John Brisson, Finders Cult or Another Epsteinesque Brownstone Op |443|

#41
What a powerful and provocative interview! To me, this is Alex at his best, and why I’m still here. It takes enormous courage and commitment to not bend to the will of the crowd, which is what I see most in this discussion. I’ve tried to talk about this topic many times with folks and it’s very similar to the reaction of the fake Moon landings (or FE!) it’s bizarre, sorry, I don’t have a better word for it. Of course, I shouldn’t be placing these topics in the same convo at all, any more than Alex should’ve in his interview, but that’s another post, maybe, someday.

What most struck me from this interview was, damn, Alex is kinda scary when he wants to be! I love that. I think evil loves to be challenged (and needs to be), and it’s the lack of it that we come to mistake good (open) debate training from (covert) Fight Club nonsense. I’ve heard enough promo vids for one lifetime, take the gloves out, gentlemen, and show me a real fair fight!

I think Brisson underestimates how relevant his previous work with gut health is related to this discussion. Has anyone looked into the studies connecting autism, gut health, and violence? There’s some real questions here, one book I’ve just read by Wayne McRoy references several of these studies connected to Neandrathal genes and scientists in service to warmongers wanting to create super soldiers. Yes, I know, sounds like conspiracy theory. That’s because everything these days sounds like conspiracy theory.

On another note, he brings up the Human Potential movement, very big since WWII, dawning, even before the New Age movement, the Christian Science religion and global ‘reading rooms’. “God is Love” is the cornerstone of their scripture, written by Mary Baker Eddy. This is the birth of ‘scientism’ that is, science as religion, not based on the scientific method at all, but an attempt to co-opt a new religious control system based on pseudo-science. How many now think of the Christian Science Monitor as a top-notch publication right up there with WSJ or NYT? Trace this back to the source, and, as the saying goes, all roads lead to Rome.
 
#42
tell me what you think after reading Witch Hunt Narrative:
View attachment 1534
This book is on my list. I have absolutely NO respect for those who claim, as is SO often claimed, yet one more version of: ‘that bitch is crazy!’ Give it up already. If you are in this situation, and look sane, there’s something seriously wrong with you. Crazy is the sane response to abuse, yet look what the doctors and courts get away with—she should behave calm and predictably, like a robot, when her children or she herself is being abused. Yet, if she acts just as we insist she does, perfectly calm and rational, like a robot, then we accuse her of something else. It’s off-the-wall insane!
 
#43
Alex, I find your metaphysical assertions in this interview to be unclear. It sounds like you are saying not only that we create light but that we also create the demonic. OR ARE YOU JUST SAYING WE CREATE THE PARTICULAR AND VARYING MEMES ABOUT THE NATURE OF DEMONS (SUCH AS "SATANIC")?? Demons exist independently of our thought AND OF ANY PARTICULAR NAME WE USE TO DESIGNATE THEM OR ANY PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS OR NON-RELIGIOUS LENS WE USE TO VIEW THEM. Radically evil demons exist, as evidenced by impeccably documented cases of possession. And I believe that externally real demons are at play in cases of RA: humans simply cannot engage in these unimaginable instances of evil without demonic influence / and the alliances formed through blood rites et al. IT DOES NOT matter IF WE USE THE MEME 'SATANIC' OR NOT. Demons don't CARE how we decorate them, they just go on doing their thing. I am hammering at this b/c your emotional dialogue at the end of the interview seems to take us on a detour away from the external reality of evil spirits P.S. There are shared demonic encounters just as there are shared NDEs and deathbed visions. ...I also reference your Robert Bruce interview.
 
Last edited:
#44
Okay, I’ve received a reply from Debbie Nathan. She has declined an interview on Skeptiko. I’ll quote her reasons:

‘Thanks for getting in touch. I am not interested in arguing against/engaging with Ross Cheit's work except insofar as I've already done so in the attached. I hope this article is helpful to you.

‘Cheit seems to have an obsessive bias against my work for reasons I don't understand except that clearly he was hurt by sexual abuse that happened to him when he was a child, and somehow this very unfortunate experience may have impaired his critical thinking about the work of people like me. Fortunately I don't have any child abuse victimization or accusation in my background. It's sad that he does -- or that anyone does, for that matter. His work is far out of mainstream thinking about what happened with the SRA cases in the 1980 and 1990s. Absolutely there were some cases in which real abuse (though non RSA) occurred, and the panic was sometimes used by defense lawyers to get people acquitted of things they didn't do, while simultaneously effacing any discussion of what they actually did perpetrate. But Cheit is off the mark about this in every case he discusses in his book. He has said he'll keep going until he reviews every case. Maybe he'll come up with some correct calls.

‘I've been thinking of writing about one, myself, btw.’

The paper she references can be downloaded here.

It goes into some detail regarding Cheit’s handling of the McMartin case. I’ll highlight one example that struck me:

On page 26 of The Witch Hunt Narrative, Cheit claims that prosecutor Glenn Stevens maintained that Judy Johnson did not initially have mental health problems and that the case pushed her over the edge. Cheit claims that screenwriter Abby Mann misrepresented her interviews with Stevens to portray her as always having been mentally ill.

On pages 13 through to 15 of Debbie Nathan’s paper, it is claimed that Cheit is misrepresenting the interviews and that Steven’s did clearly state that Johnson had mental health issues from the outset.

I don’t have access to the transcripts, but Nathan also cites an interview Stevens gave to The New York Times, which I did locate. Here, Stevens is quoted as saying:

‘Judy Johnson was psychotic before she filed the first police report.’

The article was written in 1990. It is impossible for me to believe that Mr. Cheit could have spent years researching his book and not have been aware of this. The man he is citing as a witness for Judy Johnson’s sanity is flatly contradicting that position in a major publication.

I'll say again, I'm very open to the possibility of there existing anything up to and including a full blown pedo-oligarchy and I'm sure John Brisson is doing valuable work in bringing many things to light. My concern is that ends up getting derailed by things like this.
Nice. I like the witch hunt definition(s) and check list in the link. I would say that the Anneke Lucas story meets the criteria.
 

Alex

Administrator
#45
Okay, I’ve received a reply from Debbie Nathan. She has declined an interview on Skeptiko. I’ll quote her reasons:

‘Thanks for getting in touch. I am not interested in arguing against/engaging with Ross Cheit's work
full stop. she won't engage. that says it all. she's been called out and her outdated research has been trounced by the kind of new revelations such as those John Brisson has brought forward. if she had anything she would engage, but she doesn't.

again, I have no personal knowledge of this, but I gotta believe she's an atheist and as such she is compelled to jam everything back into her biological robot meaningless universe worldview. I guess this is one of the main points of this entire series... i.e. atheists/humanists/secular folks have absolutely zero chance understanding the extended Consciousness angle to all this. I mean, if you discount any possibility that's such an extended Consciousness round even exist then you can't get there from here when it comes to unraveling the problem. we've seen this over and over again from Skeptics of all different stripes... same old same old.
 

Alex

Administrator
#46
JUST SAYING WE CREATE THE PARTICULAR AND VARYING MEMES ABOUT THE NATURE OF DEMONS (SUCH AS "SATANIC")??
well, I'm not really "saying" anything because I'm not anywhere near that sure about this territory... and I suspect all our Maps are terribly inadequate... but if I was to say something it would be close to what you said :)
 
#47
Hi Alex,

your project to follow up the "Dark Side" is appreciated as it is needed.
However please keep in mind that too much staring in the abyss will make you the abyss.
In my mind it is enough to read Goethe's Faust 1 to be warned not to follow Dr. Fausts example.
He studied everything like you and the followed Mephisto.

Stay clear of the evil!

Cheers!
Berndhard
 
#48
full stop. she won't engage. that says it all. she's been called out and her outdated research has been trounced by the kind of new revelations such as those John Brisson has brought forward. if she had anything she would engage, but she doesn't.
She did engage. She co-authored a 29 page paper engaging - which she has supplied. In my reading, the paper demonstrates Ross Cheit’s research to be inaccurate to point where I would conclude deception is taking place. I wrote the relevant page numbers so people can easily check this for themselves.

Whilst I wish Debbie had consented to an interview and agree it is usually not a good sign, I do not think it can be conclusive. I’ve had prominent people on either side of the 9/11 controlled demolition issue refuse to debate. If I took refusal as a standard for refutation, I would have to conclude Building 7 both was and wasn’t brought down by a demolition.
 

Alex

Administrator
#49
She did engage. She co-authored a 29 page paper engaging - which she has supplied. In my reading, the paper demonstrates Ross Cheit’s research to be inaccurate to point where I would conclude deception is taking place. I wrote the relevant page numbers so people can easily check this for themselves.

Whilst I wish Debbie had consented to an interview and agree it is usually not a good sign, I do not think it can be conclusive. I’ve had prominent people on either side of the 9/11 controlled demolition issue refuse to debate. If I took refusal as a standard for refutation, I would have to conclude Building 7 both was and wasn’t brought down by a demolition.
who declined to be interviewed about bld 7?
 
#50
This book is on my list. I have absolutely NO respect for those who claim, as is SO often claimed, yet one more version of: ‘that bitch is crazy!’ Give it up already. If you are in this situation, and look sane, there’s something seriously wrong with you. Crazy is the sane response to abuse, yet look what the doctors and courts get away with—she should behave calm and predictably, like a robot, when her children or she herself is being abused. Yet, if she acts just as we insist she does, perfectly calm and rational, like a robot, then we accuse her of something else. It’s off-the-wall insane!

I’m sorry you have no respect for me. However I fail to see how a legal system can function if it does not acknowledge that some people have mental health problems which cause them to lose touch with reality. Nobody, not even Ross Cheit, disputes Judy Johnson was one such person. Hence she was sectioned after an armed standoff with the police. What is disputed is whether her problems were present prior to her accusations, or whether they were brought on by the trauma of the ensuing events. There is no a-priori way to determine this.

Cheit claims it is the latter. I’m not actually taking a position on that issue. I am pointing out that the witness Cheit cites to support his claim, prosecutor Glenn Stevens, has made public statements asserting the opposite. That ‘Judy Johnson was psychotic before she filed the first police report.’ Whatever this says about Mrs. Johnson, it certainly speaks poorly of Cheit.

I don’t doubt that both individuals and states have a history of covering their crimes by accusing the victims of being crazy. I also don’t doubt that some people actually are. Blanket statements therefore, are of no value.
 
#51
who declined to be interviewed about bld 7?
I won’t publically name names, I just don’t have a clear policy on what I should disclose from my correspondence in setting up interviews. Additionally there is usually a degree of nuance to these things. People sometimes don’t out and out refuse but rather insert all sorts of conditions or say things like ‘I’m not sure it would be productive’. And I’m also recalling some conversations from memory.

On the controlled demolition side, one scientist expressed that debates were often counterproductive and should be refused. It’s not how science is done and people on the opposing side just gish gallop nonsense. I was hopeful we could bring him round but have as of yet not found anyone to oppose.

On the ‘fire induced collapse’ side, I approached several people with the relevant knowledge and an obsessive interest, all declined to debate and be interviewed.

I came away feeling the CD side had acquitted themselves better, but then that could reflect my biases.
 

Alex

Administrator
#52
her paper is lame. I mean, come on Richard this whole thing really comes down to one issue -- you, me and everyone else was left with the impression that none of the kids at McMartin preschool were sexually abused... and that the entire story was due to "satanic panic."

we now know this is wrong/false and most likely intentioned engineered. the medical evidence collected at the time indicates that many of these young children were sexually abused at McMartin preschool.

the fact that Debbie Nathan doesn't acknowledge this uncontested medical evidence completely destroys her credibility.

=== http://blogs.brown.edu/rcheit/?s=debbie+martin
Retro Report also disposed of the extensive medical evidence in the McMartin case with a single claim that there was no “definitive” evidence. But defense lawyer Danny Davis allowed that the genital injuries on one girl were “serious and convincing.” (His primary argument to the jury was that much of the time that this girl attended McMartin was outside the statute of limitations.) The vaginal injuries on another girl, one of the three involved in both McMartin trials, were described by a pediatrician as proving sexual abuse “to a medical certainty.” Were the reporter and fact-checkers for Retro Report aware of this evidence?

None of this is to defend the charges against five (possibly six) teachers in the case. Nor is it an endorsement of claims, made by some parents, that scores of children had been ritually abused. Rather it is a plea to treat the case as something that unfolded over time and the children as individuals, not as an undifferentiated mass. As it turns out, there are credible reasons that jurors in both trials voted in favor of a guilty verdict on some counts. Those facts do not fit the witch-hunt narrative. Instead, they portray the reality of a complicated case.

When the story of prosecutorial excess overshadows all of the evidence in a child sexual abuse case, children are the ones sold short by the media. That is precisely what Retro Report did earlier this month. The injustices in the McMartin case were significant, most of them were to defendants, and the story has been told many times. But there was also an array of credible evidence of abuse that should not be ignored or written out of history just because it gets in the way of a good story.

The witch-hunt narrative has replaced any complicated truths about the McMartin case, and Retro Report, whose mission is to bust media myths, just came down solidly on the side of the myth. It wasn’t all a witch-hunt.

===
 
#53
her paper is lame. I mean, come on Richard this whole thing really comes down to one issue -- you, me and everyone else was left with the impression that none of the kids at McMartin preschool were sexually abused... and that the entire story was due to "satanic panic."

we now know this is wrong/false and most likely intentioned engineered. the medical evidence collected at the time indicates that many of these young children were sexually abused at McMartin preschool.

the fact that Debbie Nathan doesn't acknowledge this uncontested medical evidence completely destroys her credibility.===

So to be clear, you don’t consider Ross Cheit’s misrepresentation of Glen Stevens statements on Judy Johnson’s mental health to be important or diminish his credibility?

I’ll come back to the medical evidence later. I’m trying to acquire a documentary not available in Britain which I think will speak to it. Debbie Nathan does address the medical evidence with regard to Matthew Johnson on page 15, and medical evidence of vaginal injuries more broadly in this presentation (timestamped).
 
#54
Alex – “We always have to pull back to the controlled narrative… Why is the narrative so strongly, strongly on this crazy idea that this is all panic, that this is not real… when it’s so easily, so relatively easily when you get past your programing that its obviously provable by these documents.”

my opinion only -

Because a.) - most people overwhelmingly do not want any of this to be true… they simply cannot “handle the truth” (if it is true) and so they deny the possibility that it is true…

b.) Because, if it is true… meaning the whole “ it” up to the extent we are framing this within physical human behaviors – acts by physically alive human beings whereby some within this full spectrum of perpetrators are high profile world players then I absolutely can imagine a serious effort by the Googles, the Twitters, the Amazons, the Microsofts and Apples, the Facebooks, the major, “mainstream” (corporate owned/controlled) media organizations would absolutely do their part to push the narrative “Satanic Panic baloney” in order to protect themselves, and to prevent a true exposure to the public as to what is going on and further to that, to protect their ability to continue to utilize that actual techniques of Satanic Ritual Abuse - one of the most (if not THE most) effective tool/technique available to covertly control the world.

One reason why “they” might wish to control the world is to ensure they have a continuous supply of “participants” (both perps and victims). Perps used as puppets, held in place via the stick and carrot of black mail and fresh “meat,” and attractive victims who, going in, have no imaginative capacity to comprehend the horrors about to befall them which makes them more palatable to the perps.

Understand, I did not go into the extended reality aspect in what I wrote above because we don’t have to BUT, I agree that it should be done yet I know that by going there, many who might otherwise remain open minded may either push it back underneath their radar or choose to “believe” it is all baloney.
 

Alex

Administrator
#55
Alex – “We always have to pull back to the controlled narrative… Why is the narrative so strongly, strongly on this crazy idea that this is all panic, that this is not real… when it’s so easily, so relatively easily when you get past your programing that its obviously provable by these documents.”

my opinion only -

Because a.) - most people overwhelmingly do not want any of this to be true… they simply cannot “handle the truth” (if it is true) and so they deny the possibility that it is true…
thanks for bringing this up... yeah, to me this is another case where the conspiracy / cover up is just as important as the crime.

I'm also amazed how the"Satanic"thing throws everyone for a loop. it was always my intention in these series of shows to get past this placeholder / metaphor and begin to consider what might really be going on... but we don't seem to be able to get there.


I did not go into the extended reality aspect in what I wrote above because we don’t have to BUT, I agree that it should be done yet I know that by going there, many who might otherwise remain open minded may either push it back underneath their radar or choose to “believe” it is all baloney.
agreed... That's what I'm talking about above. I'm really keen to explore and expose this blind-spot. it's prevalent in Academia, obviously in Media, and even in places that we wouldn't expect like PSI research and UFO research.
 
#56
agreed... That's what I'm talking about above. I'm really keen to explore and expose this blind-spot. it's prevalent in Academia, obviously in Media, and even in places that we wouldn't expect like PSI research and UFO research.
This is where folks like David Icke have been for decades... That extended reality aspect which may actually be the controlling source.

Back to the spiritual Jiu Jitsu -

If I have decided "there must be more to it" than "being born, live then die and that's it," then I am faced with the question, can I be captured, harmed and/or destroyed?"

So once again, if true... what does any of this matter anyways? Yet if not... then why worry?
But also, that is the selfish answer, no? Easy for me to "rationalize" and my life circumstances impacted my position on the matter.

So the dilemma arises, what might I do that could benefit another (if I even should)?

Well, I am able to point out an example of that... the actions you are taking and the push you are making that we explore this extended reality aspect. So... because I can only speak for myself, I will.

I am ready and willing to go there (as I have been there ever since "I woke up" in 2002).

Thank you for how you are doing this.
 
#57
I’m sorry you have no respect for me. However I fail to see how a legal system can function if it does not acknowledge that some people have mental health problems which cause them to lose touch with reality. Nobody, not even Ross Cheit, disputes Judy Johnson was one such person. Hence she was sectioned after an armed standoff with the police. What is disputed is whether her problems were present prior to her accusations, or whether they were brought on by the trauma of the ensuing events. There is no a-priori way to determine this.

Cheit claims it is the latter. I’m not actually taking a position on that issue. I am pointing out that the witness Cheit cites to support his claim, prosecutor Glenn Stevens, has made public statements asserting the opposite. That ‘Judy Johnson was psychotic before she filed the first police report.’ Whatever this says about Mrs. Johnson, it certainly speaks poorly of Cheit.

I don’t doubt that both individuals and states have a history of covering their crimes by accusing the victims of being crazy. I also don’t doubt that some people actually are. Blanket statements therefore, are of no value.
I hadn’t meant that comment to be directed at you, personally. You are correct in that some are actually crazy, that’s my point though, I think abuse leads to crazy, directly, in those who refuse to comply. The details are certainly important, when dealing with the law, and false accusations, imo, should be treated with similar severity as perpetrators found guilty. But I have tried to talk with folks about abuse, including in my FOO, and I see how they react. They dive deep into the details—no, it wasn’t in the foyer, it was in the living room, no it wasn’t a Wednesday in June it was a Thursday in May. This is how victims in denial behave, and so it’s very convenient that the legal system hones in on that symptom of Stockholm Syndrome in order to perpetuate a cycle of abuse.

My blanket statement was not aimed at this specific case, or you specifically, but at what I see as a pattern of denial, scapegoating, avoidance, spiritual bypassing, reframing, renaming, and reappearing at constant intervals during my lifetime.

It’s not that I don’t think the details of each individual case is crucial, certainly they don’t all fit the pattern, but getting the world bogged down in minute details is to keep them forever in rabbit holes and not with a bird’s eye view.
 

Alex

Administrator
#58
This is where folks like David Icke have been for decades... That extended reality aspect which may actually be the controlling source.
yr right. have you read his new 9/11 book... interesting.

I'd like to interview him on skeptiko.




If I have decided "there must be more to it" than "being born, live then die and that's it," then I am faced with the question, can I be captured, harmed and/or destroyed?"
age old Qs :)
 
Last edited:
#60
@Alex (based on your comments around 1:35 of the Youtube Video (when you reference "a christian narrative')

You don't have to "buy into" (ie. "believe in") a specific religious paradigm to be able to, as an outside observer (a Skeptiko observer), identify activities of some (maybe all) of the participants of those activities to be performing acts "in the name of" a specific "mythological entity" (example, Satan) or "side" (example, "darkness") featured within that paradigm or within the "narrative" (framework) of that paradigm to identify it as such (example, Satanic Ritual Abuse).

Brisson (and the atheist investigator he mentioned) based on evidence they have found are identifying that evidence which suggests "they" (the participants, perpetrators) believe in the paradigm or, if they don't, certainly want their targets, victims to believe it... And I can imagine some of the participants may "believe in it" and some may not, but use it for its usefulness.

It is that simple... and I understand getting worked up about it because... well, I must only speak for myself. I don't "do" those paradigms anymore. I grew out of of these beliefs, I grew out of a need for these beliefs... yet regardless, if I walk into a crime scene with a dead body and knife wounds and the heart cut out and its laying on some alter and everything on the room is black save for a pentagram I see drawn in blood on the floor... I am probably not out of bounds to suggest it looks like an example of Satanic Ritual Sacrifice. Of course, that scenario likely would never happen because it seems these folks are damn good at cleaning up their messes and having a powerful network backing them up when a mess is discovered... a very powerful network.

The key here (IMO) is... don't feed the monster by giving the narrative power... instead, I feel I can only act individually as to what I do with my life, making my decisions within my own journey through good and evil.

Remember when I mentioned to you I hoped we could talk about paradigms? This is what I had hoped to convey.
 
Top