Posted by jeremy on October 4, 2010 5:10 pm.
| An extra serving of irony The very first passage in my copy of Lawson’s book starts out with a quote: “When people fervently and absolutely believe in a cause they will many times go to great lengths to promote it…” How many man-years have targets thrown away in trying to prove or advocate Lawson’s assertions? |
I’ve felt there was something wrong with David Lawson’s claims (in his “Cause Stalking” manual) from the moment I became aware of them nine months ago, but I admit I didn’t bother to dig deeper, because I figured old hands had a better grasp of the situation than I did. Maybe there really was something like what I’d gone through, but without the advanced surveillance and NLW technologies, I reasoned.
In recent months, I’ve come to understand how these campaigns can be arranged with much less manpower than is generally assumed by newly aware targets1. But now my developing thesis is running into a hurdle: the minds of the targets themselves, who have bought into manpower-intensive theories of targeting and refuse to accept other explanations. So I have to tackle the issue of these uneconomical explanations, once and for all.2
What Lawson is saying is at the root of a disinformation campaign crafted for three purposes:
- to direct targets at the wrong enemy, by persuading them that the government isn’t involved in targeting;
- to enhance the traumatizing effects of targeting by telling targets that everything is exactly as it seems (that is, as threatening as possible);
- closely related to the previous point, to get targets to discredit themselves by acting on the belief that if it seems like large numbers of people are in on it, then in fact they are in on it. The claims deceived targets make are nonsensical to many accused individuals, and defy the laws of economics in the eyes of the general public - there isn’t enough money in the world to employ (or silence) all these people.
I’m going to show you that there’s nothing in his book that withstands scrutiny - that it all comes down to Lawson’s say-so; that is, the credibility of “Cause Stalking” depends on the credentials of the author and the publisher. And then I’m going to demonstrate that the publisher doesn’t exist, and that Lawson is not who you think he is.
What Lawson is claiming, and the kernel of truth supporting it
Lawson’s original book (“Terrorist stalking in America”), published in 2001, claimed that large numbers of vigilantes were making themselves available for hire to stalk and harass individuals, not to mention breaking into their homes. He says these vigilante gangs are not associated with the government in any way, and in fact are anti-government extremists.
Terrorist stalking was a term invented to describe terroristic threats directed at abortion providers by large groups of anti-abortionists3, with a few high-profile cases in the 1980’s. In these cases, the names of abortion providers would be announced to anti-abortion crusaders and mailing lists, whose members would spontaneously threaten the targeted providers. There was nothing subtle about these threats; they weren’t deniable the way what targets experience are4, and not nearly as well-coordinated.
That same year, Robert L. Snow made a brief mention of these kinds of tactics in his book5, slapping a new label on vengeance/terrorist stalking: cause stalking. Lawson released a new manual with that title in 2007, making the same sorts of claims he’d made in his earlier work.
Finally and most importantly, Lawson does list tactics that many targets are reporting.
Who’s bought his story?
Of several books I recently reviewed, “Coherent Madness” takes Lawson’s claims seriously, and “My Life Changed Forever” mentions his claims in the final chapter, even reprinting parts of his first book. Meanwhile, the author behind “The Hidden Evil” dismisses Lawson’s claims as a form of disinformation.
How I’m evaluating Lawson’s work
Books are generally considered more credible than web sites. It’s why I’ve been in the habit of deferring to printed explanations of this phenomenon.
It’s difficult to expose criminal activities which haven’t been heard in court yet. The guilty parties are obviously not going to admit to what they’re doing unless forced to; they may change their tactics in response to what is put in print about them; and they may attack the author or publisher if they feel threatened. Under these circumstances, the publisher is going to require due diligence on the part of the author, or is going to keep the author at arm’s length - a vanity press, for example, is generally understood not to be responsible for an author’s words.
Here’s a checklist for evaluating the credibility of printed exposés.
| Evidence of book’s credibility | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Commitment | The publisher or author has committed substantial resources to the publication. This suggests due diligence has been performed. |
| Picked up by a reputable publisher | The publisher is risking its own credibility by lending weight to the author’s claims. |
| Picked up by any publisher | The book is traceable back to a specific legal entity who can confirm the book was published by them. |
| Non-deniability | This is a quality we usually take for granted in published material, and is closely linked to being picked up by a publisher, but isn’t quite the same. The book is traceable back to a specific source, the source is not able to claim he didn’t commit certain passages to paper, and so on. |
| Liability | The publisher or author is being exposed to potential liability if the claims in the book should prove to be maliciously wrong. |
| Falsifiability | Providing details, or references to source material (not just a bibliography) will enable third parties to verify the claims, or disprove them (thereby falsifying them). |
| The author’s credibility | Does the author have credentials or expertise supporting the claims of the printed work? |
Is there evidence of commitment or due diligence? Is there liability? Are the claims falsifiable?
To all three questions, the answer is no.
The very first page of this manual shifts all responsibility for any decisions made based on the book’s advice away from the researcher or editor and onto the reader. The manual advises the reader that it’s “for educational and entertainment purposes” and “neither the author nor Scrambling News shall have any liability… [for] any loss or damage… from using the information contained in this manual.”
So there’s no liability, no commitment, and hence, no risk taken on by the alleged publisher of this manual. How about the author; did he commit significant time or resources to this work?
The manual runs for roughly 120 pages, at roughly 150 words per page - 18,000 words. There are no references, and proofreading is minimal; the index at the back of my copy of the book has fewer than 50 entries, and they all point to incorrect pages.
The manual has no narrative and little structure; it’s a monologue of general statements about the police, alleged vigilante stalkers, victims, and so on. The original manual could have been dictated to a secretary and typed up in a few hours. There is no evidence of commitment or due diligence by the author.
Getting to the references and other sources, the author says himself on the last page before the appendices:
This book lacks the references, quotes from named sources, and other formalities which would be included in a scholarly work… no Police officers would agree to be named… victims… did not want to be named either…
In fact, not a single organization - private or governmental - allegedly involved in these operations is named. Without any details, his claims aren’t verifiable - or falsifiable.
Is it carried by a reputable publisher?
No.
Did any publisher pick up this book?
Can you find any book published by a Scrambling News in Florida other than Lawson’s manuals? Can you find any evidence the publisher is even a registered business or has a DBA in the state of Florida6, where it has a mail drop?
The only evidence I found that a “Scrambling News” ever existed was a fictitious name registered to a David A. Lawson in New York in 1998, which expired in 2003.7 Scrambling News is David Lawson.
The answer is no.
Is this work deniable?
Imagine that you wanted to bring the author into court because of problems the manual’s advice or information caused you. If the author claimed you had simply gone to Kinko’s and printed up your own copy with the errors you were complaining about, would you be able to show otherwise?
The printing of the manual doesn’t represent a meaningful investment. Anybody could have printed it. The alleged publisher doesn’t exist. Prior to the addition of this manual to the Google Books archive8 , the words were deniable, a quality we usually associate with propaganda.
As of mid-2010, the words in the book are no longer deniable.
The author’s credentials
The “Cause Stalking” manual is a packet of unverifiable claims that as recently as mid-2010 could be modified at a moment’s notice, to thwart criticism. The alleged publisher of the manual doesn’t exist, even on paper.
At this point in my investigation, the credibility of this manual hinges entirely on Lawson’s background.
David Lawson, the psy-op
Remember, I’ve previously demonstrated that the author and the publisher of the manual are the very same entity. Let’s look at what the back cover says about Lawson:
The author is a Private Investigator who has worked cause stalking cases.
Note that cause stalking (terrorist/vengeance stalking), first mentioned in Snow’s book, could involve only one stalker. This statement of his background could be referring to that kind of stalking, although you’re being allowed to believe he has worked cause stalking cases of the sort his book alludes to, involving up to hundreds of stalkers per target.
The wording refers to Lawson in the third person, making it seem as though a third party has verified Lawson’s credentials. In reality, there is no third party, but you’re being allowed to think there is.
The back cover also mentions a web site with the domain name of I-Will-Do-It.com. Based on what you’ve been led to believe about Lawson’s credentials, you might think - with a domain name like that - that Lawson is soliciting business from people with problems (stalking problems) that need to be solved.
The book was originally published in 2007, but has been updated as recently as 2009, suggesting Lawson is receiving new information about the book’s subject.
The only information you get about Lawson is from the book itself. Stripping away everything you’re being allowed to believe and focusing only on unambiguous statements, all he’s saying about his or his publisher’s credentials in print is this:
- He’s a Private Investigator.
- He has worked on non-traditional (coercive or vendetta-driven) stalking cases.
- There’s a domain name, I-Will-Do-It.com, associated with the book.
- There’s a mail drop in Florida, associated with the alleged publisher.
- “Neither the author nor Scrambling News shall be held liable…”, suggesting the author and Scrambling News are two separate entities.
- There’s a web site, CauseStalking.net, associated with the book.9
Lawson, the reality
David Lawson does have a P.I. license in Florida. It expires in 2012.10 It’s a class “CC” license, which corresponds to that of an intern at an investigative agency, which anyone can get after completing 24 hours of a 40 hour course, provided he’s sponsored by a class “C” licensee or a P.I. agency’s manager.11 I called the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and verified that Lawson’s license was sponsored by an Investigative Agency in 2005 (Beneficial Investigations, license #A20230033612).
A class “C” P.I. license in Florida only requires ‘two years of lawfully gained, verifiable, full-time experience’11 (emphasis added). Surely Lawson, with his extensive background investigating cause stalking cases, would have that kind of experience? Why would Lawson be working as a lowly intern in Florida when he could prove he has the experience to work as a P.I.?
Conclusions
“Cause Stalking” lists many tactics which targets have reported or experienced. The author allows readers to believe the book has been published and his claims evaluated by someone other than himself. The author also makes truthful statements about his credentials in print, and allows the readers to believe they are far more extensive than he states. Having earned a targeted audience’s trust, the manual leads readers on a wild goose chase.
“Cause Stalking” is roughly as verifiable as a typical targeted individual’s testimony or explanations. However, because of the way the book has been marketed, many targets believe the author is sharing inside information.
The author is a P.I. intern in Florida, which belies the widespread beliefs of his extensive investigative experience. His sponsor/employer may not even be aware of what he’s up to.
There is no way to know whether the author knowingly perpetrated this hoax, or was misled by others putting on a show. Lawson’s preparations since 2004, when he applied for a P.I. license in Florida, suggest that he is aware he may be in hot water soon.13
“Cause Stalking” is historical evidence of disinformation directed at targeted individuals, and is useful for nothing else.
- ^ “The Big Show” argues that at any given time, a very small number of people are in your harassment perimeter. Those people can be influenced as needed, using mind control technology, to deliver PSYOPS payloads.
- ^ Nobody - especially me - is denying the experiences targets are reporting. The point of this article is that targets have been deceived.
- ^ National Victim Assistance Academy Textbook, chapter 22, 2002.
- ^ Abortionist targets of this kind of harassment could expect to receive hundreds of overt death threats. In the 90’s, once the web was invented and became popular, these tactics moved online. For example, one activist maintained a web page listing abortion providers with identifying information, and providers who had been hounded out of business, or had died, would be “crossed out” without any further commentary. Notice how, unlike what targeted individuals are going through, this coordinating tactic isn’t invisible or deniable.
- ^ "Stopping a Stalker: A Cop's Guide to Making the System Work for You" by Robert L. Snow, published in 2001 (Google Books).
- ^ https://www.myfloridalicense.com/wl11.asp; searched for historical evidence of any business with the word “scrambling” in its name, 10-4-2010.
- ^ Sunbiz.org search for Scrambling News; performed 10-4-2010. Here’s David Lawson’s registration for the fictitious name, with his signature (local copy).
- ^ The 2009 revision of Cause Stalking has been added to Google Books fairly recently. "Cause Stalking", Google Books; checked 10-4-2010.
- ^ The contents of causestalking.net can be changed at a moment’s notice, and are therefore deniable. As of October 4, 2010, the web site talks about Lawson in the third person (allowing the audience to believe the web site belongs to a third party), saying he has 20 years of experience investigating cause stalking cases. Interestingly, that one potentially falsifiable claim was added less than three years ago: see the Internet Archive copy of causestalking.net, circa 2008
- ^ David Lawson's license, detail screen; Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, licensing division, search performed 10/4/2010.
- ^ a b "C" and "CC" class license requirements; Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, private investigations division, checked 10/4/2010.
- ^ Beneficial Investigations' license, detail screen; Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, licensing division, checked 10/4/2010.
- ^ Americans expecting to get sued can readily find safe haven by establishing a residence in Florida, because of its favorable laws protecting trusts from civil suits.
[W]henever the Legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience." 
Archived comments (no replies allowed)
From a private comment (I’ve been getting a few of those lately, should I be setting up a private discussion board?):
Couldn’t agree more. We all know who’s running it… but who’s pulling their strings?
(I try to suggest answers in “Why they picked you”; but we may never know. In my case, I think the way my campaign started was a psy-op to pin everything on a believable third party, which misled me for years.)
702 comments
Jeremy-
Not all targeted people are in identical situations. For instance, many TI’s claim they don’t know why, or even exactly when, their problem began. I am, however, an exception.
I know when, where and why I became a target, and I know WHO is behind it. Further, I have been stalked in Florida by some of the same criminals who stalked me in North Carolina, where all this began. Yet, over the 6 years this has been happening, I have been accosted by many (30-40) people I have never before seen.
Obviously, they belong to some “network” but believe me these are not government agents.
Practically none of the people you meet at the ground level have formal ties to any government organization. Nobody is arguing that all (or a majority, or even a significant minority) of the stalkers/harassers targets meet on the street are government agents.
Just because they’re not government agents doesn’t mean the government isn’t involved. That’s one of the points I was making in “The Big Show” and “High-tech interstate stalking by proxy: understanding the crime”.
702 comments
There’s a theory or two one might try on for size that, in additionally giving him benefit of doubt we’d all need telling our stories, leave your critique a bit harsh.
What if he were some schmuck and, as he claims, accidentally stumbles into this group and seeing an opportunity for a tale to tell for self promotion or adventure, follows his leads and when he goes to tell the story feels the need to prop up his credibility? To that end it seems much of this is standing on the premise that David is lacking the qualifications he claims he has or has them substantiated after he should have.
What an unusual idea. A person selling a book who has hyped their qualifications beyond reality. That’s never happened before.
What if he is a TI who felt to tell his story he needed the distancing of a third person account?
What type of references do you expect him to provide when we can’t find any ourselves- and his is supposed to be a landmark work breaking ground?
What kind of publisher could any of us pick up today to tell our story- As ourselves? As a PI in the third person?
Why does his possibly being wrong about who is behind it all serve to discredit him? Do any of us really know? Could he be right about the lower level thugs and it be impossible to know above that because it’s foolish to imagine the architects of this identifying themselves to anyone?
I think you know me well enough to realize the purpose of this reply is not to stand up for David nor try and knock Jeremy down- or even worry that you could be calling into question a source of my beliefs.
No, just my lowest denominator of arguing when I see faulty logic.
I think we’re still left with an undeniable truth that we’re all souls lost at sea struggling to grasp at anything that floats, and you’ve got not much more evidence to offer the world of an advanced mind control apparatus that dispatches people on mere subliminal influence to accomplish the goals of elite psychopaths, than Lawson ever had to show them cretins and civil service drones are swarming around our communities banging on trash cans and telling neighbors someone is a pedophile. Both have some potential as fact as well as disinfo.
I had an exchange of a few emails with Derrick Robinson last night that had CC’s going to about 30 prominent activists and we were discussing a recent skirmish of another TI activist accusing him of disinfo- I was trying to moderate and make sense of it- yet ironicaly I hope those ~30 people look at my words skeptically as possible disinfo as well.
What I can confirm is the memory of being stalked by several vehicles in the more traditional sense. The facts go downhill from there, and with my own shady history I can’t doubt anyones story solely for not all adding up nice and tidy.
John in San Diego
The main point I’m making is not that my explanation is “more correct” than Lawson’s, but that Lawson’s credibility hinges on his alleged status as an experienced researcher who got picked up by a publisher. These credentials turn out to be highly exaggerated. Virtually all of the exaggerations come from people other than Lawson, so he can simply say “I never said that; show me where I put that in writing.” Deniability is something that we associate with the sources of black propaganda, not with whistleblowers.
702 comments
I think we can say it’s good advice to trust no one in all this, and view every would be messiah who comes along with skepticism. Including me.
John in San Diego
To me that seems pretty wishy-washy. “We have no way of knowing whether something is true, or false, so we have to consider everything”.
Nothing about Lawson’s manual makes sense except some of the reported tactics, and in fact it’s remarkably short on ANY details (except some of the tactics). Everything else does not compute; how are all these alleged conspirators kept silent, and why isn’t the government interested, for example?
Some TI’s have cut Lawson’s explanations a lot of slack because he’s “in print” (totally misleading, the publisher doesn’t even exist) and he’s an “authority” (totally misleading, why is he a P.I. INTERN in Florida?). Stop cutting him slack and the story unravels. “Cause Stalking” is on par with the stories of a few TI’s out there who blame everything on near-ubiquitous “stalker nets” or on vast conspiracies of Freemasons for example, and it’s only been given credence by TI’s who are desperate for any kind of validation in print.
702 comments
Hi Jeremy,
I admire your research and tenacity. You moderate and post articles in legion. But it seems a corner has been turned regarding “The Big Show” theory. Since the beginning of “Are You Targeted”, you have issued many warnings regarding the possibility that each one of us is being given disinformation of one form or another. Is it possible that ‘The Powers That Be’ are giving you disinformation regarding remotely inducing emotions of innocent bystanders who are not perps?
Several benefits would be derived from ‘The Powers That Be’ making one of the leaders of the movement believe ‘The Big Show Theory’.
1. It lets huge numbers of traitors somewhat off the hook, because TIs were led to believe they were innocent bystanders turned into sh*theads through remote control.
2. The Big Show Theory causes non-chipped or non-taggant TI’s to believe that they’re under 24/7 surveillance through Psychotronics. What if they’re actually able to escape the harassment through utilizing spontaneous, unrecorded scheduling, and because they were mislead, they have no idea how free they really are.
3. The Big Show Theory would also cause non-chipped or non-taggant TI’s to believe that the brains of themselves, and the perps, can be accessed while in motion. In other words, I haven’t yet seen statistics as to the ability of Psychotronics when used against an unchipped/untagged TIs. What are the measurements, for instance, when a human is shielded by the sheet metal of an automobile in motion? How about Psychotronic ability when a non-taggant/non-chipped person is walking swiftly?
My experience when I received DEW harassment, is that I was in bed, in a stationary position.
4. People keep saying they haven’t heard of documentation regarding group harassment of this sort until the year 2000. Sorry, but Ted Gunderson, Neil Brick and others have, since the 1980s, documented the involvement of cults in this sort of terror. If you read the story of Captain William Morgan’s stalking in 1886, by masons (one masonic perpetrator gave a deathbed confession). From what Ted Gunderson has said, ‘cults’ point toward an inner circle of multi-generational satanic (cult=inner circle freemasonic) families. If you don’t believe me please visit Neil Brick’s (a survivor of Ritual Satanic Abuse [SRA]) site. Neil Brick comes from a multi-generational Freemasonic family and has complained of SRA on his own behalf, and on behalf of Mormon and other secretive groups since 1995. Brick’s website became incredibly relevant to me after reading about the Daycare Scandals of the late 1980’s in L.A, and subsequently becoming a TI in 1993. The portion of my comments last month regarding the existing evidence regarding cult activity have been completely ignored, but everyone says they want some kind of documented proof of what amounts to cult activity, so please read all you can about the above accounts, and BELIEVE THE CHILDREN.
There has been much documented testimony from the children of McMartin, Presidio Army Base, Boy’s Town Nebraska & Little Rascals Daycare centers. The Presidio Army Base Colonel Michael Aquino, and his wife, Lilith publicly admitted on the Phil Donahue Show that they were practicing satanists. There were McMartin child witnesses that said they only witnessed SRA. Think about it. Among the children who were forced to lead the sacrifices were children who only witnessed the carnage.
Now, I want you to just think about the programming of both groups of children. The children who only witnessed the satanic carnage were programmed as much as the perpetrators. The non-perp children of McMartin had been brought face-to-face with the fact that there is a terrible, hidden power in this world to whom they had better cow-tow. That situation can only foster a subserviant world-view.
5. The perps don’t need, nor want ‘The Big Show’ if they require the display of innate loyalty from true believers who have been programmed since childhood. How much more advantageous to know that your psyops troops are loyal to the core, in case the electricity goes out, and your transmissions are unable to reach them. Perp exercises are also reinforcing and bonding.
6. Former Army Intelligence Officer, Julianne McKinney mentioned in her response to the Army’s “Big Brother’s Recipe for ”Revolution in Military Affairs“ document, that the topics of Satanism and Aliens provide a convenient cover for disguising perps in costumes, who would otherwise be identifiable. Perps in ridiculous costumes also discredit witnesses.
7. The Freemasonic (secret society) connection is knocked by many until you do some reading and find that they comprise the ranks of most of the spook agencies…Why? They don’t call them ‘Secret Societies’ for nothing.
At some point I’m going to have to lay out “how I know what I know”…
But I’ll say this. You know about the capabilities they’ve let you know about. I recall that you said they didn’t start up with the overt synth telepathy until a few months ago, correct me if I’m wrong. Up until that point you were pretty skeptical. So maybe you haven’t had everything demonstrated to you, yet.
I’ve had pretty convincing demonstrations they can track and send while in motion, even while in a bus (which has lots of sheet metal). I haven’t gotten the 24/7 E/H, as far as I can consciously detect. However, there are some who do, and they can’t get away from it anywhere.
As for “letting traitors off the hook”… I’m not saying that at all. I’ve been saying, ever since I hammered out the outlines of what subliminal influences can do, that the influences can only make people do what they would have been willing to do anyway. So if there’s overt hostility (not just NLP payloads or double meanings), that’s the real them, and the M/C is just bringing it out.1 Indeed, I am arguing that participants should be held fully responsible for their actions taken in response to subliminal messages - implied consent - they were instructed to do something and acted on it, it doesn’t matter whether they were conscious of it or not.2
As for stalking/harassment of this sort only starting in 2000, I haven’t claimed that. Group harassment is as old as the hills, have I ever said otherwise? But there’s a “program” of seamless, ubiquitous harassment which seems to involve M/C that I think can only be coming from a very small handful of sources. I think “the program” only started being used on large numbers of people (relatively speaking) fairly recently, even though the capability might have existed back as far as the 80’s, as Stuart Bramhall’s testimony suggests.3
I’ve been dwelling on the Big Show because I see in the conference calls and on the web sites, over and over again, that people are psy-oped into drawing conclusions and then stating those conclusions as fact. I keep hearing remarks along the lines of, “This person said that thing, then I went outside and found cig butts on my sidewalk, then a car drove by, then later I saw two guys talking to each other, and that’s how I know.” The Big Show is a useful mental tool for understanding psy-ops even if you don’t believe in the effectiveness of EMC.
702 comments
Hi Jeremy,
Thank you for responding. In the spirit of research and discussing the chronology of my awakening to the issue of Psychotronics, and also, to respond to your comment:
It was last October (2009), after I had found answers to many questions about my situation regarding OS on the internet, that I first experienced DEW activity. The neighbors (hubby mil) across the alley were fairly new. The desk in my office on the 2nd floor caused my body to be placed in profile position, right in front of the window that faces 2 windows and a balcony on their house. I started to feel some heat sensations, leading to muscle fatigue on my neck. While trying to find an explanation, I read about microwave harassment, it seemed to fill the bill. I purchased metal screens for those windows and have moved my desk so that I’m not in line with any windows. BTW, my place is made of brick built in 1912, in case your interested for shielding information.
That really p*ssed me off, so I kept up the internet research into the OS & now DEW topics, motivated by the fact that I’d been (mainly) gang-stalked since 1993. Very shortly, after screening the windows in my office, I was in bed and had a dream where a large rectangular area on the right side of my head (the side facing upward) was grayed-out, like a black & white TV complete with visual and auditory static. When the right side of my head started to get warm, I awakened to find that, upon touch, that exact spot on the right side of my head was actually warm. Now who lives on the bedroom side of my 2nd floor place, a very-very new family, whose breadwinner is an electrician. Additionally, this family has obvious masonic connections, which I won’t go into here. More additionally, the former owner and his wife are real estate agents, whose husband flaunted his genuine shriner’s hat several Halloween’s ago just for my benefit. I was back in Denver in 1993, when I first met this man, when I first walked by his house. No one else was around as he sat on his steps and called me a witch!
Finally, Jeremy (Sorry to drag you through all this history!), I successfully started collecting DEW evidence with a recorder, because while in bed trying to get to sleep, I was experiencing what seemed to be a COMBINATION of psychotronics, whose measurements of my EEG seemed to recognize the moment I dropped off to sleep (Alpha). That seemed to trigger the other half of the DEW, which was to smack my radiator with a loud ding that would wake me up. Now, I should remind you that I grew up in this house since 1964, and NEVER heard radiator noise. Also, the type of radiator that I have does not bang and make noise.
I managed to make several nights worth of recordings, similar to a well known Canadian TI, and guess what? It stopped.
Oh, one last thing, I did feel DEW outside of my house only once. I was in my car waiting at the traffic light and seemed to catch it through the driver’s side window. So who’s house had direct windows and doors facing my car? The perps across the alley.
Well made points Cathy. I’ve always thought that it would be in their best interest to slowly bring in more people to the program, to bring about total control of the masses, not just temporarily “mind tapping” assorted people. Wouldn’t it be easier to ‘mind tap’ someone, influence their thinking, and then have them brought into the program? Instead of innocent people temporarily being ‘hijacked’ and made to say/do things to harass targets.
Of course, I haven’t experienced much high-tech harassment, possibly very little, although online perps have hinted at RNM being used on me, and there have been some odd coincidences- like them mentioning something strange from my dream the night before.
Hi Randy,
Thanks for responding. Sorry to hear about your Remote Neural Monitoring (RNM). Check my response to Jeremy, and you’ll see the extent of my known RNM.
I currently sleep with a copper mesh ‘scrubs’ cap placed over a fleece ski cap (so my hair doesn’t break from the copper mesh). The copper mesh was an idea from, I believe, Julianne McKinney, who suggested stuffing copper mesh pot scrubbers in a plastic bag, to wear over your head. I unroll the scrubbers, so they end up being lengths of double-sided mesh (kind of like tube socks). I sewed the long sides together to create a hat in the shape of a medical ‘scrubs’ cap. I should send a picture to Jeremy, so he can post it for a good laugh. (But first I’d better ask him if I can borrow the styrofoam wig stand he used for the equally fashionable metal disk hat!) LOL!
My copper hat seems to have worked…Or, are the perps laughing their bone-heads off because I put this nutty copper hat on every night before I go to sleep? *<8-)
To the perps I say, "Keep 'a laughin' and underestimating TI's, cuz your time is gonna come!"
1. you seem to place great importance on the fact that Larson’s publisher is obscure and questionable. yet we know the “powers that be”, especially in your own theories, control the media and this covers printed book publishers too. using it as a talking point is nonsensical, would you expect the elite to allow such a book to be printed, and see it promoted by reviews in the NY Times to the end of the aisle at Barnes and Noble?
He’s from a questionable publisher, you have a blog. Is it really that different?
2. “Everything else does not compute; how are all these alleged conspirators kept silent”
How are the architects, technicians, and steering groups of your countertheory kept quiet? It can’t be just a handful of guys in a vault deep in a Colorado mountain or in a basement of a Wahington building. They need people to build and maintain a system, people in communities to select targets, monitor them, etc.
3. “and he’s an “authority” (totally misleading, why is he a P.I. INTERN in Florida?).”
I’ve not looked into your past or credentials, instead watching what you do, not who you are. Should I go poking around into your backround and credentials if it’s so important?
4. ““Cause Stalking” is on par with the stories of a few TI’s out there who blame everything on near-ubiquitous “stalker nets” or on vast conspiracies of Freemasons”
Your counter theory is on a par with people claiming satellites or an unknown technology half a world away run by unknown people control their lives, make them do things they don’t want to, etc.- oh wait that IS your theory!
Again I’m not here to shoot you down or prop up “cause stalking”. I love to argue, to a fault. I’m saying if you stand back and look at the situation, much of your points of contention against that book and its author can be applied to yourself as well.
You know why that book may have more relevance than you are allowing it, is that before 9/11 the groups he describes threatened the US Gov’t. 9/11 would make it easy to turn their efforts toward allying with the gov’t, against muslims- at least on the surface, with patriotic intents to “keep us safe”.
Lawson is being touted as magically somehow more credible than any blog author because he’s “in print” and because of his credentials. He’s prominently featured on Eleanor White’s web sites, for example. His credentials and the alleged “published” status of his book are at the core of his story. If it weren’t for those two factors he’d be just another guy with a blog.
People are clinging to his explanations because they’re in print, and he supposedly has inside knowledge based on his credentials.
And by the way, I’m not saying satellites are responsible. The most I’ve said is that they offer the best vantage point for mass surveillance.1 But really, the jury is still out on the surveillance/EMC infrastructure.
I’m not saying my theories are any more valid than any other TI’s theories. This isn’t about me. This is about Lawson’s claims, and how they are being used to mislead targets. Lawson says over and over again in that manual that the government isn’t involved in any way.
702 comments
Just look at how Lawson promotes his book. Did you pay attention to this point in my analysis of his credentials? His book refers to his credentials in the third person, letting you believe a third party has verified them.
It’s all very misleading… no other targeting-related book does this. Not a single one tries to lead targets to believe that a third party has reviewed the claims and verified them prior to publication. Hall is perhaps the runner-up in attempts to appeal to authority (mentioning that he’s a doctor, and name-dropping physicists in his book) but he doesn’t try to get you to believe he’s someone other than who he is, or that his book is anything other than self-published.1
Review the above again. No other targeting-related book does what Lawson’s book does. In fact, I have never heard of any “exposé” doing what Lawson’s book does.
702 comments
What’s difference between stalking by proxy and cause stalking?
What’s difference between stalking by proxy and cause stalking?
In a sense, they’re both the same - a small number of ringleaders gets a large number of people to harass the target, and the ringleaders are just as guilty no matter which term you’re talking about.
However, “cause stalking” implies everyone involved knows they’re participating, that they have ill will towards the target. The high tech stalking by proxy I describe suggests that most people who participate don’t know. This is a very important difference which helps to illustrate how misleading “cause stalking”, and certain web sites about this phenomenon which greet you with pictures of people glaring at you, are. They urge the target to treat everything exactly as it seems - if it seems like people are hostile, then obviously they ARE hostile.
702 comments
Jeremy,
I agree with you about Lawson and his “little book”, which I made the mistake of buying last year,$27.00 + S&H costs..(What a rip-off)
Even Eleanor White has problems with it:
“The author’s CONCLUSIONS do not match my own observations, nor the observations of the several hundred targets I’ve been in touch with
over the past decade”