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

Alex

Administrator
#62
@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.
I think you and I are more or less in sync here. the problem I run into is that some Christian folks half boiled this down to a very, very specific non-historical interpretation of Satan. consider this for example:

Finnish Mystic's Visions of Afterlife Match NDE ... - Skeptiko
where Richard Smoley completely unravels the Satan of very early jewish history.

or consider these researcher (who are just reporting on the many, many advances in biblical archaeology that have been done in the last 50 years)
Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince on ... - Aeon Byte Gnostic Radio

so what we're left with is a completely bizarre-to-begin-with Christian cosmology that's maybe even less credible by boots-on-the-ground archaeology and biblical scholarship. of course, like we're all saying we don't have any idea how these extended Realms really work, but it does seem like you have to choose your game and then play it by those rules. when archaeology and ancient text scholarship uncovers new stuff you got to work that into the equation.
 
#63
We are in sync as I was just able to complete the interview... the part where ya'll went off the rails at 1:37 (the YouTube timestamp, not the transcript)... and then you, explained it perfectly.

You went further than you have ever gone to explain your current working hypothesis / view... we are 99% in sync.
 
B

Baccarat

#64
I think you and I are more or less in sync here. the problem I run into is that some Christian folks half boiled this down to a very, very specific non-historical interpretation of Satan. consider this for example:

Finnish Mystic's Visions of Afterlife Match NDE ... - Skeptiko
where Richard Smoley completely unravels the Satan of very early jewish history.

or consider these researcher (who are just reporting on the many, many advances in biblical archaeology that have been done in the last 50 years)
Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince on ... - Aeon Byte Gnostic Radio

so what we're left with is a completely bizarre-to-begin-with Christian cosmology that's maybe even less credible by boots-on-the-ground archaeology and biblical scholarship. of course, like we're all saying we don't have any idea how these extended Realms really work, but it does seem like you have to choose your game and then play it by those rules. when archaeology and ancient text scholarship uncovers new stuff you got to work that into the equation.
Yea but so much is mistranslated, misinterpreted, nuances and composite characters
 
#67
Good stuff (and the underlying points), Baccarat. I came across suggestions about Pan when I lived in Panama between 2007 and 2012. In addition, I also dove into investigation of "Satan" and "Lucifer" as mythological figures and how they came about. The process freed me of a subconsciously driven "need" to "believe in" the various ethos' of the Abrahamic religions. This sent me East and into exploration/study of all Eastern religions (paradigms) as well as indigenous psycho-mythical paradigms. Throughout the exploration/study process I included exploration/study of "magickal" paradigms and the occult.

In 2016 I found myself emerging from it all as all roads led to consciousness as the fundamental and that it might be best to set aside everything else and focus on the nature and science of being.

Skeptiko (Alex's interviews/discussion) has played a significant role in the process. To say, significant, is an understatement. What's pretty awesome about Alex's format is that he seems intent upon asking questions and arguing from all sides. At times I was frustrated by this process. Now I am grateful as I have learned that its best (for me) if I ask and answer my own questions.

Back to the information you provided and my opinion as to what it supports. It supports the hypothesis that superstition is a deeply ingrained human trait which, perhaps one could rise above without throwing out the benefit of experiencing "that which is meaningful," if meaningful life is important to one (it is for me). It would really help if "science" would open more fully to the role consciousness plays in everything and shift to at least an open mindedness that consciousness may after all be fundamental.
 
#68
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.===
Just to elaborate on the medical evidence:


I don’t know where you get the impression from that the medical evidence for sexual assault was hidden from the public. It was a central part of the evidence in the McMartin trial and the trials that preceded it and would have featured prominently in the media about the cases at the time. Chapter Nine of Debbie Nathan’s book (published 1995) is called ‘The Medical Evidence’, where she makes her case for it being invalid.

I located the documentary I was looking for, it’s called Witch Hunt and can be viewed on Amazon and Vimeo. It’s about the cases that preceded McMartin, in Kern County. It’s all very interesting, harrowing and relevant, but I specifically wanted to highlight the case of Brenda and Scott Kniffen. As I wrote previously, they were convicted in part due to medical evidence that their two sons had been sodomised. The evidence was presented by Dr. Bruce Woodling, a colleague of Astrid Heger, the medical examiner in the McMartin case. The Kniffen’s had their conviction overturned after they had spent twelve years in jail. Their sons changed their testimony and the family is now reconciled. The documentary features several of the children who gave evidence against their parents, describing the manipulative and coercive techniques that were used to get them to do so, and the destructive effect this has had on their lives.

Given this, it might be fair to assume that the medical evidence presented by Dr. Woodling must have been faulty. Fortunately however, we don’t have to assume. Debbie Nathan writes about the work of pediatrician Dr. John McCann, who documented that a lot of the supposed abnormalities presented as signs of sexual abuse were also present in non-abused children. Essentially, Dr. Woodling’s work was quackery. It’s documented in Nathan’s book, you can also read an article publishing in the 80s on it here.

In summary, the medical evidence is neither a secret nor conclusive of anything.
 

Alex

Administrator
#69
Just to elaborate on the medical evidence:


I don’t know where you get the impression from that the medical evidence for sexual assault was hidden from the public. It was a central part of the evidence in the McMartin trial and the trials that preceded it and would have featured prominently in the media about the cases at the time. Chapter Nine of Debbie Nathan’s book (published 1995) is called ‘The Medical Evidence’, where she makes her case for it being invalid.

I located the documentary I was looking for, it’s called Witch Hunt and can be viewed on Amazon and Vimeo. It’s about the cases that preceded McMartin, in Kern County. It’s all very interesting, harrowing and relevant, but I specifically wanted to highlight the case of Brenda and Scott Kniffen. As I wrote previously, they were convicted in part due to medical evidence that their two sons had been sodomised. The evidence was presented by Dr. Bruce Woodling, a colleague of Astrid Heger, the medical examiner in the McMartin case. The Kniffen’s had their conviction overturned after they had spent twelve years in jail. Their sons changed their testimony and the family is now reconciled. The documentary features several of the children who gave evidence against their parents, describing the manipulative and coercive techniques that were used to get them to do so, and the destructive effect this has had on their lives.

Given this, it might be fair to assume that the medical evidence presented by Dr. Woodling must have been faulty. Fortunately however, we don’t have to assume. Debbie Nathan writes about the work of pediatrician Dr. John McCann, who documented that a lot of the supposed abnormalities presented as signs of sexual abuse were also present in non-abused children. Essentially, Dr. Woodling’s work was quackery. It’s documented in Nathan’s book, you can also read an article publishing in the 80s on it here.

In summary, the medical evidence is neither a secret nor conclusive of anything.
ok. Good stuff. I sent an email to John Brisson hope that he has more information on this. I'm totally open to be proven wrong about McMartin preschool. I've been wrong times in the past so I wouldn't be surprised.

But can we agree that this is the fundamental issue? I brought this up a bunch of times and you've never directly addressed it. if we come to the conclusion that it seems most likely that there is medical evidence suggesting that these kids were raped by their preschool teacher then Debbie Nathan is as full of s*** as I keep saying she is? I mean, Martin preschool was sold to all of us as the poster child of satanic panic. if we conclude based on the medical evidence that these preschoolers were most likely raped by this guy after school then we must conclude that the satanic Panic thing was it not what was pedal to us.

Again let me be really hone in on this... Hypothetically... do you agree? if not please tell me how you would maintain your outrage over the "satanic panic" created with the McMartin preschool case ( just considering this case alone for a minute) in the face of evidence that suggests that the preschool teacher raped his students?
 

Alex

Administrator
#70
BTW here's our previous email I had with Richard. he said it was ok to share it:
ok... but I don't think this is really relevant to the conversation we're having on the forum. like I said... And maybe this was the case for you and maybe it wasn't, but up until a few months ago no idea there was medical evidence showing these preschoolers at McMartin preschool had been raped by their teacher. I thought, like everybody thought, McMartin preschool is a classic example of satanic panic. again, this is what I thought just a few months ago.

I knew that stuff like Franklin really happened and I suspected that Satanic ritual abuse really, but I totally bought into the idea that McMartin preschool was all about satanic panic... which I'm sure is very real in the sense that people panic and wrongfully accuse people of stuff that they didn't do... I totally get that... but I in the case of McMartin preschool I now know that it clearly was NOT ABOUT SATANIC PANIC. I was wrong about that and I can't help but feel that I was intentionally misled to believe that it was something that it was not.

And here's the kicker... it seems to me that it's only when we reach this point... i.e. 1. understand that the medical evidence clearly shows that these preschoolers were raped by their teacher and 2. understand that we were intentionally led to believe this was something it was not, namely that it was all "satanic panic"... only then can we really begin to even look at what's satanic ritual abuse is... and since our best religious scholarship tell us that this "Satan of the Bible" is something that was grafted in after the fact and is non-historical then we know that once we look into this we're going to be forced to consider some deeper questions about extended Consciousness and our relationship in this sea Consciousness we find ourselves in.

if it's ok with you I might post something like this on the Forum. I won't reference you when I post it and I won't reference this email exchange but as I write this I realize I'd like to share it.
 
#71
But can we agree that this is the fundamental issue? I brought this up a bunch of times and you've never directly addressed it. if we come to the conclusion that it seems most likely that there is medical evidence suggesting that these kids were raped by their preschool teacher then Debbie Nathan is as full of s*** as I keep saying she is?

Here’s my problem with that conclusion.

Debbie Nathan’s writing is not just an interesting reflection on a bizarre episode in American history, her book was published at a time when many people were locked up on life sentences for crimes they did not commit and were later exonerated of. I’ve cited the example of the Kniffen family, but her work with the National Centre for Reason and Justice extended to the exoneration of San Antonio Four in 2016. I simply don’t think the label ‘full of shit’ is an appropriate one for a person who has done something like that.

Even if she is wrong about child abuse at McMartin’s, she is still demonstrably correct that coercive techniques were employed to extract accusations from children. We know this unequivocally for the testimony of those children as adults (see the Witch Hunt documentary) and recordings of the sessions.

She was also entirely correct in claiming that the medical science employed to gain convictions was fraudulent. We know this from the fact that parents convicted on this basis were later unequivocally exonerated and from the work of Dr. John McCann.

Finally, Nathan herself acknowledges that some pedophiles used ‘the panic’ to escape justice. In her email to me she writes:

‘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.’

She goes on to say she is considering writing a book about such a case.

Now to the other side of the coin. If Nathan, through ideological blindness or anything else, is guilty of dismissing actual solid evidence of sexual abuse then yes, this would be a terrible error on her part of the upmost seriousness. Obviously.

It did occur to me that the approach law enforcement took on this issue would likely have a dual effect. Initially it would result in innocent people being convicted, but then at some point, when this becomes apparent, it is likely to become a shield for the guilty. I’m sure every defense lawyer of every pedophile in the country waved a copy of Dr. McCann’s report around in the courtroom, for example. That is just the complexity we have to deal with.

I don’t know the McMartin case in sufficient detail to personally declare Ray Buckey innocent on all charges. If there is solid medical evidence that does point to his guilt then fine. The challenge as I see it, would be to disentangle that from the fraudulent medical evidence being presented.

Finally, if it is the case, I still don’t think it follows that he was acquitted because of a network. There’s more than enough fraudulent material in the trial to cast reasonable doubt. Especially given the narrative was starting to fall apart by that stage anyway.
 
B

Baccarat

#72
This "satanic" stuff is mere cosplay, the real issue is how we as a community stop these horrible actions.
I think focusing on the wrong part of this will numb us to the real issues and all we do is argue semantics at stuff that doesn't exist. I posted a link from Hebrew scholars who debunked Satan even existed. Satan is a noun, only man can choose between being mostly good or mostly evil, Satan. Let's remember while being opening minded to be rational and not lose empathy fighting imaginary figures. On a metaphysical aspect as I roughly quote brother panic, humans life are connected to source. We are more ancient and powerful than any thought form, we are divine. Wake up from your hearts first then we can use the intellect. Stop this God and Satan non sense. Get grounded!!
 

Alex

Administrator
#74
Debbie Nathan’s writing is not just an interesting reflection on a bizarre episode in American history, her book was published at a time when many people were locked up on life sentences for crimes they did not commit and were later exonerated of. I’ve cited the example of the Kniffen family, but her work with the National Centre for Reason and Justice extended to the exoneration of San Antonio Four in 2016. I simply don’t think the label ‘full of shit’ is an appropriate one for a person who has done something like that.
I get that she may have done some good work. I accept that there are plenty examples of public panic and prosecution overreach that ensnares innocent people.

But I keep coming back to the same thing... I mean Richard, it seems like we got to separate these issues. her good works on behalf of the wrongfully accused have no bearing on the McMartin preschool facts.

For example take the first preschooler from McMartin that reported being sexually abused. as I documented earlier in this thread, he was three years old at the time. he came home and was bleeding out of his backside. his mom took him to the pediatrician. the pediatrician suspected sexual abuse and referred him to emergency room. from there he was referred to a doctor who specialize in sexual abuse. Debbie Nathan does a lot of arm-waving to distract people away from these facts but she never challenges them... because they are just the medical facts of the case!

From this point on I would just be repeating myself. when I first looked at McMartin preschool I thought it was a case of satanic panic because that's what everyone had told me. I can't hold to that conclusion given these Undisputed medical facts.



She was also entirely correct in claiming that the medical science employed to gain convictions was fraudulent. We know this from the fact that parents convicted on this basis were later unequivocally exonerated and from the work of Dr. John McCann.
do you really think that's relevant to what we're trying to hammer out in this thread? isn't it also true that some of the abuse was outside of the statute of limitations... but this fact is meaningless to me.

I think prosecution should follow the letter of the law, but in terms of me determining for myself what really happened many of the legalities are irrelevant.



Now to the other side of the coin. If Nathan, through ideological blindness or anything else, is guilty of dismissing actual solid evidence of sexual abuse then yes, this would be a terrible error on her part of the upmost seriousness. Obviously.
Obviously. Agreed :)
 
#75
there are a few things that Jesus says in the Gospels that have helped me in following what I believe is the better path through life on Earth. Jesus tells us collectively at Matthew 7:11 that we are all evil. And He tells us the prince of this world is the Devil. We may deduct from this that we must therefore be in Hell here. Although there are among us a minority who seek to graduate from the cycle of birth, life, death, rebirth, life, death, rebirth known as Samsara; most of us don't escape at bodily death to Moksha otherwise known as salvation. That is, to find oneself in the presence of God Himself. A place that is reportedly more pleasant than the most pleasant experience one may have had on Earth multiplied by a thousand. We can't seem able to remove ourselves from being perpetually drawn to the attractions of this world. Attractions that are all enticements by the devil but which all become disappointments. We need to learn to hate it all. Jesus tells us, "He who hateth his life in this world shall preserve it for life eternal." (John 12:25)
Although I cannot fathom how anyone could get their jollies from engaging in sexual acts with small children such a monstrous person may safely be assumed among the damned when they die. It is reported there are worse places to be than even this Earth. Leading a life such as to find oneself boarding there should not be something to aspire to.
I think you are quite right about the world as one level of Hell. So many (maybe all of them) of the paths laid out for people to escape further time in another Hell after death or rebirth point out this mortal existence will always disappoint you. I actually came to a point when I realized the more I learned about life, the more I wanted to die. Then I returned to an intensive study of death, especially NDEs, & found that the more I learned about death, the more I wanted to live. So I have to admit that Alex's digging into such revoltingly deep sewers of evil have reminded me yet again that this world is meant to teach you to seek a way out PERMANENTLY. I can relate to the massive frustration of finding out that the highest (no, let's not call it that, let's say upper) reaches of the world powers have such a grip on the police & other protective services that most people unthinkingly rely on that child sexual abuse/trafficking is almost impossible to eliminate. When J. Epstein is murdered in his jail cell & no one is threatened with punishment except his lowest level jailers, then we have seen the Fork-Tongued Liar clearly. Don't misunderstand me! I fully support K. Annett, J. Brisson, A. Lucas, & many others in their fight to end such hideous activity, but these efforts are another well of tears ultimately. During my previous marriage, I noticed a brother-in-law who was inordinately fond of playing with the family kids. Later, I came upon this same man kneeling behind one of his sister-in-law's sons with his arms around the boy's waist. When he heard me come into the hallway behind him, he yanked his hands back as if he had touched something extremely hot. Guilty is as guilty does, so I informed my wife & others of the need to keep an eye on Morton (not his real name), but I was brushed off as crazy. In the intervening time before another incident, I learned that Morton's dad had died when he was very young & he was raised in the company of Catholic priests & other clergy in Mexico. Clearly, here was all the necessary history to support my assertion that Morton was a molester as well! Again, I was ignored, I'm sure, because my wife & her family were practicing Catholics. Several years later, after I divorced my wife, she told me Morton had been caught by someone else doing his diddling & had been banned from all contact with family children. But then, wonder of wonders, Morton wife became pregnant & they had a girl. Do you think she was safe from his twisted attentions? I'd rather not even speculate. So it goes...
 

Alex

Administrator
#76
https://eassurvey.wordpress.com/2009/03/22/day-care-and-child-abuse-cases/

Sexual Abuse in Day Care: A National Study – Executive Summary – March 1988 – Finklehor, Williams, Burns, Kalinowski “The study identified 270 “cases” of sexual abuse in day care meaning 270 facilities where substantiated abuse had occurred involving a total of 1639 victimized children….This yielded an estimate of 500 to 550 reported and substantiated cases and 2500 victims for the three-year period. Although this is a large number, it must be put in the context of 229,000 day care facilities nationwide service seven million children….allegations of ritual abuse (“the invocation of religious, magical or supernatural symbols of activities”) occurred in 13% of the cases.” The authors divided these cases into “true cult-based ritual,” pseudo-ritualism” with a primary goal of sexual gratification and ritual being used to intimidate the children from disclosing and “psychopathological ritualism” the activities being “primarily the expression of an individuals obsessional or delusional system.” Sexual Abuse in Day Care: A National Study – Executive Summary – March 1988 – Finklehor, Williams, Burns, Kalinowski “The study identified 270 “cases” of sexual abuse in day care meaning 270 facilities where substantiated abuse had occurred involving a total of 1639 victimized children….This yielded an estimate of 500 to 550 reported and substantiated cases and 2500 victims for the three-year period. Although this is a large number, it must be put in the context of 229,000 day care facilities nationwide service seven million children….allegations of ritual abuse (“the invocation of religious, magical or supernatural symbols of activities”) occurred in 13% of the cases.” The authors divided these cases into “true cult-based ritual,” pseudo-ritualism” with a primary goal of sexual gratification and ritual being used to intimidate the children from disclosing and “psychopathological ritualism” the activities being “primarily the expression of an individuals obsessional or delusional system.” http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED292552.pdf

The McMartin Preschool Case – What Really Happened and the Cover-up
http://ritualabuse.us/ritualabuse/a...ol-case-what-really-happened-and-the-coverup/

describes crimes of abuse

Satanism Linked To Scores of U.S. Child Abuse Cases Edward W. Lempinen. San Francisco Chronicle 11/5/87 p. A1 Satanism and cult rituals have been linked to scores of child-molestation cases nationwide in the past five years, including dozens in California. Children as young as 2 and 3 years old have come forward with harrowing tales of drinking blood, animal sacrifices and sexual abuse as part of rituals, according to law enforcement investigators, child abuse experts and parents. Others have even talked of can
 
#77
For example take the first preschooler from McMartin that reported being sexually abused. as I documented earlier in this thread, he was three years old at the time. he came home and was bleeding out of his backside. his mom took him to the pediatrician. the pediatrician suspected sexual abuse and referred him to emergency room. from there he was referred to a doctor who specialize in sexual abuse. Debbie Nathan does a lot of arm-waving to distract people away from these facts but she never challenges them... because they are just the medical facts of the case!
I think Ross Cheit is writing a slanted view of the evidence for Matthew Johnson being sexually abused. All facts considered I don’t think it’s nearly as clear cut.

What is clear is that during the summer of 1983, Matthew Johnson developed a problem with his anus, which caused him pain when he pooed. At some point Judy Johnson became suspicious and a conversation with Matthew ensued after which she concluded Ray Buckey had sodemised him. In Cheit’s account, Matthew is freely volunteering this information, in Nathan’s, Judy is dragging it out of him. There is a limit to what we can know about what a three year old said or didn’t say to his mother in 1983.

Nathan writes that Cheit fails to mention that Matthew tested positive for a Step infection on his anus and penis and that this would also account for the symptoms he was displaying. It is true that the doctors who examined Matthew thought sexual assault might have taken place, it is also true that diagnosis of this was limited at that time (evidenced by all the false convictions on medical evidence). Even Cheit acknowledges that:

‘The significance of those findings might be diminished with more recent knowledge about “normal” anal and genital exams’.

Cheit also emphasises the doctors arriving at their own conclusion on this, whilst Nathan emphasises the role Judy Johnson played by telling them her son had told her he’d been assaulted. The confirmed presence of the Step infection does cast serious doubt for me.

Additionally Judy Johnson’s mental health has to be a factor, as does the fact that Cheit tried to play it down by lying about prosecutor Glenn Stevens' position. This does not incline me to trust his representation of the rest of the case. Prior to her being sectioned, Judy accused Matthew’s father of sodomising him also. It’s not clear to me why we should take that accusation less seriously than the one about Ray Buckley.

With all that being said, I of course cannot prove that Ray Buckey didn’t abuse any children. Debbie Nathan herself said (though I’m sure not referring to Buckey) that in some cases real abuse had gone on. But then this raises the question, why are we talking about this? Why are we talking about where some daycare working did or didn’t abuse children in the 1980s?

The reason is because of the perception that the evidence of guilt is so overwhelming that Buckey must have been acquitted because of some connection to a pedophile/satanic network. I’m suggesting that even if Ray Buckey abused a child, given the appalling investigation techniques employed and the fact that by the time of the trial this was all coming to light, it’s no wonder a jury found reasonable doubt. How could they not?
 

Alex

Administrator
#78
I’m suggesting that even if Ray Buckey abused a child, given the appalling investigation techniques employed and the fact that by the time of the trial this was all coming to light, it’s no wonder a jury found reasonable doubt. How could they not?
we going in circles:
-- reposting -- then done.
But I keep coming back to the same thing... I mean Richard, it seems like we got to separate these issues. her good works on behalf of the wrongfully accused [ whatever problems you may have with the investigation] have no bearing on the McMartin preschool facts.

For example take the first preschooler from McMartin that reported being sexually abused. as I documented earlier in this thread, he was three years old at the time. he came home and was bleeding out of his backside. his mom took him to the pediatrician. the pediatrician suspected sexual abuse and referred him to emergency room. from there he was referred to a doctor who specialize in sexual abuse. Debbie Nathan does a lot of arm-waving to distract people away from these facts but she never challenges them... because they are just the medical facts of the case!

From this point on I would just be repeating myself. when I first looked at McMartin preschool I thought it was a case of satanic panic because that's what everyone had told me. I can't hold to that conclusion given these Undisputed medical facts ( notwithstanding other medical evidence that may be disputed).

I think prosecution should follow the letter of the law, but in terms of me determining for myself what really happened many of the legalities are irrelevant (BTW

* BTW may want to read the above Post in detail about all the additional information they found during an archaeological dig at McMartin years later... victims told them where to dig and what would find... they dug and found it... no legal tricks and shenanigans.

you're riding a losing horse... I've seen the Debbie Nathan act too many times... defense advocate Gone Wild.

BTW2 she even defends the convicted pedo from the Glendale school (James Toward)... a guy who actually confessed to the crimes because the evidence was absolutely overwhelming. Check out the interview John Brisson did with the investigator on this case. how can any reasonable / fair-minded person twist their mind into believing this guy is innocent. again, you're riding the wrong horse?
 
Last edited:
#79
This "satanic" stuff is mere cosplay, the real issue is how we as a community stop these horrible actions.
I think focusing on the wrong part of this will numb us to the real issues and all we do is argue semantics at stuff that doesn't exist. I posted a link from Hebrew scholars who debunked Satan even existed. Satan is a noun, only man can choose between being mostly good or mostly evil, Satan. Let's remember while being opening minded to be rational and not lose empathy fighting imaginary figures. On a metaphysical aspect as I roughly quote brother panic, humans life are connected to source. We are more ancient and powerful than any thought form, we are divine. Wake up from your hearts first then we can use the intellect. Stop this God and Satan non sense. Get grounded!!
I think you have a good perspective here, but still, it’s ‘non sense’ that most folks still follow, and how could they not? Satanism is being sold as a new religion, and why should it not be? But what are they selling, exactly, and how are the crowds reacting to it? I understand satanism, like luciferianism as that which is the antagonizer to man. That’s the original meaning, right? That which is the force ‘against’. Evil is live spelled backwards. Why do we make it so unnecessarily complicated?

https://thereasonedvegan.com/2019/05/15/is-satanism-the-most-vegan-friendly-religion/
 
Last edited:
B

Baccarat

#80
I think you have a good perspective here, but still, it’s ‘non sense’ that most folks still follow, and how could they not? Satanism is being sold as a new religion, and why should it not be? But what are they selling, exactly, and how are the crowds reacting to it? I understand satanism, like luciferiniSm, small s,l, as that which is the antagonizer to man. That’s the original meaning, right? That which is the force ‘against’. Evil is live spelled backwards. Why do we make it so unnecessarily complicated?

https://thereasonedvegan.com/2019/05/15/is-satanism-the-most-vegan-friendly-religion/
My friend had an interesting perspective about Satanism. Metaphorically he said it could be surmised that Satan represents unconditional love for humanity. Then again if you read my article by Hebrew scholar Dr Roy Blizzard in Hebrew Satan is not a diety, it's a noun, anyone who you claim to be your enemy could be called hasatan. As for lucifer, lucifer is just made up, and incorrectly attributed to Satan. Satan is a composite of Pan, I'll check out your article, but I think Roy blizzard should be a guest on here actually. One thing I noticed in the occult circle and it's broad use of texts ranging from bibles to grimories to atheism is that it's all up to the intent of the person and what they believe. Me for example I always told my friends I don't work with the God's or angels dieites etc. From my research lucifer is just a title as a knowledgeable person who shares wisdom through research. I guess like calling someone a scholar. But our culture has trained us through religion, word of mouth, Misinformation, TV etc that the devil has horns or lucifer is bad. It's interesting that in the show lucifer he's more of a sympathetic complex character. Fact is lucifer is Latin for light bringer which represents venus, it's not a God angel or diety. Some might believe so and it's fine. For me I'm an atheistic pagan and the scholarly research shows these things are misinterpreted. That's why I say it's mere cosplay. I have friends who are emo and they rejected God cause they felt they got the short end of the stick, so as a counter measure they shunned God dressed emo and praised Satan. It's cosplay
 
Top