BUT SERIOUSLY: Exposing the Truth: Exposing Anthony “Mick” Forwood: Perp-screamer 

” Perp!” he cried.

by PAUL SYLVESTER STAYTON

 

 The purpose of this report is to describe the dogma and tactics of one Anthony Forwood, a person I describe as a “perp-screamer.” Please understand that I do not frivolously use this rather heavy-handed monicker. The evidence I shall reveal supports my decision to name him as such, and it is evidence taken from Mr. Forwood’s own words on his blogsite. His hypocrisy, and his apparent inability to understand the recklessness of his unfounded allegations about other TIs, must be brought to light in order to lessen the potential hazards caused when one chooses to smear and slander others with unsubstantiated rhetoric, and carry on as though he were privy to exclusive information that, typically, he perpetually hesitates to divulge and yet insists is for anyone to discover. His “findings” are balderdash, as you will see from his own words on the subject of transparency.

In this era of addictive online immediacy, anybody can say anything without the need for verification of their claims. Keep reading, and you will understand that I do not wish to be considered among that lot, and hereby make it known that I am confident in my consideration.

As we should all realize by now, many things are not what they appear to be—-if, indeed, they ever were. I have myself fallen prey to vindictive online baiting techniques that have left me wondering how I could not have seen them for what they were before I published responses to them that were clearly nonproductive and maybe even counterproductive to my initial goal in seeking clarification of issues. I responded to vitriol with vitriol; and while some may find the traditional “eye for an eye” strategy acceptable, all it has given me in this particular medium is the unwholesome feeling that I’ve only exacerbated another person’s inability to cope with his own targeting. Nevertheless, having now weighed the distinction of full divulgence and clarity versus the disputable, obscene, and impetuous hearsay that Mr. Forwood seems never to tire of spewing, I believe this report is long overdue—-despite whatever ill feeling it may or may not produce in him and others of his ilk. The dubiousness of Forwood’s accusations about the specific persons he has chosen to target must  be fully examined.

Honestly, if it were possible for me to prove to you that I am an actual TI, I would do so. Unfortunately, I cannot prove what is really happening to me. The vast majority of us  cannot prove what is happening to us. This is the most terrible—-and ironically, the most shared—-aspect of our predicament.

We are all under intense pressure, to say the least; and because of the unique paranoia-inducing strategy of the crime being perpetrated against us, sometimes one of us will attack honest inquiry (or reclusion) from a stranger as though it were the same type of invasion (or affront) as that to which we have become accustomed; and that’s when the self-imposed isolation, misdirected suspiciousness, name-calling, and unfounded accusations arise from paranoiacs.

And, for a self-consumed sophist such as Mr. Forwood, this induced paranoia—-mixed in with a seemingly innate incapacity to admit a mistake or an oversight—-can damage the psyche to such an extent that he will show all the signs of having become susceptible to observable spurts of obscene degradation as soon as his beliefs are challenged.

I have corresponded at length with Mr. Forwood, and have succumbed to some name-calling myself, albeit for a different reason; but I’m not proud of it. Things snowballed and got out of hand; and despite the fact that I felt completely justified at the time in “slinging the poop” at someone who simply would not acknowledge that he was maligning people he didn’t even know, I now sometimes wish I had not overreacted. But there it is, in posterity, on the eternal worldwide web, and so I have to accept the figurative spilled milk and do what I can to salvage my original intent in those discourses. That is the main reason for this report.

I do not falter from the gist of the argument I made at the time; but I have since come to realize that the inordinate highbrow methods I used to augment that argument were contrary to my initial objective, which was to seek clarification of his ongoing unsubstantiated allegations.

I have been on the receiving end of some absolutely horrible electronic torture—-which has at times elevated to almost unbearable levels since September 1st, 2012—-as well as decades of psychological aggression from organized stalking tactics since the early ‘80s. This is why I feel comfortable enough (there’s a laugh) to make an open statement regarding my perception of the state of things in this online “community”  of TIs: that is, we who have so far survived this heinous covert criminal activity and made at least some small effort to communicate our dilemma online to other survivors.

I will make mention of the support (or lack thereof, in some cases) derived from this community, whenever a panic-stricken new victim is compelled to seek quick info that might just save his/her sanity and reputation, if the info is easily accessed and presented in as logical, credible, and compassionate a fashion as possible. (As you may already have deduced by the obvious ponderous protraction of this essay, “quick info” is not my particular forte. If you truly wish to know the truth, I suggest you first take the time to resist knee-jerk responses and examine all the evidence.)

I hTapsterave attempted to make this report entertaining as well as informative. Despite what is happening to us as TIs, we must  fight through it and enjoy life. Buck the odds, and damn the defiant. You must strive to have some fun in the midst of your tortured existence. Stop displaying yourself to society with your heart on your sleeve. I have learned to do this, and so can you. Such is true power of spirit. If you do not, you are making it that much easier for OSEH perpetrators to destroy you, on all levels.

 

Again, it must be asserted that it’s vital that our words speak for themselves. Anybody can claim anything, and so it is extremely important that we take great care and precision within our discourses in this medium to distinguish what we attest as fact from what is merely a convenient assumption based upon our desire to embrace illusory panaceas, or doom-and-gloom scenarios of induced paranoia—-both of which are invariably incited by the topical rummaging of dilettantes.

We must also resist the irresponsibility of trying to pin the blame for our shared living nightmare on someone who’s merely tangible and accessible, and therefore easy to attack—-especially if that person might actually be another TI and not one of the anonymous criminal perpetrators of OSEH.

I speak here, in this particular instance of course, of the behavior of perp-screamers: the smattering of apparent TIs online who, ironically, have made the unsubstantiated vilifying of other TIs the very thrust of their own proposals of personal forthrightness and integrity in the fight against all the apparent forms of disinformation.

THUS PROCLAIMETH THE PERP-SCREAMER:

“I’m a TI who’s become so psychologically damaged by the actual  perps that now it’s become impossible for anyone to convince me that there isn’t a perp under every rock and behind every seemingly innocuous laugh, innuendo, or smart phone pointed at me.

“Whistle-blowers are frauds! TI support groups are satanic cults! You MUST heed my  testimony, and join me in my  disbelief of that  person’s testimony, because that  person’s testimony makes me feel nervous, and impotent, and quite possibly erroneous in my own assumptions; therefore, that  person is a PERP, and look, see, here is my convenient, roundabout, unsubstantiated rationalization on the subject, and BLAH BLAH BLAH I’M SHUTTING YOU OUT NOW BECAUSE YOU WON’T ACCEPT THE FACT THAT I DON’T NEED PROOF TO PRESUMPTUOUSLY SLANDER ANOTHER PERSON ONLINE. Oh, and by the way: PERP!”

Please take note of the upper-case ferocity. Ho-hum.

Let’s hope this is still a good time for everyone to take a step back and examine what can be accomplished with a unified front against the REAL aggression of OSEH—-including what can be done in support of new and unknowing victims who are just now reaching out for help among more seasoned survivors—-without all the backstage-diva drama-queen bitch-slapping contests.

The perp-screamer ultimately renders himself a defanged malcontent whose unsubstantiated rhetoric is eventually brought under the microscope and examined and finally laid to rest. Only then can his personally inflated image of himself be reduced to the actual vindictive sideline detractor that he is.

   The perp-screamer screams “perp”—-a word invariably accompanied by assorted other florid, obscene ejaculations in his arsenal—-usually because another person’s assertions and/or methods in dealing with the TI phenomenon happen to be diametrically opposed to his own. His accusations are uniformly unsubstantiated—-that is, open to argument—-and are therefore perpetually waggled as an unresolvable sensation; and all this amid a nebulous barrage of insult and self-inflation that is incessantly utilized in the erroneous belief that it insulates him from critique.

Another target of the perp-screamer’s flippant finger of brash condemnation is the sincere truth-seeker who can find no logic in the perp-screamer’s grab bag of convenient assumptions, and who plainly tells him so. This report examines precisely how Mr. Forwood utilizes the “perp-screamer” tactic to attack his chosen targets in a circumambulating attempt to camouflage himself from his actual inability to prove his accusations. In this truthful context I will attempt to depict a course of action that I believe is necessary in order to explore what has until now been politely downplayed by some of his targets: the necessity to challenge him on the specifics of his accusations.

The perp-screamer hates being ignored; but what he hates even more is a thoughtful critique of his claims, and that’s when the obscenities start flying. He wants to be a big shot too, to join in what he perceives to be a “hoopla” by spraying his territory with slander; and he prefers to do this without verification for his claims or other such inconvenient obstructions. Whenever you come across one of these shoot-from-the-hip petty accusers—-who, incidentally, firmly believe that they are set apart from the rest of the “tattered masses” by being uniquely equipped to distinguish and resist all those infernal psyop strategies that have so transformed the rest of us into “gullible, mind-controlled sheep”—-all you need do is request from him the substantial proof he has that has compelled him to broach the “perp” accusation in the first place. You’ll either get a redundant solecist who’ll tell you that “the truth is obvious” and that’s that, and you’re an idiot if you can’t see it; or, you’ll get our self-consumed sophist-in-residence, who’ll dredge up a pile of discontinuous factoids, none of which prove that his accusation is true, but all of which seem to have convinced the sophist, if no one else, that it’s all right to malign another person online with the peculiar exhibition of an obsessed mongrel chasing his own tail as if it were a pretty little line of ducks in a row; and there we are, right back where we started, with the solecist: “And that’s that, and you’re an idiot if you can’t see it, goddamn it. PERP!

Oh, and God help you if you dare to malign the perp-screamer in the same manner that he has maligned his own targets. Immediately after screaming “Perp” the perp-screamer will publicly denounce name-calling when he himself has been similarly labeled. And then he’ll fling some more curses into the fray as though it were extracurricular recreation.

Additionally, everyone should know by now  that the perp-screamer is absolved from, and off limits to, any critical analysis of his unendingly unproven accusations. Why, challenging his flimsy rhetoric is patently tantamount to bridling yet another dubious conspiracy against him! Didn’t you know that? Gadzooks! Beware! Don’t stick your fingers in the moving machinery!

I apologize beforehand to any of you who might believe that this exposé is unfair to the particular person I have chosen to describe; or that he is perhaps even too inconsequential, or that this is too counterproductive, to be worth the effort to specify; however, I believe this is necessary. For too long now, perp-screamers (and Forwood, in particular) have been getting away with unfairly and dishonestly smearing—-as well as intimidating and segregating—-certain members of this burgeoning community of truth-seeking TIs. A perp-screamer’s discrepancies and inconsistencies must be brought to light, if only to confirm the impotence of his sensationalistic allegations and thereby deflate his self-exalting diatribe. If any of you knows another perp-screamer, I advise you to challenge his accusations; otherwise, he will count on your silence as acceptance of his disputable rhetoric.

Here’s a good idea: Offer a conference call to the perp-screamers; invite them to reveal whatever evidence they wish in order to get their respective points across to a logically arranged forum of Q&A from inquiring minds. Invite their targets as well. Then we shall see who chooses to lay their cards on the table, and who does not.

In the public domain, if you accuse someone of wrongdoing, a reasonable investigator will expect evidence of your accusation. If you have no proof to uphold your accusation, it must be consigned to the realm of hearsay, not fact; furthermore, in order to confirm your ensuing credibility, you must ensure that your subsequent  entries about the person you have accused are adequately adjusted to convey the fact that you have, as yet, no proof to defend your accusation, even if you do still stand by your suspicions. This is called journalistic integrity. If you do not adhere to this ethical discipline, you are no better than the criminals of OSEH who have unjustly targeted YOU. The thrust of this logical groundwork for clarity is indisputable. Go ahead, try to dispute it.

Perp-screamers are cunningly proficient at hiding behind wonderfully efficient disclaimers. They’ll tell you it’s their First Amendment right to malign specific people by name, especially when they have no proof to back it up. Hey, it’s just their opinion, right? Right. “Just throwing it out there.” So why not proclaim that it’s a disputable opinion—-devoid of evidence—-right up front for us, before you fire your next  petty shot in the air and everyone runs for cover? You see, it’s no problem when it’s no skin off the perp-screamer’s nose. Not until the hens come home to roost, that is.

    It is plausible to assume, in the “hypothetical multiversal diagram,” that all non-disproven theories might very well be correct and/or connected, even in their apparent contradictions; that is, there are plenty of paths we can take that are lined with all the flowery circumstantial contentions we need to indicate the possibility, if not the plausibility, of whatever claim we wish to advertise. You know, throw it against the wall and see what sticks, and congratulate yourself for the fine mess you made of the scientific process.

However, regardless of the enticing insinuations that this childish method of imaginative pseudoscience vainly promises to deliver, the only thing I can personally  do, if I wish to be honest with myself, is accept the testimony of my own senses, which tell me:

 *  I’m being electronically tortured by anonymous  assailants.

 *  I have been inordinately followed, mocked, and dissed by strangers in public.

 *  Whoever is behind this horrible invasion of my life is sufficiently enabled to succeed in this mission of destruction without the slightest obstruction from the rest of society around me.

 

Therefore, my concern goes a bit more deeply and personally than lumbering down a path of slewn, sloppy, self-aggrandizing, perpetually unsubstantiated accuations  that damage both accuser and accused while doubtlessly bestowing a bevy of hilarious, unending entertainment to the actual  perpetrators of OSEH.

 

(A perp-screamer’s preferred investigative footwear.)

Now, before I detail my evidence about Mr. Forwood’s hypocrisy and lack of credibility (not to mention his predictably persistent leaning upon the crutch of profanity whenever his rhetoric is challenged), I must first make mention of something that is of utmost importance. Each of us understands how confusing—-how draining—-a hardened  target’s life can be, even without all the conflicting rhetoric; but we must all remember how devastating the atrocities of OSEH are to a new  target. This is where we must all focus our attention.

A newly targeted victim is extremely vulnerable to destructive scenarios; and the more quickly we can reach out to a new target, the better it will be for us all. If you are experiencing even half  of what I’m going through, I’d still call that torture; and the first moment of realization—-when you first realize  you’re being targeted—-is one of panic, paranoia, and psychological upheaval. I would venture to say that every  TI has been at that crossroad, at least for some small period of time. Philosophical quandary just doesn’t cut it at this particular juncture; but nor do divisive, unsubstantiated accusations floating around among a community of oppressed TIs who should be rallying against OSEH instead of attempting to defend their credibility—-which has already been compromised by societal incredulity—-from childish, irresponsible and vicious perp-screamers. Something is amiss and must be remedied.

I believe that a widening accessibility to support groups—-geographically, online, and via phone—-would be of invaluable benefit to a survivor who has in the past received nothing solid to hold onto when first attacked. Had I been equipped with the presence of another survivor during even one medical appointment at the beginning of my own persecution, I believe things would have been much more copacetic and much less physically and personally damaging.

But this perspective might be unfeasible as an overall prescription. Perhaps the best strategy, for some, is to cordon oneself off from all  attempts to explain the truth about what we’re experiencing—-to ride out the storm alone, in the hope that the whole nightmare will one day blow over. Some of us just aren’t built for defiance in the face of adversity to begin with. It might even be true that to so much as correspond with other TIs is to invite further unwelcome scrutiny, and even injury, into one’s life, as well as an unsavory labeling of one’s very identity. There is much to be said about remaining disassociated from all the hubbub and ado right from the get-go. There is even talk that some apparent TI support groups may actually be fronts for something more devious. At the very least, one must be wary of capitalistic finaglers. As we have seen, suspicion-laden theories flourish where there is yet no verifiable source upon which we can be absolutely certain in the realm of TI support. It is no coincidence that the strategy against us has been arranged this way.

It is absolutely necessary to constantly examine an organization’s—-and our own—-possible inconsistencies and disputable dogmas in the evolution of an organized TI movement. Each of us has his/her own perspective, and manner, and vaunted image for portrayal. One person’s needs and desires are unique to that person and should neither be considered everyone’s template for endurance nor justification for a detractor’s disdain.

But there is one trait that we all share as human beings. We all want to be happy. The problem with so many of us is that we seek happiness through quick fixes. The quick grab for a touted universal panacea; the quick curse against detractors; the get-rich-quick scheme; the quick run-for-the-hills when the reptilian brain (not to be confused with those popular “shape-shifting lizards”) snaps into flight mode; these are a few examples of the quick fix. It is particularly in these instances of expended effort to qualify our conjectures that we become more transparent in our motives and more accessible to critique—-however much we wish to conceal those motives and/or elude those critiques.

I announce my presence to the world, and leave myself wide-open, when I reach out. Such is life among the jaded, the tortured, the sick and tired. Reflexive self-preservation in Murderworld. A day in the life of a TI. C’est le vie.

 

Now, as previously stated, one form of defense for a small fringe in the TI community, when they begin to feel that criticism of their published declarations of contempt threatens the credibility of these declarations, is to label the critic a “perp.” This tactic is intended only to smear the reputation of the critic, and bait him into a challenge to refute the “perp” accusation rather than remain on-topic. This tactic, which is eerily reminiscent of the bag of tricks of an actual  perp, assists the perp-screamer by deflecting any justifiable demand for a more substantive explanation of whatever claims he feels have been challenged and therefore necessary to protect at all costs. The deflection is intended to place the critic on the defensive in order to indefinitely postpone the demand that the perp-screamer lay all his cards on the table once his hand is called.

After the OSEH had begun again for me in 2012, I began—-as I’m sure many of you also did—-to research everything I could in my quest for salvation from the horror. Among the inundation of related websites, I came across an audio interview between Greg Syzmanski and Julianne McKinney:

I realized through this interview, and several other sites, that the plausibility of government complicity was so striking that I needed to rethink everything about my situation. I took the time to read much of Ms. McKinney’s 1992 report on electronic harassment, and even decided to seek more of her publications, if any existed. I googled her name. At about the third or fourth site down, I noticed an intriguing title:

Exposing the Truth: Exposing Julianne McKinney

Well, I thought, I might as well get another side of the story if I’m going to understand everything. And so I investigated the site. It was a blog page, authored by one Anthony Forwood. He begins the page with a treatise declaring McKinney an “NSA agent” and uses, as his method of “exposing” her, a long and arduous listing of copied email correspondences in which she participated with Forwood and others. I did my best to follow the apparent reasoning Forwood was attempting to justify with all of this back-and-forth email provocation, and at the end of it I could see no reason at all why he had eventually come to this conclusion about her. It seemed to me that he was somewhat insulted and put off by her responses, and decided to label her a “perp” because of her standoffish demeanor more than anything else that could possibly have been construed by her responses.

I decided to enter my opinion onto his blog page. I begin here with the point in the blog where I joined in the “fun.” If you wish to examine the entire blog, I believe it’s still out there. All blog entries are in bold italics.

(I’m sure Mr. Forwood will have something to say as a result of this exposé about him. And that’s a good thing. Right?)

*

What concerns me a great deal is the fact that there is a lot of misplaced hostility concerning many among us who quite naturally have sincere passion for our effort to put an end to this and other forms of domestic and international terrorism. To badmouth someone simply because they don’t conform to our precisely preconceived definition of things is to play the same ignorant defamation game that a perp plays. We must keep our attention focused on solving the greater issue, which is to end our suffering. Please understand that to vilify someone—simply because of an unsubstantiated paper-chase following a less-than-savory brusque encounter–only continues to play into the hand of our true enemies–who, by the way, have made it their business to remain anonymous while dividing and isolating us. The only person I can no longer trust is the person who refuses to acknowledge the truth that I’m telling them, not the person who doesn’t necessarily have time to kill for me. Did you ever get the feeling that sometimes your personality can be grating on another person’s nerves? I have, and sometimes it’s not their fault. Let’s keep a level head out there, folks. World Peace!

Now, in order to delineate, from here on in, the manner in which Mr. Forwood constantly deflects the issue I had initially raised—-that he hadn’t presented any proof whatsoever about his accusations of Ms. McKinney, or subsequently, of any  of his targets—-I have interjected a commentary here and there specifying this ongoing tactic he uses to trivialize the need for substantiation of these accusations. The bold italics have been applied to help you distinguish blog entries from my commentaries. Or, you can read Forwood’s blog for yourself and see what might still be there. I foresee no reason to suppose that he would attempt so brash and devious a reaction as the manipulation of public records. Besides, one need merely explore “Internet Archive” and find the exact dates for these and other entries. Still, it would be wise to check for subtle tweaking.

*Reply:

(Anthony Forwood)

Paul, my post about Julianne McKinney and certain others is not made frivolously. I have had my ear to the wire for a while, and it is quite apparent from what I’ve heard and experienced personally that these people are more what I describe than what they purport to be. The evidence is out there. I’m simply the messenger pointing at what to be aware of, and let those who care to look more closely do so and make up their own minds. That’s what free speech is all about. What you call ‘badmouthing’ is a little extreme, and a littlw twisted.

It’s interesting that you say that the only person that you can’t trust is the person who refuses to acknowledge the truth that you’re telling them. My question to you is: WHAT MAKES YOU THINK YOU HAVE THE TRUTH, AND OTHERS WHO ‘REFUSE’ TO LISTEN DON’T???

Isn’t that a little bit too self-certain?

Here we see that Forwood advises me that “the evidence is out there” and now I’m supposed to go hunt it down for myself, as he apparently did. Well now, don’t you think such damning evidence about the “nefarious” Julianne McKinney, if it so obviously exists to Forwood, should be promptly and instantly revealed along with the accuser’s flitting blog-arrows of condemnation? Wouldn’t that clear things up for everyone immediately? Of course it would; but then there would be no need for me to request verification of his claims. This is Forwood’s first manifestation of his own apparent “self-certain” inability to grasp the concept that he might be wrong about someone he doesn’t even know. Our “messenger” came to his sphincter-clinching resolution about McKinney through arduous research reaping conclusive results that clearly didn’t need to be elaborated at this moment in time. Oh well.

Incidentally, that particular statement he quoted from my first reply, “the person who refuses to acknowledge the truth that I’m telling them,” referred to anyone in a position of authority who would not accept my TI testimony. It was not some blanket presumption about my own supposed infallibility.

*Reply:

(Paul Stayton)

I’m sorry if you took my critique as a slap or a smear. Perhaps “badmouthing” is the wrong word? Again, I must stress the importance of examining a topic in a more balanced fashion. FOR INSTANCE, WHEN YOU CAPITALIZE YOUR WORDS in response to a message, as though you were struggling to scream at someone over the internet, it puts forth the impression of impudence and intolerance. As a target of the exact form of domestic terrorism that is described in Ms. McKinney’s interview (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5d5_1194548311), I can only tell you what I have heard with my own ears and read with my own eyes. I’m still trying to process the inundation of information and misinformation running rampant online. Anybody can say anything, as long as foolproof evidence isn’t a concern, and some people eat it up like it’s caviar. When I read that so-n-so’s a dolt, and whatsizname’s a fool, all I’m seeing is hate. One might suspect that you yourself are one of those disinformation moles whom you and others seem so quick to deride. See how easy it is to point the finger?
Unless we approach this problem in a reasonable and dispassionate manner (however we ache to shout it from the rooftops), nobody out there is going to pay us any mind. I can understand if you’ve been trying to put the message of our plight out there for years and years and it seems like nothing is happening. But something is definitely happening. The proof of that is my message now to you.
I realize the need to vent in the midst of this twilight zone bullshit we are all going through. I hope that we haven’t reached that point of no return, where it’s become impossible to find common ground and work together to agree upon a viable, mutual strategy that will progress indefinitely until covert (and overt!) targeting is finally ended. In time, the truth will be made known. Believe that. Let’s hope that we can get to the bottom of all this—before we all tear each other apart like they want us to.
Having said all that, let us continue to hold onto what sanity we have left to make this one last hurdle: To bring to the public judicial system an acknowledgment of the reality of Electronic Harassment & Surveillance & Torture, and have it finally abolished. If one particular petition or lawsuit is not your cup of tea, get off your duff and start your own! And don’t forget to call me when you do, so I can join it!
We ALL need to continue our own personal struggles of learning and surviving in the meantime. Please let’s not lose sight of that! I came across your site in my search for answers. Enlighten me with something besides accusations. World Peace!

*Reply:

(Anthony Forwood)

Enough of your holier-than-thou attitude. If you must imagine that uppercase is yelling, then I imagine that that’s what you NEED to see it as.

STOP USING MY BLOG AS A TOILET FOR YOUR CRAP. I deleted the other posts you came back and put up that are COMPLETELY irrelevant and UNWANTED.

   Now wasn’t that little outburst a telltale sign of the shape of things to come . . .

Incidentally, concerning his mention of a couple of my early responses that he deleted: these were in the same vein as my earlier responses, and included information about Greg Gamache’s lawsuit—-which I had just learned about at that time, and was very interested in . . . at the time. Mr. Gamache is another example—-though a much less severe one—-of one who has, on occasion, used the “perp-screamer” tactic. I am now quite grateful that Forwood deleted those entries, though not for the reasons he intended. I do, however, hope that Mr. Gamache is coping better with his own plight as a TI and has not since resorted to perp-screamer rancor.

*Reply:

(Paul Stayton)

As you wish. You obviously need to vent, without the obstruction of a reasonable challenge to your unsubstantiated diatribe. Good luck.

*Reply:

(Anthony Forwood)

Tell me, how is anyone supposed to substantiate anything of this nature. Only a dolt would think that this is supposed to be anything more than my own personal perspective. It’s up to all of you readers to decide for yourselves what to make of it.

I find it VERY interesting that you chose to come and respond at this point in time, when certain other events are happening around me that stem from such people as Julianne McKinney.

Are you from FFCHS?

  1. Observe how Forwood finally admits in this last entry that he was, of course, after all this time, unable “to substantiate anything” that he was earlier attempting to tout as well-researched fact backed up by conclusive evidence and bolstered by blatantly outright accusations.
  2. Notice how he finds it “VERY interesting” that I should happen to come along at the exact moment when he was so unusually unprepared to deliver his supposed evidence; and how, due to my sudden “suspicious” arrival, he suddenly finds it essential to finally insert a long-overdue disclaimer that it was all merely his “own personal perspective.”
  3. Notice how he quickly raises his impending perp-screamer ultimatum against me with allusions to an FFCHS “conspiracy.” Another display of that amorphous “personal perspective” tactic in action?

I acquiesced to Mr. Forwood’s vociferous demand and didn’t return a reply to his blog, simply accepting that he did not wish to be bothered by differing opinions, especially those as typically unabashed and admittedly heavy-handed as my own. Well, at least I had finally got him to admit that he had no proof to back up his claims. All well and good. Anyway, it’s a big world, right? Room enough for everybody. Go ahead and shoot your mouth off. Good luck. See you in the funny papers. Enjoy your monologue.

However, I quickly learned that Mr. Forwood was not quite done pontificating, as shown in this email he sent to me directly after our blog correspondences. It is quite lengthy; but please, I insist that you read it carefully:

From: anthony forwood (forwood@live.ca)
Sent: Thu 1/17/13 4:30 PM
To: sspaul@hotmail.com

A Question of Substantiation

In response to your coming to my blog and criticizing what I have to say about NSA agent Julianne McKinney, I decided to google you to find out more about you. I quickly found your posts at the FFCHS website and read what you have to say about your own unsubstantiated claims about your targeting. I notice that you referred to McKinney’s 1992 article at the very top of your first post, and seem to use that article as a basis for substantiating your claims about your attacks. From all that you wrote, you appear to not have ever done much research into this subject at all. You’ve apparently taken the first thing you’ve read or heard or as complete truth (never mind whether it might be or not, or who wrote it). You failed to consider the possibility that there might be other reasons for your symptoms and perceptions, or that much of the information that is put out about these perpetrators and their technologies (particularly by NSA agents like McKinney) might be purposeful distortions of more accurate truths. This latter point is what I’ve been trying to point out to TIs for years, and why I question the motivations of McKinney, who treats people on her forum the way she does. I don’t trust NSA agents, CIA agents, FBI agents, etc., with very good reason. You say in your posts to FFCHS that you don’t know who to trust, and yet you’ve already bought into the word of an NSA agent, and come here attempting to defend her. What do you think that says about your ability to make judgments?

 But even worse than believing the first thing you hear, you automatically assume a number of things about your attacks, with no substantive evidence that would eliminate other possible answers. For instance, you assume without considering any other possibilities that people are hiding behind your walls because you can hear their muffled talking. Perhaps you hear ordinary voices of ordinary people talking in other rooms who aren’t even involved in your attacks. What did you do to substantiate this assumption? Anything?

 Then, after viewing some videos on the FFCHS site, you used them to substantiate your suspicions. Fair enough, to a degree, but then, according to your posts, you start thinking back over your life to look for anything that matches what you’ve just learned. So you started buying into what FFCHS promotes as substantiated fact even more, still without any further consideration of other possibilities. It must be right if so many others apparently claim it is, right? You gave consideration to the possibility that the video you saw might have been carefully created or selected to promote certain beliefs, right? I’m not trying to suggest that it’s all false, but I would say that at least 10% of what’s put out there by such organizations and supposed TI advocates is absolutely false and has no real substantiation whatsoever, much of it being founded on prior disinfo that has been promoted over the years by similar people and groups to mislead and hide the more accurate truth.

 You also assume that those who you say are tormenting you are agents of the government, without ever having any substantiation beyond what you’ve bought into through what certain others claim. Well, McKinney was/is an NSA agent by her own admission, past members of FFCHS have been NSA agents (Derrick Robinson, for one), and many others out there who pretend to be TIs or TI advocates are in the employ of the NSA or CIA as well. This is all easily verifiable, if you bothered to take the time to look before jumping to conclusions. The perps attacking you might just as easily be Freemasons, Satanists, or some little gang of delinquents who built a homemade weapon out of a normal microwave oven. But like many other people, you choose to accept the very first thing that sounds good. But don’t feel bad or get angry with me, since that’s all intended as part of the psychological tactics that are purposely used by these perps. It’s a fault of human nature to tend to accept the first thing we hear, and to let it influence our later perceptions. The PTB know this very well, and use it to their advantage in many ways. You see it being used on the evening news every single day to influence opinions and perceptions.

 I should point out that, if you used a search engine to look for websites catering to TIs, you would undoubtedly come across FFCHS in the top listings. This is as much to do with the ability of the CIA and NSA to keep their own imposter sites at the forefront, since they have control over these search engines and also know very well how to use search engine optimization techniques so that these sites will always come up first. Thus, you and so many other TIs are drawn to sites like FFCHS where you’ll be sure to be exposed to the disinformation early on. Don’t just doubt me. Investigate these things for yourself. How better might you substantiate anything?

 You also state in your posts that these perps had you “stewing in a lonely room with no means of escape.” This leads me to wonder, were you actually locked in, as you seem to imply, or was this just an exaggeration? And where’s your substantiation? You say nothing about being attacked at any time outside of your home, so why didn’t you leave? Your statement sounds like it was purely intended to make your case sound as bad as possible. Excuse me if I’m wrong and you actually were a prisoner in your own home, but saying this sort of thing in this way adds a certain level of apprehension to other TIs who read it. I try to always avoid making statements that are emotionally laden or which exaggerate the truth in any way. I’m very much against other TIs who do it because it doesn’t help any of us to create unnecessary fears that can otherwise be avoided. It’s FAR worse than making claims that might be considered by some to be unsubstantiated.

 You go on to assume in your posts that because you’re still alive, it’s because your perpetrators want you around to abuse, and nothing else. Substantiation? None given. You also claimed that because of their attacks on you, you heart is permanently damaged. Did you substantiate that for your readers? No, you didn’t. You didn’t even bother to state whether or not this was a doctor’s diagnosis, or just your own. You want to bitch about my supposed lack of substantiation (even though I provide the actual dialogue between McKinney and myself, as others have also provided on my blog from their own experiences with her), yet in your own case you completely omit anything at all that would substantiate your claims.

 Do you get my point yet?

 Whether or not your claim is true, and you got this diagnosis from a doctor, they are very often wrong, and harboring the idea that your heart is permanently damaged will have a definite physiological effect on your body’s ability to repair itself. That’s a scientific fact. Think about this in terms of how many of those who read your post will be influenced. These sorts of claims have a contagious psychological effect on others, especially with those who already have a weakened physiology because of their built up fears of such things occurring. And if they’re being attacked with EM weapons, they’ll be even more susceptible to the physiological effects that you might trigger in them through the idea of heart problems. I’m not saying don’t ever make such statements, but just be careful about what you say and think about the effect it can have on other TIs by the way you say it. And if you’re going to bitch at someone like me for supposedly not offering substantiation for my claims, you better damn well make sure you substantiate yours! I know that there are many, many perps out there posing as TIs who put out material that is purposely intended to affect TIs this way. Some of them have been or are affiliated with FFCHS, and when I’ve approached them and challenged them on their claims when I know they’re lying, they’ve proven to be the lowest form of scum I’ve ever come across in the TI community. I’ve written about at least two of them elsewhere on my blog – Robert Duncan and Mell Mellhedek. Your timing in coming back to my blog a second time and criticizing my post on McKinney for not being substantiated has already made me very suspicious of you, since it comes immediately after I raised some issues about the credibility of FFCJS on facebook. These creeps would like to silence me because I threaten their crooked game. But they just urge me to go further when people like you defend them without giving any substantiation for doing so. Whose side are you on?

 I have to point out that, like many questionable claims made by people falsely claiming to be TIs (and many legit TIs as well), your posts to FFCHS instill many ideas and images that only add to the fears of those who read them. This is what the perpetrators want, and an organization like FFCHS (which has long been infiltrated by NSA agents) just loves to have these kinds of posts on their site for TIs to read and be psychologically and physiologically influenced by. They do nothing at all to really help anyone. These types of people and organizations go through the motions to make them appear legitimate, but they achieve nothing while TIs continue to wait, in the hope that one day they will. Did you really expect that their representing TIs at a commission made up of some of the top-level perpetrators who are doing this to people like you and me would really get anywhere? It’s all meant to waste the time of TIs who expect others can do something for them. You have to do things for yourself, and that starts with educating yourself about the enemy and their methods. You can’t stop once you think you have accurate knowledge after only reading a few articles or watching a few videos or talking to a few people. You have to keep going and get down to the intricate details – the history of the perpetrators and their technologies and the science behind the weapons they use. You also need to study the psychological aspects of it all, since that’s one of their greatest weapons. There’s so much superficial and misguided BS being spread around that it’s imperative to question things more deeply than you normally would with anything else. Don’t take the word of someone just because THEY claim to understand the science behind it. Learn it for yourself in as much detail as possible. These perps lie and misdirect. They know most TIs won’t do their homework because most people are lazy and not very intelligent. If you’re really fighting for your life and your freedoms, you will make the effort. If you’re actually mentally ill, or just entertaining yourself with the idea of being targeted, or even intentionally lying about it to scare others, you won’t bother. Make your choice.

 You go on to state in your posts, “This insane sadistic abomination doesn’t make any sense to me, but I suppose that’s only because I’m not in the loop, and there’s nothing I can do about that.” Well, educating yourself as much as possible is something you can do to be ‘in the loop’. You should always be asking questions to learn more and to substantiate what you learn. Taking more time to check out someone and their claims helps, too. It’s the only way to substantiate anything.

 You stated in your posts to FFCHS that you’ve been emailing TI websites and trying to make contact with other TIs, and that you’re particularly interested in finding out about getting tested for implants, and the only response you’ve gotten was a very brief one from Dr. John Hall, who told you to contact Jesse Beltran at ICAACT, which is another organization I have suspicions about. First of all, I have to wonder why you seem to have bought into the idea that you have implants so quickly. Is there any reason for this, other than because you’ve heard that so many others claim to have them? As it is, you’re being directed to a group that will very likely tell you that you have implants whether you do or not (Jesse claims that from 83% to 99% of the people he’s tested have them). And just because Jesse has an EMF reader to test for them, doesn’t mean that what he might find if he scans you is going to be accurate. These EMF readers can be triggered by any number of things, including microkinetic influences (intentional or not). This microkinetic effect has been scientifically verified by psychic researchers (such as Dean Radin, who has published two nooks on these findings). It has been found through many empirical tests that we all have some ability to psychically affect matter on micro-scales. EMF readers are extremely sensitive pieces of equipment that are very susceptible to being triggered in this way. I could explain this in more detail, but this post is already getting quite long (perhaps I’ll write something up on that topic sometime in the future).

 As I’ve said, organizations like FFCHS and probably even ICAACT are a farce, as are people like Julianne McKinney with her TI ‘support’ forum on Yahoo. Maybe one day more people will realize that. What sort of information or advice did you get from FFCHS after you posted there, if any? Nothing that’s really been any help to you, right? Was it substantiated in any way? If so, how?

 You yourself ask, “Why do I keep getting the feeling that most of the purported TI support sites out there are unwilling to communicate with me?” In my opinion, they are either websites set up by TIs who lose interest in running them when they get no activity, or they’re imposter sites that are used to feed TIs false information, and to monitor and manipulate those who fit a certain profile. The CIA and NSA who create or take over these sites use advanced psychological profiling systems to assess people (such as Dr. John Gittinger’s PAS), gathering information on them through computerized data-collection systems like ECHELON. They apply their mind-control programs on the most qualified targets. You need to read up on these for yourself before you decide to claim that this is unsubstantiated. These are advanced topics that I can’t really explain here, since it takes a lot of learning time before a person can grasp the means and purpose behind it all. As I said earlier, you have to really study the history and science behind all this. That’s the only way you can really substantiate any of it. Start by reading what’s available online by John Marks. He’s an authority on MKULTRA. Jis work is based on thousands of FOIA documents he acquired the CIA, and you can’t get much better substantiation than that!

 But getting back to this matter of substantiating your own claims… You state that you went to a number of different professionals and explained your situation, and they pretty much all diagnosed you as mentally ill. But you rejected this, so I have to wonder what you would ever accept as substantiation for anything, if what is said by qualified professionals doesn’t suit your fancy? I’m not saying these professionals were right. Not at all. I know that the system is rigged to deny TIs help.

 At this point, I think I’ve more than made my original point regarding the issue of substantiation and how you’re no better than me or anyone else in making unsubstantiated claims. I see from your posts that you’re still at a very elementary level in understanding your targeting, so anything further I have to say is going to be beyond your current level, and I doubt you’d be willing to take my word on any of it, anyway. Only time and personal research on your own part will substantiate what I’ve said here and elsewhere. I write what I write based on my personal experience as a TI and my many years of research into the perpetrators of these nefarious activities and the methods that they employ, and if TIs don’t want to believe what I say, that’s their problem. However, I will suggest that you look at my numerous articles at www.scribd.com/aforwood. I recommend ‘The Network’ as a starting point. It will explain a lot to you.

 I hope you appreciate the time I’ve put into responding to you and my attempt to provide some useful information – more than anyone else has, I’ll bet. Sorry if it doesn’t substantiate my claims about McKinney. I don’t know what more you would expect me to provide.

Anthony Forwood

 

I received this email with an open mind, and I read it because I knew—-as I know now—-that I can always learn something new. And honestly, I did  learn. I disregarded his condescending inflections (I was a bit guilty of that myself in my earlier replies to him) and graciously accepted the information he offered. I didn’t respond, ignorantly assuming this was his jaded way of writing me off after I bowed out as gracefully as I could from his blog. (We all do so crave the last word, don’t we?) I reluctantly bit my tongue and accepted this private email as his best effort to appear diplomatic in the face of his previous vitriol directed at me in his McKinney blog.

The problem with Forwood and others of his shoot-from-the-hip persuasion (and the reason some people fall for such prolific rationalizing) is that he mixes truth with lies. For instance, he’ll give you reasonable advice about how to deal with your targeting, but then he’ll immediately taint that advice by using disparate truisms as artillary in an attempt to bolster his irrational condemnations against people he doesn’t know. (Well, to be fair, let’s not say his  tactics are completely irrational; he obviously put some thought into inflating his image by targeting specific individuals from whom he could procure the easiest free advertising.)

The following is a perfect example of his deviousness in this regard. This is his comparison of early UFO sensationalism with FFCHS. He first performs a reasonably adequate task of explaining the various conspiratorial elements involved in hoodwinking the populace into believing in aliens from outer space. But then he’ll drop this  bomb in his makeshift FFCHS correlation:

“For this control system to work, there must be key players who pose as TI sympathizers – high-profile spokespeople, advocacy groups, self-professed whistleblowers, writers, investigators, purported TIs making wild claims, etc. – but who really act as target identifiers, handlers, disinformation agents, etc.

“This is the essential purpose of FFCHS. All of the same elements are present.”

Sophisticated as it may be, this is merely one of his countless refusals to connect the dots of his rationalizations. Notice how he leaps across the gap of reason by alleging—-without any attempt whatsoever to explain this assumption to us—-that FFCHS, simply because of its varied and credible sympathizers, and of course because of the usual sprinkling of eccentric hangers-on (people much like Mr. Forwood, actually, notwithstanding that compulsive finger-pointing tic of his), is supposed to be a covert government psyop. And he does all this without the slightest consciousness of the fact that he and his own eclectic conglomeration of online sympathizers bear the same resemblance to the types of people he has listed in the above quotation.

Now, if you have carefully read the entire email he sent me, you’ll notice that he still hadn’t offered any evidence whatsoever about his specific claims of insight about Julianne McKinney, which is the only reason I initiated my inquiry on his blog page to begin with. Instead, he had now adopted the position that actual proof of his allegations about McKinney was irrelevant in light of the fact that I was equally unable to prove I was a TI.

He claims that he has performed a voluminous task of research and this is what had led him to a conclusion that clearly needed no concrete evidence, when peripheral assumptions based upon third-party generalizations served just as nicely to decorate his suspicions. The entire thrust of his argument is based on the fact that McKinney used to work for the government, and that government psyops programs exist; and thus and therefore he declares her to be “NSA agent Julianne McKinney” because she used to work for the government and is reclusive.

He offers nothing else that has anything to do with supporting this accusation about her. He relegates her from whistleblower to traitor by announcing, “All bears are animals, and therefore all animals are bears.” He allows himself to be deceived into the incongruous assumption that she is a “perp” because of some vague ulterior reason other than that she is a whistleblower who eventually tires of corresponding with perpetually irreconcilable nitpickers like Anthony Forwood.

Also, notice once again how—-instead of honoring my previous request that he divulge any proof that McKinney is an “NSA agent”—-he immediately attempts to put the inquisitor on the defensive. He now has all the googled evidence he needs to prove that: a) either Paul Stayton doesn’t know what he’s talking about, or  b) Paul Stayton is also not what he seems, as is Super-Spy Forwood’s arch-nemesis, the diabolical Julianne McKinney.

badmath

Follow the skewed rationalizing here. Rather than reveal the “evidence” he insists is “out there,” Forwood instead chooses to pick apart my old testimony from JeffPolachek.com (not  FFCHS) and cite imaginary discrepancies in my testimony. He astoundingly attempts to compare my inability to prove my TI experiences with his inability to prove that Julianne McKinney is an “NSA agent.”

And now, follow the breadcrumbs of his rationalization trail: Not only does he refuse to admit that he might be wrong about a woman he doesn’t even know  except for a few email correspondences, but he adds insult to injury by insisting  that the only reason she (not to mention FFCHS, and ICAACT, etcetera) appears to be achieving greater recognition for her efforts than he has is because it’s all an NSA disinformation plot. (Because his lack of credibility certainly wouldn’t have anything to do with his nauseating gall, would it? Nah!) He defends this “disinfo” premise by name-dropping a couple of unassociated whistleblowers and sprawling his infallible condescension upon poor little disinformed me. He actually seemed quite satisfied with himself, to be so adequately equipped to intellectualize his way out of an obligatory retraction.

Of particular note is the cryptic stance he presents by implying, now that he has condescended to impart his “findings” to me, that I should “pick sides” and thereby alleviate him of the pressure of wondering about the supposed dubiousness of my affiliations—-the consequences of which may very well reap eventual hazard for me in my precarious footing along the path of daring to challenge these “findings” in the future.

I figured that if this is what the guy wants to believe, and there’s no way to get through to him about just how horrible it is to make specifically phrased unsubstantiated accusations  online about people he doesn’t even know—-regardless of the much too sparsely scattered “my own personal perspective” admissions—-then it’s best to just leave him to his own faulty devices and hope that he has lots of fun recycling his wobbly flights of fancy for The Great Divide. Good luck, pal.

However . . .

Five months later, as I was googling my own name just to see if there was any information about me that might have something to do with my being targeted (hey, every option, right?), guess what I found? A blog page actually dedicated to me! Well, let’s not use the exact word “dedicated.”

exposinginfragard.blogspot.com/…/re-paulstaytons-comment-question-…?

 

Oh my!

Here is a fairly accurate rendering of my seething thoughts at the very moment I beheld Forwood’s NEW blog page:

“And so, this is the price I pay for “daring” to challenge this dumb ass’s allegations of Julianne McKinney! My very own Smear Page, eh? Now, because I had the “audacity” to seek substantial proof of his allegations, my online name will forevermore be besmirched with this attention-seeking CAD! So, that self-centered moron thinks he’s going to have the last word? HA! Double HA!”

I was pissed. I fell right into the trap without a second thought. I was new to this blog stuff. I never even had an email address till 2008. I never posted a blog response before this, ever. I had no idea of the implications. And so, you see, I really did  need to learn a thing or ten, and not just exclusively about EH. Anthony Forwood was going to teach me that you really can  spew any specious claim you choose online; and not only can you get away with it, but you can continue to fester an unending supply  of juggled garbage in whatever direction your cringing little heart desires to push it.

And, most especially, you can quite effortlessly jump right down into the very muck and mire of someone else’s  vitriolic garbage and join in the festivities! You can sink right down into their pit of finger-pointing garbage and become  the garbage, right alongside them. And that, dear reader, is what I did.

Here’s the rest of the blog about me, which begins with the above email he sent me. Please take notice of the venomous sting, as well as the incessant continuance, of my responses. I was literally checking every day  for a new entry from the conspicuous Mr. Forwood so that I might once again fling some hefty dog-poop of my own into the muck. The aggravation I derived from this—-having unwittingly invited a pathetic ongoing ping-pong match with a man who was simply unable to admit that he might  be wrong about something he unflinchingly professed to be true—-was compounded by the absolute turmoil of OSEH torture I was now enduring every day. The blog page was a daily smack in the face, while the EH attacked the rest of me. I seethed. I was duped. Because of the nightmarish ordeal I was already facing in my everyday life, I clearly overreacted to the rumblings of a duplicitous blog hack.

Now mind you, before that time, I hadn’t been trashy at all with my entries on his McKinney blog. My posts had been thoughtfully prepared, semantically proficient, and naturally inquisitive. Sure, they were heavy-handed, but only because Forwood was continuously avoiding admission of fabrication until the very end of the correspondence in his McKinney blog. However, after seeing this new blog about me, I “took off the kid gloves,” as they say, and unleashed a river of scathing, condescending sarcasm directly at him.

My first response on his new blog page about ME was quite lengthy. Because of the blog’s imposed limits on responses, it took three entries to publish my entire first response. As you will see by having examined his above email, the quotations I cited in this response were taken from Forwood’s own mouth. My response immediately follows the one entered by one Bob Levin, Forwood’s resident “investigative journalist.”

:

*Reply:

(Bob Levin)

FFCHS is operated by criminal predators.

 

It seems that Mr. Levin also doesn’t place any great significance on the term “unsubstantiated accusation.” This subjective, anything-goes “Wild Wild West” charade of objective journalism could not be more transparent. Give me some proof  when you accuse someone like this, Mr. Levin. Next you’ll be expecting me to anticipate an impending terroristic beheading threat because you said so. Code Red! Run for the hills!

 

*Reply:

(Paul Stayton)

My my, the things one comes across when one occasionally googles one’s own name! Well, since I’m here, and since you’ve been so wantonly callous as to pick at your chicken dinner in public again without a Handi-Wipe, I declare that it’s only fair that I add my own words to your ongoing diatribe. After all, the title of this pretty little site does have my name in the title.
Now our adoring fans (fan?) will be waiting with bated breath for you to delete these words as well, just as you did when I first pointed out your inconsistencies in your premature accusatory judgment against Julianne McKinney.
Had you simply left our last correspondence as a private email meant only for my edification, I would have been happy, honored and respectful at the outcome; however, being as it is obvious that you are unable to accept the premise of your own fallibility, and seem somehow drawn to the flame of Public Spectacle, I have no recourse but to respond to your publicized allegations using your own chosen format. Tit for tat, Chuckles.

First things first:
In all truth, sir, it must be pointed out that, just as with yourself, if I choose to speak for myself, I of course run the risk of attracting the attention of someone who doesn’t particularly appreciate my point of view. Let us just for the moment disregard in this particular case that the someone to whom I refer is he who wishes to be acknowledged as The Grand Supreme Know-it-all of his measly little Almighty Kingdom of Irrefutable Online Rhetoric, and that’s that, nyaah-nyaah and cocky-poo-poo to all the insignificant naysayers who have the gumption to challenge his flimsy arguments.
You apparently hold yourself in high esteem, as many of us do when we try to insulate our opinions from critical analysis by deleting what we find too much of a reality check for our precarious footing in our majestic climb up the lumpy mound to blog notoriety.
You say one thing, and at the same time you prove by your actions that you’re doing exactly the opposite. You’re not trying to help or enlighten me, or anyone for that matter; you’re just giving yourself another excuse to climb up on your soapbox. Well, pardon the rest of us who don’t go around slandering people’s names just because no one has, of yet, turned off the torture for TIs everywhere.

Here’s some of YOU, quoted:

“I’m not trying to suggest that it’s all false . . . “
Of course you’re trying your damnedest to suggest exactly that. You disagree with my observation that you’re maligning another person without any proof, and so you feel have no choice but to attack my descriptions of my own publicized experiences on the JeffPolachek.com post. Your inept accusations were threatened and you lashed out. And you lashed out online, where you can gleefully and at a distance do the most damage to the person you have already maligned. You’re no better than a perp.
Hmm . . .

“Do you get my point yet?”
More on that in a bit.

“You also assume that those who you say are tormenting you are agents of the government, without ever having any substantiation …”
That’s right, I’m assuming, and therefore I’m not substantiating anything. I never claimed to have proof for my assumption. That’s why you recognized it as an assumption. And so, at least one of us, between you and me, makes things perfectly clear when and where he’s merely assuming something. If one would read my post on JeffPolacheck.com, you’ll see that. These are things I believe, and I’m attempting to describe what I’m experiencing to the best of my ability. What I am NOT doing is pointing out any specific individuals by name and declaring them enemies of the State. How could I? I have no proof.
You suddenly seem quite interested in using the word substantiate as long as you yourself are not beholden to the word’s actual definition.
More to come . . .
Paul S. Stayton

 

“I should point out that, if you used a search engine to look for websites catering to TIs, you would undoubtedly come across FFCHS in the top listings.”
Yes, and I should point out that, because of your insolent decadence in smearing the names of people who disagree with your errant darts of colloquial disinformation, it is become public knowledge that the great and terrible Anthony Forwood wishes to ride on the slandered coattails of his own chosen targets, and thereby increase his own networking capabilities in order to further impart his own skewed version of the truth to the hungry masses. Did God grant the exclusive right to the self-serving, chest-beating desire for popularity in the public domain solely to Anthony Forwood?
If I choose to describe my own experiences in an open forum, to a sympathetic audience that is willing to non-judgmentally relate to my particular situation, then that is my business and my right to do so, and with any hope left in this dismally corrupted society we can share some of whatever hope is available and even perhaps share any of the burden of grief that may be too much for one person to bear.
But my experiences do not include and encompass an ability to decry the purported experiences of another person; and they certainly don’t give me immunity from critique if I were fool enough to call that person a traitor or worse without proof.

“Do you get my point yet?”

It is plain to see that far too many unsavory characters with self-serving agendas have contaminated every facet of everyday life. Do you know why? Because they simply can no longer help themselves. We both know what a sad state of affairs that is in the case of some TIs who have been driven to the edge of desperation and are only seeking help. But what happens when it gets to the point that they begin to lash out at anything they see as a threat to them—and a threat to all of their millions of measly little Almighty Kingdoms of Online Rhetoric; and then any good they might have been able to do for another person in need is buried beneath that same panic-stricken rhetoric.

Anybody can say anything about anybody; you and I both know that. If I were to start my own little blog we both know that I can be the Great and Terrible Grand Poobah of that measly little blog. Why, I’d even be able, and yes, willing, to start publicly condemning anybody who objected to anything I “officially decreed” in my Royal Bullshit Edict. Moreover, I could officially decree, in my great royal poohbahness, that two plus two equals five, and that the sky is blue because Julianne McKinney and Derrick Robinson are NSA perps, and that is why I am still being continuously tortured by microwave radiation everywhere I go, because Julianne and Derrick haven’t stopped the torture.
And good lord! Nobody I have corresponded with has been able to help me stop the torture—not even the Mighty Anthony Forwood!
Therefore, Anthony Forwood is a perp! As a matter of fact, the plain fact that he knows so much about all that’s happening is all the proof I need to make that nailed-down honest-to-goodness fact; and gosh by golly, to the devil with any and all who may label my fact a presumptuous miscalculation.
Oh, and furthermore, if you are reading this now, it is is your patriotic responsibility and civic duty (hoorah! fireworks, please) to ostracize, humiliate, and pooh-pooh Anthony Forwood and everything he stands for, and to send him out of town on a rail, BECAUSE I SAID SO. No head shall be higher than King!

 

We’re all entitled to our opinions. It’s when we begin to lose sight of the forest for the trees that the unsubstantiated rhetoric starts flying. Keep trying to do the right thing, sir. Your above response to me, though almost as blatantly egotistical as this response of mine is to you, did have a couple of insightful perspectives. I would appreciate the advice more if it were not veiled in a fabricated, condescending illusion of magnanimity, posted on a megalomaniac’s manipulable blogsite. You should have left it as a private email, as I thought you had when I first received it at my email address.
I shall continue to educate myself, and hopefully with your assistance. But if you insist on smearing other people’s names and reputations, without definitive evidence, simply to bask in the paltry sparks of your self-important arsonistic invectives, you can expect my reply forthcoming.
Your ball, Chuckles.

Paul S. Stayton

 

I trust you can see my use of sarcasm and irony in sticking the “perp” label right back on Mr. Forwood, showing him how easy, how frivolous it is, to breach such an irresponsible accusation. On we go . . .

*Reply:

(Anthony Forweood)

You failed to address my questions, and instead took this as an opportunity to try to marr my character instead. Very well. Perp tactics get ignored. Enjoy your delusion. which it has to be if you can’t properly explain your assumptions with logic and freason.

Notice how Forwood finds having his character marred an objectionable action. Isn’t it mesmerizing how oblivious he is to his own machinations on the subject? It’s all right for him to call people he doesn’t know traitors and “perps,” but how dare anyone  presume to mar Anthony Forwood’s  character! And, as far as my “failure to address his questions”:

*Reply:

(Paul Stayton)

The main thrust of your argument–the premise upon which you base your entire specious campaign of vindictive rhetoric–is that you have declared Julianne McKinney to be an active NSA agent who has instigated a deceptive illusion of transparency in an effort to further bamboozle and confuse her victims unto their impending destruction by her nefarious hands. The irrelevant questions you decided to raise, due to my consistent observation that you have no proof to validate your above declaration, have absolutely nothing to do with the very cogent matter at hand: That you have no proof to back up your accusations about Julianne McKinney. You have a self-convenient talking-point diatribe of circumstantial referents that do not add up to your arrogant conclusion. My observation of your inconsistency is not based upon whether you’re right or wrong about Ms. McKinney, or about whether or not you believe that anybody who disagrees with your rhetoric should be lambasted online. It’s about a supercilious fool who won’t come to grips with the fact that his refutable assumptions in a vapid grandstanding blog site can and will be challenged in the light of reasonable objection, especially when he persistently finds himself unable to admit that HE REALLY DOESN’T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT HIS DECLARATION IS FACTUAL. The biggest crime here is that you won’t admit to yourself that you don’t really know one way or another about Ms. McKinney, and yet you carry on as though you were a perp surveilling her every move.

Once again I threw his own “perp” tactic right back in his face—for all the good it did for our notorious perp-screamer.

*Reply:

(Anthony Forwood)

No, you blather. You fail to address my points, so I won’t waste my time with you. You’ve proved me correct enough regarding your sensibilities.
Ebnjoy your imagination…

*Reply:

(Paul Stayton)

My my, but aren’t we the lofty King of Blogdom! So, you don’t have any more time to waste on mere mortals such as I; and here you went to all the trouble to create a page in my honor!
Honestly, Chuckles, do you ever stop to think of the pain—the anguish—you may very well heap upon another human being with a simple little typety-type-type of unfettered hubris unleashed from your own hyperactive imagination?
No. You know nothing except how to deceive yourself into imagining that waving me off translates into “bowing out gracefully.”
Once again you’ve made use of that age-old, wondrously tactful strategy of liars, by waving me off with one more “Ain’t gonna waste my time with trivial facts” harumph of veiled disentanglement.
You started this page, moron. I know how much it would grieve you to take my advice at this point, but you really should just close down this page. You don’t have the conscience or the balls to retract your unsubstantiated allegations, either about me or Julianne McKinney. And now you can’t be bothered?
You are the one who blathers, sir. You shot your wad with your evasive opening diatribe, and since then all we’re getting out of you is “nanny-nanny-poo-poo, I’m covering my ears now!”
Perhaps these witless blogs are, for you, the only means you have left in life to bolster your illusion of control over something. If that is the case, I truly hope that your next uncoordinated effort to beat your chest online leaves intact your desire to leave your unsubstantiated allegations unchallenged—“untainted,” as it were—by the light of healthy skepticism. I mean, really, Bozo, in this forum? Know this: It is a dead certainty, in this particular forum, that the accused—whom you have so distastefully slurred by creating this page to begin with—is persistently going to hand you back your stinky sack of bullshit for as long as this page exists.

*Reply:

(Anthony Forwood)

Paul. you’re attempting to draw this away from your own specious claims.

*Reply:

(Paul Stayton)

No sir. I’m showing you that you have shown me nothing by way of your own accusations. You have attempted to deflect the matter at hand–namely, the fact that you have no concrete evidence to back up your initial claim that you have specific knowledge about Julianne McKinney that you know very well you don’t have. And my guess is that the reason you don’t have this knowledge is because it probably isn’t true. It really seems to me that you’re a self-serving, self-important, despicable fiend. If it weren’t enough that you had already deleted my first messages to your blog page about Ms McKinney–messages that were in no way disrespectful, or obscene, but simply averse to the skewed misdirection your blog was attempting to plant–now you wish to continue to deflect the initial matter at hand by refusing to show me or anyone else the exact proof you claim to have which has so distorted your reasoning to the extent that you are now going to imagine that flaunting your apparent unconcern is somehow edifying to anyone at all. You simply wish to make a name for yourself by smearing others online. How’s that going for you?
They really must have made as much of a mess of your life as they have of mine; but that will never be a good enough reason–for me, anyway–to start naming blogs after my own chosen targets. I suppose you think I should be grateful to you for your naming this page after me. You threw down the gauntlet and now you want to do your Mexican tap-dance around it as though it were sport for you. Of what specious claims do you speak, that I must acknowledge? Do you wish to state that I have no proof that I’m being targeted unto ruin and ultimate murder? Why not blame EVERY TI for that factoid?
Admit it, sir: you have no proof to back up your claims about the people you are specifically naming and maligning online. You have circumstatial referents at best; and if that’s good enough for you to bring one more iota of grief to one more TI, then God help you.
All you need do is admit that “This is what I think, this is my opinion.” But this is the very thing you have chosen NOT to do. No, you have the unmitigated gall to continue this facade of standoffish evasion and deflection, at the cost of other people’s reputations and lives.
Looks like I’m going to have to keep on checking in, from here on in, since it is obvious you are never going to do the right thing by retracting opinions you have masqueraded as truth. Once again, tit for tat, Chuckles. Maybe you really aren’t a self-serving dispicable fiend; but that’s my opinion, right? At least I’m admitting it’s only MY OPINION. Now all we need is for you to back that up with the evidence you seem to always have at hand and at the ready.

*Reply:

(Anthony Forwood)

Paul, you hacked this site. Now I’m ccertain of what you are.

You never sounded much like you were really suffering like your post at FFCHS claimed, anyway. You perps need to learn how to act better.

Here is where Forwood finally pulls out his “perp-screamer” tactic in full regalia. He has been unable thus far to compile even one more substantive rebuttal, and so he retaliates with “The Grand Accusation.” Here he accuses me with three successive lies: a) “hacking” his site, b) feigning my plight as a TI—-because my words just didn’t “sound” to him like I was suffering!—-and c) let’s not forget to throw down the “perp” gauntlet: the culminating coup de gras  for the paper tiger.

*Reply:

(Anthony Forwood)

BTW, I don’t bother reading your poor attempts atsounding smart. You’re wasting your time whining at me. Go chase your ‘perps’ and quit worrying about the fact that I question your integrity. I’m done with you. The blog stays up as a warning for others. They can read what I’ve said and then read how you deal with it. The proof is in the pudding…

Adios, perp!

*Reply:

(Paul Stayton)

I consider it my duty to answer every single one of your lies with retrospective reason. You can wave it off and scoff at it all you want, Chumley. An intelligent person can read right through your smarmy response above and see exactly how grating this is to you. It galls you.
You are a liar and a fool. You are the perfect example of how the real perps have won against some of us. Everyone who dares to disagree with your unshakable belief in your own contrivances is supposed to be a “perp.” If that doesn’t explain to anyone reading this exactly how shallow and monomanaical you are, nothing will.
Once again it seems to fall on me to speak the truth; and it doesn’t matter how many times it must be reiterated, if that is what the situation requires. It is because of closed-minded fools like you—fools who despise the challenge for authenticity—that so many Tis are afraid to speak up or to gather the courage to explore the world past their own paranoias. You have the unmitigated gall (that’s your trademark, Chumley) to call me a “perp” when you don’t even know me beyond the fact that I have in the past tried to reach out for help among others in the TI community. And yes, I have corresponded with jeff Polachek, and Derrick Robinson, and Julianne McKinney, and many others; and while each of them was at least courteous and forthcoming in their respective responses, none of them have been able to help ease my suffering from the microwave torture I am to this day experiencing.
However, all it takes is one self-important asshole such as yourself to bring my suffering at the hands of the REAL treasonous maniacs out there to a NEW level of grief—grief I would not have had to suffer, but for the fact that I made the unwitting blunder of challenging your contemptible excuse for what lesser minds might mistake as unbiased research and journalistic integrity. Ah, 20/20 hindsight. I was new to the blog game, and to the prevalent horrible disorder that electronic harassment and torture has brought to so many lives—including, it seems, your own.
What astounds me is that you seem to have absolutely no idea that you are contributing to to the anguish. It seems that you actually believe that you can exploit your contemptible lies, slander and disinformation—in exactly the same smug manner as the perps you claim to oppose—and that nobody is obligated to require something more from you than UNSUBSTANTIATED TALKING POINTS. Oh, and in case you’re still struggling to understand the term, calling somebody you don’t know a “perp” is a perfect example of an UNSUBSTANTIATED TALKING POINT. It is a flimsy rash reaction that indicates your typical style of expounding nonsense at the cost of honesty just because it gives you fleeting aggrandizement and—you hope—the pretentious aura of “omniscient mystique.” Oooh. Spooky! As though you had more of an inside scoop than of the rest of us in the TI community. You despise the truth; hence your incessant need to lay the “perp” line on anyone with half an ounce of critical thinking ability.
But the truth is still here, Chumley, and it won’t go away. I am NOT a perp, and you ARE an irrational self-important asshole who thinks he can once again wave off the truth as if it were trying to grub change from him on the street. “Oh leave me be, you wretched peasant! Can’t you see I have loftier quixotic missions to attend? Perp! Nyaah-nyaah.” The grandiloquent Anthony Forwood razzes yet another insignificant dissenter. Bravo, Chumley. Show us once again—I beseech you!—who it is that simply won’t take the truth seriously.
Or, spare us all your typical self-important posturing for once, and admit that you’re wrong.

*Reply:

(Anthony Forwood)

Yopu have been given PLENTY of time to respond to the original post. Time’s up, perp. You can no longer post on this blog.

Anthony Forwood

From here on Forwood began to delete my responses. Amazing, eh? I was now forbidden to defend myself on a blog page he dedicated to me! He bit off more than he could chew, and now he’s going to hoard the rest of the maggot pie for himself, just to give himself time to swallow.

Now observe what follows, after he had conveniently disencumbered himself from my cumbersome retorts. Does this bridge-burning reaction seem strangely reminiscent of his own accusations of the deprived transparency he has so boldly decried in his own targets? Observe how prolific he will now become, now that he is unfettered by the distressing rebuttals that initially seemed to have tongue-tied him to such an extent that his typos—-proportionately measured—-far exceeded my own. It seems I had a lingering effect on the man. As I said, I’m not proud of this (or of my own strategic but tactless profanities); but I believe that something had  to be done, if only to infuriate him to the point of revealing his hypocrisy.

Please read carefully in the first paragraph below how he denies slandering anyone, and then shrugs off the importance of having slandered anyone, even if he had! Also observe how I’m accused of “hounding” his blogsite, AFTER  he baited me by posting a blog with my name in the title!

*Reply

To That Witless Shit Paul Stayton

Paul Stayton, you really need to pay careful attention to how things are worded, since as you say, the devil is in the details. You insinuate that I’m slandering someone, and yet I fail to see where I’ve ever done so, and you haven’t shown anywhere that I have. Where I say that FFCHS shows every indication of being a government operation, or that Julianne shows every sign of being a perp, or whatever else, I’m careful enough to say exactly what I mean to say and not anything else (unlike some people). But even if I slandered anyone, let THEM come out of the woodwork and deal with it. YOU are just acting like a stalker, hounding my blog like a viral dog that needs to be put down. You obviously have some psychological issues that you need to deal with that really have nothing to do with me, as anyone else reading your rants can see.

And Paul, I’m not hiding behind anything. It’s not at all unlikely that one or more mind-controlled FFCHS cultists would come around here as soon as I posted something about that organization, and I seem to have hit the nail on the head, since I did notice that you and a few others crawled out of the woodwork just as soon as I posted about FFCHS. That’s a rather interesting coincidence, to say the least. That you would complain about my prescience is laughable. You’ve been so busy filling my blog with your psychotic rants detailing all the twisted fantasies you have about me that I gave up trying to find anything worth responding to. I just left you to go on presenting yourself however you chose to do. Good job! Ever thought about getting counseling? After all, some people who claim to be TIs really DO have mental issues, and FFCHS eagerly supports these people as much as anybody and even encourages their delusions. This is a fact that’s evidenced in the way they operate and the information they promote as much as it’s reflected in the sort of people who associate with them. That you were posting on the FFCHS website and that you arrive here just as soon as I post about them and start defending them and acting the way you do leads me to think that this isn’t a coincidence. Why don’t you tell your friends Derrick Robinson and Julianne McKinney to answer for themselves, instead of hiding from my attempts to ask them about their conduct and motives? Why do you act like the obedient dog whose job is to guard the hen house with your noisy, rabid barking?

  1. He calls his sloppy habit of unfoundedly slandering people he doesn’t know, for his own veneration, “prescience.” Perhaps his lock-jawed insistence that everything he says is right is based on crystal gazing and the reading of tea leaves and cat intestines. Or in the partaking of “melange.” No wonder the concept of proof  is low on his list of priorities. The charlatan disguises his pious claims in a mask of self-professed mystical superiority. I can just imagine all the OSEH perps out there who profess similar assertions in the continuance of their evil.
  2. He openly slanders people online, and then screams “Conspiracy!” when those people openly take notice and demand redress.
  3. He entitles a blog page “Paul Stayton: A Question of Substantiation” and then questions my motives for continuously responding to his online recklessness. The above and ensuing “psychotic rants” should quell any lingering doubts on the subject of psychotic rants.
  4. It would be all well and good if he actually was  “careful enough to say what I mean to say and not anything else,” but this is exactly what he continuously fails to do, as we observe one specifically phrased unsubstantiated accusation after another  among his sprawl of blog entries.
  5. His “devil’s in the details” remark relates to one of my replies that he had deleted, and that I have so generously added later in this report. The actual meaning of the adage has two facets, the first of which is obvious and is the likely end-point for any under-achieving intellect: Any devil can and will use mind-boggling legalese in order to confuse and manipulate his intended victim if he can get away with it. However, there is an underlying and more impressive meaning to that adage that must not escape your notice: In order to thwart that smarmy foul-mouthed devil, you must take the time to do your homework and study ALL of those vexing details for the Big Test. And do you know why you must study for that Big Test? Because the devil is in the details, and he wants you to slip up, to fail the test, to intimidate you with illogical doubt in your own ability to see through the test, because he doesn’t want you to scrutinize ALL the details and catch him in an incontrovertible LIE.

Wait! There’s more!

*Reply

Somewhere in your rantings you even attempt to blame ME for your targeting. That’s a great attitude, Paul! Blame someone else for your problems! No wonder your targeting experiences you posted on FFCHS’s website sound so… imagined. You’re either one of those people who just want to excuse all the problems in your life and claiming to be a TI gives you that excuse, or you’re posing as that sort of person to make real TIs look like a bunch of idiots. So go fuck yourself if you think I’M responsible for anything that happens to you. Grow some balls and take it like a man instead of sniveling like a baby, trying to make your life out to be worse than it is. If your perps were punishing you for posting here, as you say, then why in the fuck did you come back again? Are you really that stupid, or just that full of shit?

And do you really think that I have nothing substantial to show that what I do is worthwhile to TIs? Have you read anything I’ve published besides what’s on this blog? I use my targeting experiences to expose the perps, and I’ve done a lot to uncover what’s going on. It’s certainly a lot more than you’ve done, so you have absolutely NO reason to criticize me. What have YOU done, other than post bullshit targeting claims for FFCHS to use, and rant about your twisted fantasies of me because I questioned you? At least do your fucking homework on me more thoroughly before you castigate me and try to paint ME as some monster, you little creep. Don’t expect that I have to bend to your demands to provide further evidence just to satisfy YOU. And if/when you find anything SPECIFIC that I’ve ever stated that you have an issue with, THEN come back and explain exactly WHAT it is and WHY you do, rather than to just generalize and attempt to waste my time. Otherwise, take responsibility for your life and your beliefs and the consequences of your actions for who you choose to associate with and quit whining to me about it.

  1. My, what a potty-mouth our “prescient messenger” has bloomed into! And again, am I the only one who noticed how decadently haughty and prolific he has become, now that he has alleviated himself of any online challenge to his remarks? Ah, so now I’m  supposed to grow some balls! The perp-screamer beats his chest, way up high in his unreachable rhetoric-tree.
  2. Now, I hope you’ve been reading everything carefully, because Forwood’s initial claim that I supposedly blamed HIM for my targeting has quite literally been pulled out of thin air. Perhaps he really didn’t “mean to say” that. His annoying habit of refrying any and all criticism that comes his way reveals his unshakable inability to admit that he might wrong about something about which he doesn’t have all the facts. Think about it: He doesn’t know any  of the people he has accused of being perps and traitors, and then he announces himself unassailable whenever he is similarly accosted.
  3. As sad a tear-jerker as the story is of his bedbug capers and OS ordeals in another of his blog pages, his insistence that I “stop sniveling like a baby” and “take it like a man” brings his unfailing inability to see his own hypocrisy to a new level of absurdity. It’s all right for Forwood to chronicle his persecution at the hands of covert terrorists; but Paul Stayton’s attempt to do so must be contrarily labeled “sniveling” and hastily disavowed.
  4. Additionally, his unintentionally comedic portrayal of having contributed so much to the TI community—-as he steamrolls his way through yet another self-exalting attempt to derail yet another rational challenge to his impulsive rhetoric—-leads one to picture him standing alone in a flea-bitten hotel room somewhere taking a bow in the mirror and claiming “No, no, I can’t accept this award for slandering people I don’t even know! Please, no! Well . . . okay!” And that’s the cue for the V2K applause to start ringing in his ear.
  5. And it’s humorous when he mentions that if there’s anything SPECIFIC he stated that I have an issue with, that I should come back and call him on it. Hey, Anthony! How about the evidence you said you have concerning that “Julianne McKinney: NSA agent” issue? Well, let’s be fair to the screamer. Perhaps he meant “anything BUT that.” And oh, wait a minute, how am I supposed to “come back and explain” when I’ve been banished from his blog? Ah well, as he makes it quite clear in that last entry, he’ll be damned if he has to provide “evidence” to the likes of me in any case. When has he ever placed himself in a position that required him to provide evidence for his accusations? After all, my seeking substantiation of his reckless diatribe is most certainly a “twisted fantasy,” and unworthy of his exclusive, back-biting “prescience.”

And incidentally, in order to find out more about him, I actually had to go and read all of his blog pages (as per his allusion that this is what I neglected to do; and I suspect this action is what led him to believe that I was “hounding” his site and “hacked” into it). As I indicated above, I especially read his sad documentary about his targeting experiences in his neighborhood. I advise you to read about his bedbug problems, and his gangstalking experiences. It appears “they” have hit him pretty hard.

Still, is this an excuse to make specious accusations about people you’ve never met whose unique predicaments as socially compromised TIs prevent them from properly defending themselves against a paltry jackal’s online rhetoric? No. I don’t care how smart, or how damaged to the point of “martyrdom,” you think you are, Mr. Forwood. It’s time to realize that you have NO PROOF to support your claims about people you don’t even know. And it grieves me to say this, but it appears you’re too far-gone now to do the right thing by retracting your makeshift smears. On top of that, your feeble attempt at draping your unsubstantiated accusations in a veil of self-professed mysticism is a self-deceiving contrivance that’s as old as the hills. Get over yourself, and stop slandering people you don’t know.

 *Reply

People like you are a disgrace to the TI community. You have no basis to claim that you’re a TI beyond your own imagination. You pose these imaginings as fact without showing ANY signs that you investigated them at all to assure your accuracy. Instead, you choose to quickly buy into the exaggerated bullshit that FFCHS does its best to spread as facts without second thought, and you join their legions of crackpot mental cases who really don’t have any justification to claim that they’re being targeted. They believe or at least promote the belief in technology that is scientifically unrealistic, making others think that this is what is being used for targeting, and even little shits like you who buy into then turn around and attack real TIs who DON’T describe this unrealistic technology as part of their targeting. I’ll tell you from personal experience that an infestation of bedbugs can drive a person to as much distress as a zap with a satellite-based weapon. So why would the perps need those fancy weapons that defy physics? They don’t. They just need simple harassment techniques like planting bedbugs while having some dipshit like you make fun of that fact. You’re a sick and stupid little fuck, you know that, Paul?

FFCHS is an NSA psyop. “The role of psychological operations (PSYOPS) is to influence the perceptions, attitudes and behaviour of selected individuals or groups with the goal of achieving political or military objectives while preventing effective use of these activities by an enemy or adversary.” (NATO MC 402 1997) As such, FFCHS is only interested in gathering those people around them who will make the TI community look like a bunch of mentally deluded fools, by encouraging ANYBODY who jumps at shadows to believe that they’re being targeted, and by the most outrageously unscientific means and improbable methods imaginable, based largely on props that have been purposely planted in the public record, such as the 1976 Robert G. Malech patent and the 1992 John St. Clair Akwei court filings. In all the time of them being in existence, they have done absolutely NOTHING to help TIs. If I’m wrong, then someone fill me in on what real help they’ve ever provided anyone and what achievements they’ve ever made.

See my document at the link below for a more detailed understanding of how psyops are used in the online TI community:

Forwood pats himself on the back for telling slanderous lies about other TIs, but I’m a disgrace because I can’t prove I’m a TI. Okay.

Despite his overwhelming dependence on the profanity crutch, there are several laudable axiomatic points purported by Forwood in the above article; however, typically, these points neither prove the gist of his allegations about his targets, nor eliminate himself as a suspect in his own “investigations.”

  In other words, according to his own definitions on the subject, Forwood might very well be just as much a victim of psyops programming as anyone else, if not the very picture  of a “disinforming psyops perp.” Mind you, this is a necessary observation derived from his own reasoning on the subject—-an observation and possibility we must all honestly acknowledge—-and he is sorely and unendurably incapable of recognizing that, in this latest small-minded attempt to bury me in a deluge of execrations and incredulity. Furthermore:

  1. He certainly made a point about the “bedbug” remark that I made in one of my responses he had deleted. (That, among other deleted posts, is included later in this report.) I admit that was a low blow for me to make, and it accurately shows the level to which I’d sunk in participating in a fruitless debate with a frenzied sophist who was unable to see the forest for the trees in his accusations. But honestly, he might have had bedbugs because his tenement is infested, or because he’s a slob; who knows? However, it is perfectly plausible to assume that he’s being plagued by perps. The problem lies in the fact that he won’t admit it’s possible he’s lashing out at the wrong people. Regardless, he certainly makes it quite clear that he considers himself to be the indisputable Grand Connoisseur and Infallible Judge of all forms of TI harassment . . . because he has a bedbug problem!
  2. Is he right about his observation that there are various theories occasionally being given credence, or at least airtime, on FFCHS and other sites that are, according to yours truly, just plain hooey? Sure. I’m the first among you to start rolling his eyes at the mention of supernatural occurrences, alien tech, Atlantis, and so forth. And lets not forget about theorized scalar wave musings, among other quirky laymen’s dabblings with Applied Physics. But what can we do about all that? Hire someone like Forwood to decide what’s hooey and what isn’t? And once we’ve installed our resident incredulous pooh-pooher to commence his immediate censoring and filtering, when and where will the ensuing accusatory “hush-up” conspiracy theories end? My own understanding about FFCHS is that it’s a human rights group with a crucial focus in attempting to reach out and support—-in whatever small way it can—-other TIs who are in crisis. New TIs especially. Unfortunately, as in several other instances, Forwood uses the natural fallibility of inclusive websites—-to offer whatever nondisproven theories are available in that focal attempt to reach out—-as one more excuse to throw the baby out with the psyops bathwater; which leads him to make the preposterous claim that I shall decipher below.
  3. Here now, and for the record: “FFCHS is an NSA psyop” sounds once again like an outright unsubstantiated accusation to me. It doesn’t sound like he’s saying anything like “shows every indication of being.” I remind you now who it is who said “exactly what I mean to say.” Forwood continues to proffer that he is the only one among us whose infallible “double-speak” super-power has rendered him invulnerable to psyops, and thereby anoints him as rightful Asgardian heir to the gaudy “perp-screamer” spandex tights and sparkly wand. Unlike the rest of us worms, he can see right through  that impenetrable psyops wall the rest of us keep bumping our heads on. Our hero!

Oh come now, why not trust him? Who needs proof? Mr. Forwood posits that verification of slanderous hearsay is an overrated commodity. Take that magic “leap of faith” with our nearsighted gossip-prophet! Let us join the lordly perp-screamer in his religious finger-pointing crusade against the infidels.

*Reply

Those of us who have legitimate targeting experiences stand to lose out on ever getting proper recognition as long as crackpots like you blindly support self-professed NSA agents like Julianne McKinney, Derrick Robinson, and Robert Duncan. And yes, I HAVE tried to communicate maturely with each one of them, only to have them become rude before running and hiding instead of answering for themselves in a professional manner. So now I can only discuss what they say and do from the vantage point where all can see, and anyone who has any reasonable objections are free to make them. That will have to exclude idiots like you who can only rant about their obsessive personal fantasies of me.

My investigation into this highly questionable NSA agent-filled organization and its affiliates will continue, irrespective of whiney little shits like you coming here to act like the mind-controlled freaks you really are. I have reason to believe at this point that FFCHS is directly connected with Michael Aquino and his satanic Temple of Set, and that they’re capable of computer generated electronic attacks through their website. I’m willing to suffer a few more attacks to confirm this, so it’s not over yet.

And he says I blather.

  1. Ah, to blatantly “mean to say” stuff like “self-professed NSA agents like Julianne McKinney, Derrick Robinson, and Robert Duncan” and “NSA agent-filled organization,” and still render oneself incapable of recognizing the outlandish contradictions in one’s unsubstantiated accusations. And it’s fortunate to know that anyone who disputes the “findings” of Forwood’s “investigation” can immediately be demoted to the “crackpot” camp.
  2. And my guess is that, if he actually tried corresponding with the above people, he most likely “hounded” them as incessantly as I “hounded” him, and they probably tired of his inability to see things from any perspective but his own. That he “maturely” attempted to correspond with them is laughable, considering the abject contempt he displayed toward me during our first McKinney-blog discourses.
  3. Ah, and now  he has “reason to believe” that FFCHS is a pile of NSA Satanists. My, but one does monopolize a cargo of sensationalized sealed containers when one closes one’s port off from any and all critical inspection! I guess you could say ol’ Potty Mouth was on a holy roll  after “excommunicating” me from his “holy-of-holies” blogsite. It almost sounded like he was finally having some fun up there with that last “Hey Rocky, watch me pull Michael Aquino out of my butt” magic Bullwinkle transubstantiation ritual. Okay kids, now let’s all gather around the sacrificial altar where Father Tony burns his effigies, where we can breathlessly await his sacred pledge to “confirm” that last “Satanic” tidbit with a wave of his wand and a sprinkling of goat’s blood.

Hmm, we’re all still waiting, Anthony. Oh, I tell you what, everybody, while we’re all waiting for our self-ordained bishop-beating Father Tony to “confirm” yet one more blatant unsubstantiated accusation, guess what? You know what I saw? I saw Anthony Forwood having lunch at the last Bilderberg Summit with Adolf Hitler! That’s right! You want proof? Aw, come on! How about if I swear it on a stack of “Exposing the Truth” blog printouts? There you go. Now it’s the truth! Everybody point your finger at Anthony and Adolf now.

What’s more, now  the main thrust of his accusation against me is that I’m not a TI at all. I’m a “perp!” And why? Because he said so! Well, that’s enough evidence for me. How about you?

But just in case you thought I could resist my own pettiness at the time (or now, for that matter), and allow him to have the last blog-word, here are a few of my actual deleted replies to him, as I promised—-responses deleted by Forwood himself, saved for posterity on my flash-drive, and only fair and fitting to be displayed where they truly belong: exactly where he didn’t want them to be seen, in the public domain.

*

Ah, the insidious Anthony “Chuckles” Forwood decides that his best way out of having to prove himself is to shut and lock the door! Who’d have known you would have such utter contempt for informative discussion? Boy, you sure had me going!

Way to go, Chuckles! You’re simply too important to be bothered with the truth. Thank you for finally and perfectly showing your true colors. I’ve certainly explained my case; I now rest my case. Now we’ll all wait a while until you begin changing the above comments around to further customize your disdain for truth and open dialogue.

Among all the Tis out there, I pity you the most. You have become your own perp.

Coming soon: “The Truth Exposed: Exposing Anthony “Chuckles” Forwood.” Tit for tat, Chuckles.

I hope the irony of my consistently implying the “perp” term is not lost on the discerning reader. I was not calling him this in the same manner in which he has been accusing others. At times, I used it just to prod him with the ironic and yet plausible premise that he was unable to negate himself as a suspect in his own investigations; above, I was simply indicating that he was doing as competent a job of contributing to the detriment of TIs—-himself included—-as would an actual perp.

Of particular importance are a couple more entries I made, also deleted by Forwood, to a couple more of his related incendiary blog pages about other entities he doesn’t personally know and doesn’t care to understand or seriously investigate. One page deals with his perp-screaming routine aimed at Derrick Robinson and FFCHS. Another page briefly details his myopic squint at FFCHS’s monthly survey. There are also pages dealing with documentation of his targeting, his musings on psyops and the arcane, and other topics that unerringly portray his embellished image of his own “investigative” abilities. One can easily access these pages from any of his other blogs. I sincerely recommend that you take the time to examine the entirety of his ruminations, as I did. Then you will begin to understand, as I have, how I believe he was driven to this irrevocable point of misplaced vindictiveness by forces beyond his control.

Now, if you could only set your sights on the actual  culprits, Mr. Forwood. But alas: I suspect—-due to your history of malicious grandstanding—-that the worst smearing vitriol from you is yet to come, and will most likely expand to include still more TIs who have challenged your rhetoric and “gotten on your bad side.”

Next is my deleted response to his page about Derrick Robinson and FFCHS. Please take the time to read his initial online blog entries beforehand, in order to fully understand the context of these quotations. I truly want you to understand that he never offers any proof whatsoever  about his accusations of people he doesn’t even know, and accepts no invitation that may compel him to do so. Here is some food for thought for the next rambling malcontent reading this who imagines himself the next god of blunder and also wishes to condemn and dismiss for no good reason: You will be called on your rhetoric; and not with assault, but with reason.

Again, pay attention to Forwood’s own quotes as I point them out below:

 

*Re: Exposing the truth about the flailing Anthony Forwood and his “Targets Beware” FFCHS rant:

Chuckles, Chuckles, Chuckles . . . Listen to your own words!

“. . . in my own experience, I don’t know of any organizations whatsoever that are seeking to discredit them . . .”

Hmm . . . Well, Anthony, does YOUR organization count? Oh, I know, one dimwit walking around with an umbrella over his head while the sun is shining does not exactly say “organized effort,” but what can you do? You and your specious blog-vomit can and will be, from this moment forward, indicated as the very organization you so vehemently profess doesn’t exist! And once again, just in case you’re having the usual trouble distinguishing self-explanatory terminologies, ANY ONE PERSON CAN FORM, AND BE RECOGNIZED AS, an organization. So, actually, Mr. Robinson is talking about, um, YOU. Feeling special yet?

“. . . they show every indication of being a carefully crafted government operation that’s using a number of tactics . . .”

I’m sorry, but saying something of such apocryphal import deserves a more detailed explanation than this. Care to go into it? Yes, I know, the devil’s buried in the details among all your other incessant spewing. But here are a few age-old tactics that “they” are probably crafting as we speak: how about slandering people’s names, and spreading unsubstantiated rumors, and instigating divisiveness and derision among the helpless victims of the TI community? Oh wait, THAT’S WHAT YOU’RE DOING! Gosh, I really need to get my facts straight.

“. . . the statement above suggests that they seek to ‘end these atrocities’, and that seems to be a matter that they show no indication of doing.”

Let’s be clear about this: Are YOU seeking to end these atrocities? It certainly seems to me that YOU “show no indication of doing” this. Where is the proof I need from YOU that you are sincerely attempting to do anything other than “dividing and conquering” for your own evil ends? Have YOU stopped MY torture? You can’t even stop your own! What? Is this all there is? Finger-pointing and name-calling, and spouting nebulous generalizations? Hell, even I can do that! See? And I’m not even an “organization.” Yet.

“. . . their most loyal followers, who apparently seek to use their time for nothing better than to root out those individuals who criticize this questionable organization and its true motives.”

Yes, of course you have to add that one, so you can hide behind it as you toss your vitriolic rocks from your glass hovel. Are you talking about ME during that rant? Aw, Chuckles! And I didn’t get YOU anything! Oh, yes I did—my next entry.

The always waggy Anthony Forwood: “. . . They even engage in targeting – this is a fact.”

Yes, just as surely as Coca-Cola targets people with its advertising, and the March of Dimes targets for donations at the grocery counter. And just as Anthony Forwood targets organizations like FFCHS, because Junior wants to be a big-shot too!

“. . . do everything they can to raise the levels of absurdity regarding the technologies thought to be involved and the mental stability of targets in general.”

Let me guess what you mean by that! Oh, come on, Chuckles, do you think you’re the only one online who’s allowed to make offhand assumptions whenever it suits your battered ego? Make no mistake: Derrick Robinson and his associates—whoever they may be—might be too gentlemanly and diplomatic to get down here in your rhetorical cesspool and hand you back what you deserve for your sloppy, presumptuous vitriol; but you certainly know by now that I hold no such scruples. I honestly couldn’t care less anymore about what FFCHS, or ICAACT, or YOU, or whatever subsequent “organization” wants to declare or imply or infer. I speak for myself. NO-body is helping me fight my torture; particularly not an obsessed loon who has become addicted to his own blogged phobic agenda. When a “TI” goes online and gets a load of you and your pathetic bed-bug capers as you snoop around your latest dump with your Sherlock Holmes magnifying spectacle searching for the diabolical Dr. No masquerading as the new desk clerk rubbing his clammy palms together as his sinister snicker echoes down the halls as a signal for all the bedbugs in town to gather up against you—well, Chuckles, what that TI is probably going to read is that “they” have finally defeated you. Not that this should matter to you at this point in your “agenda.”

Now get to work, Chuckles. And let’s be a bit more concise; we don’t ALL have the time to spew dribble all day long. Don’t make people start suspecting you of diversionary tactics. Oh, “BTW”, look for more reports from me regarding the gaping holes in your innumerable rationalizations.

Next is my deleted response to a couple of his other pages—the FFCHS survey and his own targeting documentation:

*Re: Your flimsy tirade about the FFCHS survey:

So here we go: Whoever might have the “audacity” to question YOUR OWN motives or affiliations is immediately labeled a “perp.” Isn’t this getting a little old, Chuckles? Is everyone in the TI community supposed to start shaking in their boots now that you’ve dropped the “perp” gauntlet? Is everyone now supposed to roll over so Unkie Tony can pet their tum-tums and make everything crystal clear for people who blandly accept the fact that your veiled threats of “TI excommunication” are having an aggrandizing effect on anyone besides yourself?

If you’re so overly concerned about a stupid survey, why not correspond with Mr. Robinson and ASK all these pertinent questions yourself? Do you distrust him as much as you distrust your notorious Bed-bug Man? Are they in cahoots?

For all your damned “educated opinion and experience,” you seem bewildered that statistical surveys are often prone to misrepresentation and manipulation. That’s why politicians laud a good result from one, and deride a bad result from another. Who cares about a dumb survey? It serves as a temporary pacifier for someone who wants to vent, that’s all. You know, kind of like what YOU do whenever you make another insipid blog entry. Wherever you go, there goes another self-serving posture of feigned insight.

But incidentally, here’s just one example of the statistics of that very survey being used in an apparently beneficial fashion—you know, just in case you’re still imagining that your aforementioned rant holds water. It’s during an interview with Dr. John Hall:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piHm1ogAEE8

Oh, but that’s right, according to YOU, Dr. Hall is also a “perp.” Isn’t that right? My, but things in your hoary imagination do have a tendency to line up like ducks in a row! How convenient it must be, to KNOW FOR A FACT that someone who disagrees with your tired escapades of accusation and defamation is simply a “perp” and no critical thinking need be further wasted in that direction.

And so . . . on to your next masquerade of journalistic integrity! Oh, but first you have to hurry up and delete the truth! Quick, Chuckles!

———One more thing!

On the off-chance that anyone in the universe besides myself is paying attention to your blogs—and the necessary critical feedback, such as this immodest entry, culminated from them—here’s another reference offered to whatever relevance should be allotted to the FFCHS survey:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71woxYE3Dyg

It’s an announcement given by Dr. Terry Robertson and Dr. Hall.

You know, Chuckles, I really think it’s time that you gave Derrick Robinson a call. You two really need to kiss and make up, for all our sakes. This bullshit “perp” tactic of yours is fast losing steam.

 

I do not excuse my own reactionary vitriol. It is as heartless as Forwood’s endless craving to accuse and condemn others without proof. I had been as hell-bent on insulting his irrational tirade as he was at disgorging it. I still believe that something must always be said in response to accusations such as his; but 20/20 hindsight informs me that a more lenient approach must be achieved—-that is, directly after I have completed and posted this caustic account of his reckless rhetoric. C’est le vie! Live and learn. Kids, don’t try this at home! I’m an expert! But seriously speaking, due to the flagrancy of all his unsubstantiated accusations, and the potential damage they can cause to an already singed community, I believe this information must be released, warts and all. You be the judge.

 

   And by now I’ll bet you’re all pretty much fed up and disgusted with Paul Stayton’s incessant rants as well. Not to worry! Hang in there! We’re winding down now.

I suppose Forwood had no idea that banishing me from his blog was the best gift I could have received. Sure, at first I found it extremely aggravating to be expelled from a blog page that was belittlingly named after me; but as time passed I began to realize that I was obsessing  over this man’s inability to understand that he was quite possibly deceiving himself irreparably. And I had deceived myself  into believing that my dogged, published observations of his inconsistencies were having any positive impact on either one of us.

Being relieved of the burden of having to communicate with Forwood—-even involuntarily—-was true  enlightenment, and that’s no lie. That being said, I still stand by the decision that I simply had  to speak my mind on a blog page that he clearly intended to use as another means of refutable pretense. I believe that to stand by and do nothing in the face of such vindictive hearsay is to become a silent participant in its potential damage to its intended targets. There are those who, being prone to embracing the seduction of self-exalting belief systems, are ultimately unable to pin the blame on a specific someone, and are therefore smitten with the notion that if they blame everyone who disagrees with them, something is bound to stick. You know, pick up a club and start swinging it around, willy-nilly, in public. Odds are you should hit a perp or two. Right? Yeah, sure. Pseudo-science in action, once again.

And me? I’ve been trying to preserve my life against electronic assault. I’m too pressed for time and energy to ever again get involved in sterile, useless bickering with an irrational extremist. I simply need to get that contentious part of my life out in the fresh open air, and finally laid to rest. Hence this report. Adios, Forwood.

Final thoughts:

One must realize that this entire argument originated from Forwood’s allegation that Julianne McKinney, and Derrick Robinson, etcetera, etcetera, are “NSA agents” and “perps.” I am well aware that, just as surely as he cannot prove that they are what he says they are, I also cannot prove they are not. But in our legal system of justice and fairness (a system of late seeming more a travesty than an actuality because of the real perps; but a valid standard of ethics nonetheless) the burden of proof does not fall on the accused. It falls upon the accuser. And when that accuser is unable to admit, or perhaps even discern, that he has no clear basis to support his allegation—-no matter how harshly he publicly rages over his convictions—-then it necessarily behooves the accused, as well as all  people who cherish justice and fairness, to seek redress for the unfair stigma borne by the accuser’s unjust public spectacle of disputable hearsay.

Someone who so brazenly injects such a poison of unbridled smearing indictment into so vulnerable a community should expect an immediate countermeasure of rational, attentive demand for proof  directly from the accuser. I believe that this is the only anti-toxin for the poison. Challenge the accusation. Expose and examine, publicly, the gaping wound so it can be treated and, hopefully, healed.

Some of you might consider it better to disregard  the perp-screamers’ fringe of unsubstantiated rantings. After all, aren’t we simply playing into their hand by challenging their accusations? All they really want is attention, right? Well, to be fair, maybe they’re only trying to alleviate some of their own suffering; but that’s beside the point. The more attention we give them, the wider their unproven accusations will spread, and the greater the inflammatory damage upon the accused and everyone else who seeks the truth. Isn’t Mr. Stayton just granting Mr. Forwood a broader podium to spread his rhetoric?

Well, sure; and I could be wrong, but I believe that’s a good  thing. I think it’s imperative to challenge and rethink even one’s most cherished beliefs. A belief, one way or the other, contains within itself an opposing  belief that must also be explored, or we may fall prey to the sinister manipulations of the abusers of those beliefs. We must examine both sides of the story. This is why I had to read all his blogs. I believe Anthony Forwood to be a TI. A petty, vindictive, and self-consumed TI, but a TI nonetheless. I don’t believe for one second that he’s one of those elusive little psyops perps about whom he seems so blunderingly, so viciously intent on exposing. I believe he’s simply too smitten with his own tunnel vision to be able to place the urgency of verifiable proof above the dogma of his ingrained, tailor-made belief system. And this is exactly why he needs to be shown the error of his ways. For our sakes, if not his.

Because it’s probably too late for him. I hope it isn’t. When you dig such a hole for yourself that the humiliation of having to climb out of it is superseded by your addiction to the sensationalistic exaltation derived from remaining at your “post,” then it’s possible that, if you truly are a TI, you have fallen prey—-much farther than you imagine others have fallen—-to the very psyops program to which you imagine yourself especially immune, just because you consider yourself so much smarter and more resourceful and ahead of the curve than the rest of us. In that case, you are now doing exactly what the real perps (the anonymous  ones) want all of us to do:

  • distrust one another
  • isolate ourselves from one another
  • distrust and avoid an established, coordinated, organized effort to battle OSEH
  • and, most importantly, don’t trust the whistle blower! That is, unless he’s a perp-screamer (someone who’s always blowing the whistle from the wrong end) and he’s looking for recruits for his own dubious little cult of yes-men.

At this time, for anyone to publicly acknowledge the existence of OSEH is a step in the right direction, however they may choose to choreograph the dance after that opening step. We can sort out the discrepancies—-the differences of opinion—-as we go along. What we should NEVER do is allow someone to say whatever they want about another person—-and specifically name  that other person—-without a challenge for verification. I’m not talking about having to prove that you’re a TI. I’m talking about having to prove your accusation that another TI is a “perp.” And that is the standard by which I have arranged this report. As Forwood so “eloquently” put it, “The proof is in the pudding.” Carefully examine everything I’ve included herein, as well as elsewhere on his blog. Especially examine Mr. Forwood’s own words; which, as you will see, are inordinately fraught with obscenities, hypocrisy, and hearsay whenever his dogma is challenged; and they contain no proof whatsoever to support his claims about his chosen targets.

I am quite through with bestowing any great concern for anything else this shallow man chooses to declare, and I’ll show you one last good reason for that decision. A friend sent me one of his more recent posts in which he states, and I quote:

“. . . they went on to harp about me being a fake TI and a government agent (you know how they mirror themselves onto others) and that just caused people to search me out and see what I have to say . . .”

Listen to that.

“. . . you know how they mirror themselves onto others . . .”  How is it not possible, for EVERYONE who reads that, to see right through the blaring hypocritical blindness that this statement expresses to all concerned? This “fake TI and a government agent” slop is the exact  accusation he levels upon his own targets, to the letter. Now we have Forwood accusing his targets of treason, and now some of his targets are accusing him right back, and of course Forwood cannot rest without a re-accusation. It’s an idiotic farce.

Provoking fear that a perp might be going around impersonating a TI can be as much a despicable psychological ploy as the supposition that the accusation is actually true—-and these two presumptions seem to go hand-in-hand for a desired effect in Forwood’s disengaging intimidation arsenal. It is a tactic I would not recommend emulating. He’s promoting fear and constriction among us. Fear and constriction don’t offer an opening to greater vistas; they cause TIs to avoid contact with other TIs; they divide and conquer us. It’s the same type of manipulative conditioning that adjusts a TI’s thinking toward assisting the real  perps in their endeavors to keep us eternally sequestered and disorganized. It’s plain and simple fear tactics. Haven’t we all had quite enough of that?

I adjure you to read all you can of Anthony Forwood’s blogs. I believe you’ll find that he’s a TI; however, whether he’s correct in his allegations about other TIs is the more dubious conundrum of which no verifiable resolution is reached in any of his ruminations. On the contrary, since I myself know for an absolute fact that he’s dead wrong about me, it naturally behooves me to acknowledge—-and to profess to you, for what it’s worth—-that he lacks any credibility whatsoever concerning his declarations about his other targets. Of course, that profession, and your standard inflated local bus fare, will get you on public transit. All I’m saying is please examine the evidence.

 

February, 2015 Paul Sylvester Stayton

Music © by P.S. Stayton

Pictures up for grabs