Quote:This is entirely correct.

I have spent over two decades investigating the covert operations loosely categorized as MK-ULTRA, but in reality involving dozens, perhaps hundreds, of different operations, both in the USA and the UK.

I have also personally interviewed over forty people who consider themselves to be survivors of such covert operations, either as children or adults.

The phrase "TI" (targeted individual) is exactly as described by Jim as above.

Use of such a phrase by an individual to describe themselves usually suggests that they have read some of the technical or, perhaps, popular literature in this area.

However, beyond that, whether an individual describes themselves as a TI or not, throws little light on the ultimate truth of their situation.

Adrian Mack Wrote:Jan, as I understand it, the term 'TI' is contentious even among the MC survivor community.

Quote:Yes, the phrase is "contentious".

So what? It has nothing particular to do with this case, and is a clear attempt at distracting this thread away from its core issues.

Adrian Mack Wrote:

Quote:It probably had not occurred to Ed Haslam at the time to hypothesize that Judyth might be a target because she poses a threat to big medicine, big pharma, and cancer societies. But after this thread, it would not surprise me at all. I am just the least bit perplexed that you seem to have so much difficulty in sorting out between JUDYTH'S EXPERIENCES and COMMENTS ABOUT JUDYTH'S EXPERIENCES. Maybe that explains what I consider to have been some of the oddities about your posts. Just pay attention to the sources that I cite.

I'm trying to pay attention to the sources you cite but your opinions keep getting in the way.

I'd also be very interested in Haslam's response to your untested hypothesis which you borrowed from the anti-Semite Eustace Mullens, and which you seem determined to attach to a scenario that doesn't need it. Especially after all the years he spent in honest research. Perhaps you'd like to freight Haslam's work with some pet theories Larouche pulled out of his ass too.

I guess I'm just the least bit perplexed that you don't get what I'm saying so here it is again:

You are taking advantage of your role as Judyth's mouthpiece to front for the kind of bullshit that could potentially make her look worse. The facts of her harassment, the coordinated attacks by the McAdams crew, and the indication via Viklund that there is some official sanction for this treatment is all plenty enough.

But you and Jim Pt. 2 can't leave it at that, which indicates either no confidence in her ability to represent herself or a desire to drive opinion in a predetermined direction.

So which is it?

Adrian Mack Wrote:If it has nothing to do with this case, why is Fetzer's expert using this contentious and inaccurate term to describe Baker?

Adrian Mack Wrote:Does Fetzer's expert hope that 'Judyth as TI' will gain traction with readers here?

Adrian Mack Wrote:Do I really have to spell this out?

Quote:Meh - you really specialize in condescension, don't you?

Adrian Mack Wrote:

Quote:Something is wrong with you, Adrina Mack. I consider you a hack, a shill, a troll, a tramp. Take your pick!

Dr. Fetzer, the only weapon you have in trying to expose and educate people about the deep state is truth, and your only advantage in this fight is moral.

But I think your “research” is sloppy and divisive.

You don’t appear to be results-orientated.

You append bad information to good.

You foster associations and theories that are lethal to truth.

You accuse others of using the same logical fallacies that you yourself consistently employ, and you do it arrogantly.

Because I choose to believe that you do this with good intent, it breaks my heart.

Quote:Sorry, Adrian. You are projecting. I have shown that you specialize in ad hominem attacks, popular sentiments, guilt by association, misquotation and the non-distinction of the distinct. Take a look in the mirror. You need some serious help far beyond what this forum is equipped to provide. You are here to sabotage this thread and abuse the privileges of the forum.

Quote:Secondly, our fundamental objective is for DPF to be an arena where research can be seriously discussed, and thoroughly refuted if appropriate, without name-calling or member abuse. It is acceptable to be robust and even dismissive of the arguments of other members, if analysis and evidence are provided. It is acceptable to state that a particular argument serves the agenda of the powerful, again if analysis and evidence are provided. However, since DPF is primarily intended as an arena where serious informed research can be developed and debated, it is not acceptable to describe another member as, for instance, an agent provocateur.