coming anonymously through >the >list owner. This is probably not the major reason people responded with >affirmation, but a real one. To me it was never clear what the purported >background >of the document was. The author apparently never claimed to have worked >for the NSA, according to the "interview" article. > >I think the main reason for the reactions is that while the article has some >serious flaws, it does manage to touch on some realities of how the >"controllers" >(for lack of a better term) operate. In this case I speak from my personal >experience, >and I suspect that others with personal experience agree to some >extent. These things are not easy to describe well, and so to see even a few >aspects described well is attention-getting. I think you address similar >issues in your >following paragraphs. > >If the article is information it is interesting, though incomplete. It might >make a practical >difference in a victim's life if he or she were to now look out for tricks of >this sort. If it is >disinformation it is still interesting, though questions arise as to what is >being left out >and why, and what the magician's other hand might be up to. > >> Still, I'm struck by some the of specific *content* of these >> allegations. For example, the anonymous poster states that they use >> 'thought labels' which are usually tactile or auditory hallucinations >> combined with either a positive or negative reinforcement to generate a >> conditioned response, or combined with a verbal hypnotic suggestion. This >> is *very* much like a Milton H. Ericson or NLP defined 'anchoring' >> technique. >> >> Anchoring, as a technique used by 'therapists,' usually to blunt a >> horrible feeling or uncontrollable phobic response associalted to some >> arbitrary stimulous. The 'therapist' generally uses some tactile (or >> secondary modality) experience to confuse and *link* one emotional response >> to a (usually remembered) situation to the first sensation. At this point >> if the therapist repeats the first stimulus (presumably) the patient will >> reexperience the secondary emotional response (whatever is bothering them). >> Then, they will find some other emotional experience, often completely >> unrelated, which made them feel at opposite ends (usually good) and link >> that to *another* secondary stimulus. For example, one could use a touch >> to the left knee when the patient remembers something horrible, and a touch >> to the right knee as they rediscover good memories of a vacation. >> >> Then, a little later after the conversation has shifted and the patient >> forgets about creating the original conditioned responses, the 'therapist' >> usually says or does something out of the ordinary to confuse the patient >> while they press both 'anchors' conditioned to opposite emotional states. >> The hope is that this will cancel out whatever horrible feeling is >> associated with whatever memory originally bothered the patient. >> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
