Monarch programming - evidence or coincidence?

reply to post by network dude


This mason thinks disney was one:

burningtaper.blogspot.com...

reply to post by protocolsoflove


Do you read these articles you link too ? He very clearly states that Walt Disney was DeMolay . No where does he say Walt was a Freemason .

reply to post by Ephio


hello, i looked a little into mk ultra a few months back and found this really interesting article that seems to explain how it works,

from ThinkAboutIt Website

Amidst the subtle cerebral circumvention of the gullible populace, through a multitude of manipulated mediums, lies one of the most diabolical atrocities perpetrated upon a segment of the human race; a form of systematic mind control which has permeated every aspect of society for almost fifty years.

see link for more info, hope you find it interesting

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...#[12]

reply to post by protocolsoflove


No, that isn't what he said at all. He said he was a member of the DeMolay (the youth boys group).

"According to those who've done the research, neither Disney nor Reagan were Masons. Reagan was made an honorary Scottish Rite Mason while he was president, I've read somewhere slightly more trustworthy than the typical conspiracy site, but I don't recall where.

Walt Disney, on the other hand, was actually a member of DeMolay while growing up, and later, Disney authorized Mickey Mouse to be made an honorary DeMolay member, the only group Mickey ever belonged to, according to PhoenixMasonry.org."

reply to post by whenandwhere


Nah man you're wrong

reply to post by Minnie1985

In regards to your link/article, scrolling a ways down into there, one finds this list of installations.
I lived at two of those, And my Masonic person came from at least one of them, that I know of. Very interesting, thanks for that link.

reply to post by Saucerwench

your very welcome, i've just read your post on page 1, i hope everything is ok with you now?

its pretty messed up the way these sick people go out of their way to learn how to manipulate people, it goes beyond the average persons understanding as its such an unatural way for a person to think with regards to wanting to ruin another humans life,

i know this is in no way the same situation as yours in the slightest but we have master neuro linguistic programmers that are employed in high positions throughout the national company i work for, on our works intranet we can even down load a book called ''nlp for dummies''. They keep trying to use nlp on us at work but because we have all been talking about the corruption in the world recently we can see through the bulls**t they try to tell us.

reply to post by Minnie1985


All of these websites regurgitate the same garbage, I'm afraid.

I would be absolutely pleased if someone would link to a website that clearly and scientifically iterates how alleged "mind control programming" happens on a physiological level. You won't find it.... Websites like the ones you've linked are written by people who make claims but have no serious understanding of neurobiology. Yes, the government at one time tried to experiment in this fashion. The government subsidizes stupid, flawed, and failed experiments all the time.... In this case, the experiments and programs were cancelled because they were not successful in the majority of cases, could not be sustained, were prone to all kinds of security risks, and more. Even without bringing alzheimers and other degenerative diseases into the picture, the body replaces and remanufactures cells at a continuous rates from months to years. "Programming" a person's brain like a computer just is NOT possible due to basic physiology.

Makes a good and entertaining story though, so people don't want to give it up.

reply to post by CIAGypsy


Apparently you've never read Cisco Wheeler and Fritz Springmeier's "The Illuminati formula to create a total undetectable mind controlled slave".

He cites patents, government reports, and Wheeler herself was daughter of a high ranking war general and gives stories from her own occult background.

reply to post by protocolsoflove


thank you, i'd just spend the last ten mins searching the internet trying to remember where i'd read about this subject in more info and then you post about Cisco Wheeler and Fritz Springmeier's "The Illuminati formula to create a total undetectable mind controlled slave'', which was what i was looking for, you must have read my mind, lol

thank you

Originally posted by protocolsoflove
reply to post by whenandwhere

 

Nah man you're wrong

Kewl. Just point me to the article that gives his lodge number, or dates of initiation and I will add him to my list of Famous masons. We like listing well known men who were members. We even list LBJ but only acknowledge he was an entered apprentice.

I look forward to your proof!

reply to post by protocolsoflove


Actually, I have read Wheeler and Springmeier. I don't recall any patents or government reports. Would you be so kind as to post links to those items? As I mentioned previously (and I'm not being sarcastic....), I would LOVE to see a scientifically supported white paper on how they supposedly "programmed" a human brain.

Originally posted by protocolsoflove
reply to post by whenandwhere

 

Nah man you're wrong

Wait , what !? I am not trying to prove or disprove Disney was a Mason , I can care less either way . You said that the author (a Mason) of the linked article claimed Disney as a Freemason , would you care to point it out in the article ? Where exactly did this Mason make that claim ?

reply to post by CIAGypsy

reply to post by GENERAL EYES


That's a very good point that I hadn't considered.... Even looking beyond the physiological weaknesses of the allegation, if someone is "programming" an object...be it a computer, a person, whatever....there are a lot of complex "protocols" that are used for redundancy, security, etc... There would be so much variation in how that was designed, built, tested, and deployed. Just as there is in the IT infrastructure today. Think about it.... There are entire colleges, industries, commerce, and careers surrounding these specificities involving a piece of electronics. Can you imagine how complicated that would be to overlay those same dynamics and mesh not just the same philosophies and structures, but further complicate those things by involving human physiology? Electronics work on a concrete binary system. Human biology and cellular signal transmission are far from concrete.

reply to post by CIAGypsy


There is nothing wrong with being a skeptic, I'm still a skeptic on this subject, but I feel your arguments against the concept of this thread are inconsistent and logically unsound.

It's reasonable to demand a scientific paper is published to validate the mind-control theories, it's unreasonable to assert or imply such theories cannot be correct unless they are supported by a valid scientific paper.

You proceed to produce a casual list of premises to support your argument, all of which are implied to be taken as self-evident truths since obviously you provide nothing beyond your own words, which in itself were hardly substantial, to support your asserted truths. If your post was merely your opinion and not an attempt to assert facts, you failed to clearly establish that intent.

As for the truth of the government experiments in search of mind-control knowledge and techniques, were these programs not initially denied until they finally caved into the pressure and admitted these programs existed, but not before destroying, or at least hiding, most of the documents produced from the programs? Why exactly should the same establishment be 100% trusted when they claim those programs were stopped because they didn't discover any valuable information? That's blatant cherry-picking of information to support a conclusion despite the facts. I think the only useful information to be gained by the official story is the intent and not the net result which we can only speculate about, and the intent is to secretly search for ways to alter/control the human mind and psyche.

While I have not formed a conclusion on the topic at hand, Monarch Programing, I have found instant success in forming a conclusion on your debunking method of this topic: it's of the same exact quality of garbage you claim this subject consists of, opinion and conjecture disguised as fact.

Originally posted by Erbal
reply to post by CIAGypsy

 

While I have not formed a conclusion on the topic at hand, Monarch Programing, I have found instant success in forming a conclusion on your debunking method of this topic: it's of the same exact quality of garbage you claim this subject consists of, opinion and conjecture disguised as fact.

Should I be so flattered that you are making little 'ole me the topic of this thread?

Following in the immortal words of Dr. Carl Sagan, my mentor and hero ( ):

Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense.

Just in case you missed it in my signature line. Still, it is such a profound truth. The point of this thread is not my analysis techniques. It is about Monarch Programming and whether it exists today. There are a lot of claims about the methods that are used to program a human being. But there are seemingly none which support the mechanics to explain how these claims are possible. As a scientist, I cannot go to my fellow colleagues making wild, fantastic claims and not provide the supporting research to show how I came to my conclusion. Science must be repeatable and clearly delineated or it is not "science" at all. The theories of Wheeler, Springmeier, and others seem very plausible until you hold them up to the filter of human physiology. Human cells and DNA are very individuated. This is why you have so many varied side effects of medication and it is so well documented that "what works for one individual doesn't work for everyone." The human brain is the least understood organ in the body, as well as the one which receives the most funding for research. To say that a secret, finite group of scientists were able to successfully "program a person like a computer" back in the 50's and 60's when we don't even possess the medical understanding to do that with today's knowledge and technology is laughable. And MY BELIEF that they were truly unsuccessful in these attempts (and yes, I agree that they DID make attempts) is the reason why none of these "whistleblowers" have ever been able to come forward with any scientific explanation of HOW this was accomplished physiologically in the body.

Furthermore, I personally know the process for how government funding for scientific research is done. I know this process intimately... Because such funding is so highly competitive, there are clear milestones that MUST be met and progress maintained or those dollars will disappear like the Australian drought. Happens to scientists all the time....even those working on research related to defense because for every scientist with a good theory, there are 10 more standing behind him with their own "good theories."

This is the way the world of science, research, and government operate. You want proof of that? It isn't so simple and easy to publish a white paper on how that works...it is something you EXPERIENCE as you live it and other scientists will agree. However, making a claim such as the ones by Wheeler and Springmeier CAN be documented, explained, and supported by a white paper because they are or should be concrete mechanisms. The supposition that they don't exist seems to conclude it is because their underlying claims are nothing more than that....

The best website on this subject is called "Vigilant Citizen." I recommend spending hours at that site. Here's the link:

vigilantcitizen.com...

Originally posted by CIAGypsy
reply to post by protocolsoflove

 

Actually, I have read Wheeler and Springmeier. I don't recall any patents or government reports. Would you be so kind as to post links to those items?

As I mentioned previously (and I'm not being sarcastic....), I would LOVE to see a scientifically supported white paper on how they supposedly "programmed" a human brain.

Hello CIAGypsy

You sound pretty interested in this sort of mind control business. Have ever heard of Derren Brown?
People call him a "psychological illusionist". Very smart guy. He done a series on the tv a while ago called "Derren Brown : The experiments" and the first episode was him carrying out an experiment to test if it was possible to use mind control to make someone commit an assassination without them knowing what they did after it. This experiment was a success, he managed to make a guy commit an assassination, and after the assissination the guy didnt remember anything. Derren says that he used techniques from the project "Mk-Ultra".
I think that episode would really interest you, its called "Derren Brown : The experiments : The assassin" .

If you live in the Uk you can watch it on 4 on demand
www.channel4.com...

Thanks

reply to post by CIAGypsy


Flawed skepticism is exactly that, flawed. You make a compelling argument that does nothing to absolve the flawed aspects of your skepticism, which I have pointed out. And quite frankly, your continuation of your arguments feels like a moving of the goalposts when you falsely interject OVERT research funding experience into a topic clearly about COVERT research dealing with mind control.

And I disagree with your definition of science... you more accurately defined the scientific method, the conclusion aspect which has certain standards in order for the conclusion to be widely accepted, while minimizing the journey for the truth, which can still be accurately considered science despite a lack of publications showing the work.

This topic is about Monarch programming, correct, and I perceived your "debunk" effort of the subject to have been a false victory because, honestly, your debunking does not hold up to my basic level of scrutiny which is not impressive by any means. I have no problem at all agreeing to disagree so we can discuss the INFORMATION at hand and not asserted conclusions rife with flaws someone like me can easily spot.