Electronic and Electromagnetic Attack Human Experimentation Awareness Foundation Material Time line Proving It Exists For Everyone Including Ti's and Ti's Families

Essential and Necessary Awareness Building Foundation Material For All Including Ti's and Ti's Families

As presented & full document main page: U.S. Senator John Glenn stated on the floor of the U.S. Senate, "You just think about your family, your own son, your own daughter, or grandchildren who might be, the next time they got to a doctor, the subject of some medical experiment that they are not even told about. I do not think there can be many things more un-American than that."

He continued, stating "I have had research conducted on me because of my past activities before I came to the Senate in the space program and so on, but I knew what was being looked at, what was being tried....... it was informed consent. I think most people feel the same way. If they know what they are getting into and they feel there is a good purpose to it, they are willing to do it. But to do research on people when they don't even know what the research or the medicines or the radiation is that is being tried on them, I think is unconscionable."

--105th Congress, First Session, 1997

In the 1950s and 1960s, there was Project Pandora, which was the beaming and pulsing of the American Embassy in Moscow with microwaves and radio waves to ravage or affect the cognitive abilities of the ambassador and his staff.

Bringing it toward the turn of the new millennium, Lieutenant Colonel Thomas's piece,

As presented & full document main page: "The Mind has No Firewall," clearly began to convey how far these technologies have advanced. Quoting from this great awareness-building piece: "An entirely new arsenal of weapons, based on devices designed to introduce subliminal messages or to alter the body's psychological and data-processing capabilities, might be used to incapacitate individuals. These weapons aim to control or alter the psyche, or to attack the various sensory and data-processing systems of the human organism. In both cases, the goal is to confuse or destroy the signals that normally keep the body in equilibrium.

Lieutenant Colonel Thomas served in the 82nd Airborne Division and was Department Head of Soviet Military-Political Affairs at the U.S. Army's Russian Institute in Garmisch, Germany. When he wrote the piece quoted above, he was an analyst at the Foreign Military Studies Office in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Recently, he has written extensively on the Russian view of information operations and on current Russian military political issues. To demonstrate how it has been addressed internationally, and to corroborate LT. Colonel's point , Major I.Chernisev of the Russian Army stated, "It is completely clear that the state which is first to create such weapons will achieve incomparable superiority." U.S. LT. Colonel Thomas stated that "the human body, much like a computer, contains myriad data processors. They include, but are not limited to, the chemical-electrical activity of the brain, heart, and peripheral nervous system, the signals sent from the cortex region of the brain to other parts of our body, the tiny hair cells in the inner ear that process auditory signals, and the light-sensitive retina and cornea of the eye that process visual activity. We are on the threshold of an era in which these data processors of the human body may be manipulated or debilitated." This piece examines energy-based weapons, psychotronic weapons, and other developments designed to alter the ability of the human body to process stimuli. One consequence of this assessment is that the way we commonly use the term "information warfare" falls short when the individual soldier, not his equipment, becomes the target of attack.

The U.S. Senate conducted hearings, known as the Church Hearings (named after the Chairman of the committee, Frank Church of Idaho), they were a pivotal point in the ongoing effort to make these projects public, due to testimony from witnesses such as the CIA Director. Through great investigative work, the budgetary records surfaced and during the hearings, the Church Committee grilled the CIA Director. It came to light that the Director ordered the destruction of documents due to the severity of what they represented: that human beings, U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens alike, were used for human experimentation, as human guinea pigs. This use of unwitting victims is typified by a program called MKULTRA, which had 149 subprograms.

As presented main page: The following is from a recording of Bill Clinton speaking. He made this statement as the seated, or current President at the time: "Thousands of government-sponsored experiments did take place at hospitals, universities, and military bases around our nation. Some were unethical, not only by today's standards but by the standards of the time in which they were conducted. They fail both the test of our national values and the test of humanity. The United States of America offers a sincere apology to those of our citizens who were subjected to these experiments, to their families, and to their communities." Former President Clinton was very courageous, very strong, to make that statement. Those that are in a position to advise him most likely suggested he back off, wanting to ensure that as little as possible came to light on an ongoing basis. In light of the circumstances, they used any leverage that they could find that would minimize the impact and vulnerabilities information such as that would cause when it comes to light. They want to avoid scrutiny at all costs.

Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who ran for the Presidency of the United States, addressed these technologies, methods, and techniques in some detail after the turn of the millennium in concert with the topic being addressed internationally. It is important to have an understanding that the international community at the highest levels was addressing this issue. Our government was also addressing it, typified by U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich's piece of legislation. Also, keep in mind the importance of how fast these technologies have advanced. In the 1950s and the 1960s, Project Pandora unclassified, and declassified stuff today. Fifty, sixty years before that, we were struggling to get electricity and flushed toilets in everybody's home. Dennis Kucinich's piece of legislation clearly addressed how far these technologies have come, which is logical, although the verbiage that he used is extremely important. This verbiage could get the subject matter loose, or as analogy, off in left field. With it understood, and demonstrated, this verbiage is clearly used at the highest levels of government, referring to: "…the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations." At the appropriate time, you cannot be afraid to use the language that is correct and more than revealing within Dennis Kucinich's piece of legislation. Here is Section 7 definition: "Directing a source of energy (including molecular or atomic energy, subatomic particle beams, electromagnetic radiation, plasma, or extremely low frequency (ELF) or ultra-low frequency (ULF) energy radiation) against that object inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person or the biological life, bodily health, mental health, physical and economic well-being of a person."

Michigan has a law that addresses this issue: Bill 4513, Act 256, which went into effect January 1, 2004. Paragraph K states, "Harmful electronic or electromagnetic device means a device designed to emit or radiate or that as a result of its design emits or radiates an electronic or electromagnetic pulse, current, beam, signal or microwave that is intended to cause harm to others." Section 200H states, "…for an unlawful purpose includes but is not limited to having the intent to do any of the following: frighten, terrorize, intimidate, threaten, harass, injure, or kill any person." There's two pieces of consecutive legislation. The above quotes are from the first piece, which is definitions. The second piece of legislation is penalties. The penalties are clearly stated: "It is life to harm someone from a thyroid to a kidney. Life without parole if the person dies, and 20 years for property damage."

Doctor Jose Delgado in the 1960s and very early 1970s was inserting microchips (also known as "chipping") into humans and animals and published his work, A Psycho-Civilized Society, referencing his decades-worth of research on how the brain worked and the effects of various stimuli on it: what electricity would do, what stimulating the different parts of the brain would garner, and what stimulating different parts of the body would garner.

His experimentation documented results when the same part of the brain was stimulated using a passive woman versus an aggressive woman . The aggressive woman whose brain was stimulated got up and smashed the guitar she was playing at that moment against the wall. The passive woman with the same part of her brain stimulated stated she could do nothing but tear, tear, tear the paper that was in her hand. When a different part of the brain was stimulated, a woman proposed marriage to the therapist.

This is in the 1960s! Electrodes and implants in man and animal. Technology continued to advance.

In the early 1980s, the PC was introduced, with two five-and-a-quarter inch floppy drives, one for the operating system and one for the software program. The next advancement was a hard drive, although they were only 640K when they first came out. I don't need to go through the whole evolution to draw the analogy. Technology has advanced, and continues to do so exponentially.

No longer do we measure in centimeters or millimeters. We measure in nanometers. Four hundred nanometers is one-two-hundredth of a human hair. It used to take a computer the size of a cafeteria to store the same amount of information that now fits on a nanochip. Think of the implications. By keeping it below the awareness threshold of society in general, we citizens become exponentially more vulnerable to those who have the ability to access these technologies, methods, techniques and can use them for their personal benefit, which does not necessarily have to be financial. It can be things such as R&D, research and development, or curiosity.

To demonstrate how these technologies continue to advance, Intel released that it will have brain chip implants for the consumer market by 2020. "The brain implants, Intel stated, "will enable consumers to type without a keyboard or mouse, surf the Web, control the TV without a remote, and make calls simply by using their brainwaves. The consumer will be able to control computers as well as other things in the environment with nothing more than thought." Andrew Chien, when this information was released was, Vice President of Research and Director of Future Technologies Research at Intel Labs stated, "If you told people 20 years ago that they would be carrying computers all the time, they would have said 'I don't want that. I don't need that.' Now you can't get them to stop [carrying devices]."

Missouri State Representative Guest authored a piece of legislation that addressed the issue that is typified by the following example: If an employer came to you and stated they told you last week to go in and get microchipped, saying, "Why don't you do it before lunch and let personnel know when you get back. They'll let me know. Don't let me down, now!" You wouldn't have to worry about it in Missouri, where it's now illegal. State Representative Guest fought for the piece of legislation that made it so. So, when a person who seemingly is powerless in that situation because it's their job, they're under pressure, and has little recourse; they have protection of the law and they can point to it and say to their boss, "That's illegal, you cannot do that."

I think most citizens would support that type of legislation wholeheartedly. That it exists is the point. We're talking about being microchipped. This terminology alone can throw things off into left field, lessening the credibility of the speaker. That's why Senator Glenn's statement is so profound and forward-thinking. He was really looking out for the health and well-being of his constituency and for all citizens. People like those mentioned above are standing for and fighting for legislation that really does have a positive effect on all of us as citizens. Realizing what they're up against, to use the word "courageous" for their efforts would be very accurate.

You begin to realize how courageous State Representative Guest's efforts and fight was. His piece of legislation did pass. To ensure its passage, he does speak on this issue, he took it to the core and fought to get it through. He took a lot of the scope of his original piece of legislation and narrowed it. Ensuring recognition of the problem, or potential problem, it will have benefits far more reaching than most of us realize when we are first gaining an awareness foundation.

There are those elected officials who have addressed it, although they're up against something that is underhanded: a well-coordinated effort to suppress this information. Take the pieces of legislation that I've mentioned. If you were aware of the fact that it exits and is, or has the potential to be abused, by anyone, including government agencies, who have access to this technology, as well, you would be fully supportive of legislation to stop it. This type of awareness would create the impetus, and pressure to get that type of legislation in place. It's not a matter of being partisan. If it falls short, it falls short for no other reason than it doesn't have the public awareness, drive, or impetus necessary to push it through. Ask yourself: If there was nothing to hide, why would representatives like Guest have such a hard fight? The more awareness foundation someone acquires the more one realizes that they aggressively attempt to suppress the information, us their victims, and anything that would put scrutiny on their behavior. It is surreptitious, it's underhanded, and there's dirty tricks. They're not necessarily pulling dirty tricks on the politician. Although, it's their tactics of surreptitiously undermining, or back-dooring anything that would lead to scrutiny on their behavior. Unknowing to those who are supporting those pieces of legislation, or anything that puts light on their behavior. They are underhandedly ensuring a derailing of the scrutiny in a very deliberate and coordinated way.

The statesmen who suppress the way technology is being used are the ones to worry about. When Ambassador William Dodd, who was stationed in Berlin, tried to alert the US State Department in 1933 about the dangers of Hitler, no one listened, and everyone thought he was being an alarmist. We need to listen to those who have the courage to fight the status quo.

The gravity of what these agencies are engaged in is, and why it must be stopped, typified by the Nuremberg Code. It was put in place to assure that experimentation was NEVER done without the consent of the subject. It is a very short document, less than a page in its entirety. Ten short paragraphs. By the time you are done the first paragraph, you will realize how far across the line they know they are.

NUREMBERG CODE
1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject, there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonable to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.

2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.

3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.

4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.

5. No experiment should be conducted where there is a priori [prior] reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.

6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.

8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.

9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.

10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

It seems impossible in today's society that there could be experimentation going on, especially with the current administration's attempts at transparency in government. But it IS happening. It always happens, as long as there are human beings in power who are greedy and want to keep knowledge and the benefits of that knowledge to themselves.

I want to make sure that the public knows how aggressive they are at derailing scrutiny at the public official level, and how expert they are at suppressing information and keeping it below the awareness threshold of society. This is due to the severity of their behavior, due to this severity they short circuit things that are near and dear to us as a society, as well as what we hope are the catches in the system. It is merely a technicality for them. Praying on your lack of awareness is part of their program as a whole. Also, if you don't know what they are doing they are apt and well greased at playing multiple sides of the fence to derail the scrutiny. With their less than one sided view the only view heard, they are stating whatever derails the scrutiny, while playing multiple sides of the fence. As an analogy there is a post and multiple fences come together at that point. They simple jump from one side to the another to minimize their behavior, and shed the scrutiny. To accomplish this on an ongoing basis what they are stating is flying in the face of what they stated a short time earlier or later. You simply have to hold them accountable. They are experts at evading the questions that seek truth. What they don't want is the fragments to come together. They're astute, they're well-greased, they're well-practiced at this. They are attempting to retard or restrict you from information in any way they can. They crash websites, hack websites, steal material, go after authors like me, and literally try to destroy books. The last thing they want is knowledge out there. Hold them accountable.

We understand the political process, and there are two sides of the aisle. We understand everything doesn't pass, and at times there is a more supported or a larger piece of legislation. Things are traded off. Things are stripped for the passage of a piece of legislation. However, those who are acting unscrupulously seek leverage points, as in this real world example, using Dennis Kucinich's piece of legislation that did not pass. When someone brings up Dennis Kucinich's piece of legislation, they state that it didn't pass, and use this fact to negate the whole topic. They use the fact that it didn't pass to convince the public that Mr. Kuchinich must be crazy and paranoid.

Public officials often are reluctant to stand for things that certainly would be in our benefit as citizens, because of how seemingly out on the limb they would be. Although, as soon as there's public scrutiny, or awareness, it has an overriding effect on these tactics, if not an opposite effect ensuring attention and protections are accorded. They are acutely aware of this, hence their aggressiveness in suppressing the information, and us the victims. If we stand behind them, politicians would be more than willing to stand for these things because they wouldn't feel so far out on the limb anymore.

As I stated, a lot can be gleaned by how the international community addresses it, although what's important at this juncture is how we address it. The terminology that is used at these levels anchored it that much more and there is that much more stability in that part of the awareness foundation that you have, or that you are building. How the President of the United States, the United States Senate and the United States Congress addressed it, and how their counterparts in the world addressed it.

Now, the "who" we are talking about is as crucial, and concerning as the "what." The "what" is the unwitting experimentation using advanced technologies. The "who" are varied—it's not necessarily in the hands of our government's departments, agencies, or branches. It could be in the hands of anybody who is involved in or had knowledge of these technologies. Private companies and interests play their roles. The lack of public awareness and public pressure enables their actions, and they know it.

Think about the following analogies: There are two ways that I use General Patton as an example. The first way is that now, we are free to read about Patton's tanks and the armament of those tanks and the speed. At the time, that information was top secret. The second way I use Patton as an example is how those doing the derailing used the following type of situation to derail information gathering and suppress information. They argued General Patton was only a three-star or four-star, depending on what point in the war it was, and therefore not knowledgable on the information. This is a tactic to steer information away from the public. When it comes to moving of armies or armament, he was the authority or expert. At some point, you could argue that he was more informed or more knowledgeable on that subject matter than Ike, Marshall, and the President of the United States. Here's how it works: the highest two ranks are colonel and General. There are two Colonels, Lieutenant Colonel and Colonel, and there are five Generals: One, two, three, four, and five-star Generals. I use these ranks, colonel and general, so they cannot undermine the information by stating "it's only "that rank". They are apt to say, with Patton, arguably a three-star General, why not use someone with a higher rank? Most people are familiar with Patton's name, although it is when you are not familiar with a name, or the information in general, that this simplified example will ensure you are able to identify this tactic. This is in their continual attempt to steer you away, retard or restrict you from the information, as well as to misinform preventing you from garnering the necessary foundation that would ultimately shed light, or put scrutiny on that behavior. Their tactics as a whole are simply designed to move the public away from the information. It is worth mentioning that there is a lot of credible information at lower ranks. Many times the person in charge of a base is a one-star general, colonel, or lower rank. When it comes to running the base, he is the authority or expert. The argument could be made he knows more than the Joint Chief of Staff when it comes to running the base. That's his job. What they're continually preying on is your lack of awareness.

The same argument could be made with their tactics in general. They are attempting to find something that will remove the information or leverage it away, ultimately finding whatever leverage points they can to derail the scrutiny. Many times long before we become aware as their victim they will cause or create what they can use if and when we were to find out or bear witness. Ultimately ensuring a deflection or derailing of the scrutiny for their behavior, and what they employ, their technology methods and techniques.

Another extremely important point is their program is designed, if not the underlying theme, to make it seem as if it's out in left field, and the victim or person complaining is daffy. You cannot take what they're engaged in lightly, and we are their potential subjects, the human guinea pigs, the unwitting victim.

Unlike many of us who have become aware, there are those who are unaware and may never become aware. That's what I am trying to change.

It gets above our awareness threshold for one of two primary reasons. They intensified what they employed, which would dictate it would get above our awareness threshold, or we glean too much information for their liking. Either way they are well prepared for that time. How horrifying to find out someone was affecting our lives, although it is twice as horrifying to find out they were inflicting harm and hardship long before that point we found out. When we do become aware they're on us like glue because now it's a canyon of vulnerability for them. What is very important at this juncture is to realize, and hold at forefront of the issue as whole, the gravity of their behavior and what they're engaged in, and there are human beings, us, the unwitting victims, often referred to as "target individuals," who are suffering. Once we become aware, it no longer needs to remain at a level that is below the threshold of awareness. And, the aggressiveness that they exhibit, and the intensity of what they employ exponentially increases.

There are two very important points at this juncture, first how I approach the issue as a whole. This understanding and approach is typified by how I addressed their discrediting machine in the next paragraph. Second, it is important to realize that taxpayers' dollars were at one time involved in developing their program.

It is also important to realize, especially for family members, that it is not only the family member alone who is experiencing the harm and hardship and the tactics. As you begin to become aware you will begin to realize, things that seem peculiar are done intentionally to make it seem peculiar, and are well orchestrated. The following example should be part of an awareness foundation for anybody building an awareness foundation including Ti's, targeted individuals, and their family members. The following is a real life example, although it more than typifies what almost all unwitting victims, or targeted individuals, experience. They break in and steal all a woman's underwear. For men, we could use ties. They only take the favorite underwear or the favorite ties. What is left could be typified by the sleeve on the back of the tie that holds the tail is ripped and the tail will not secure, or it's the one that's out of style, the ones you do not wear. The woman calls the police and tells them someone stole her underwear. So the cop says, "Why don't you take a look around. Make sure nothing else is stolen." She says very adamantly she checked several times and there's nothing else missing. She checked several times. On top of that it's very probable she would have said they only took her favorite underwear. The reason they do this is twofold. First it saps our resources. With a high degree of probability we will be replacing that item or those items. Over time throughout the years, before and after we become aware, it has an exacting toll. They realize this. Siphoning our residual, or left over resources. The second point is it is designed to discredit at the same time. So the cop leaves. It will get to the point where we begin to realize that they knew that item was broken, or they were the favorites. There is the point how would they know that? How did they glean that? Next the woman calls on a second issue, and the second issue is very common amongst targeted individuals. She tells the cop someone moved all her furniture an inch and points that out to him. The cop says, "Why don't you look around and make sure nothing else is stolen." She's very adamant and says she's done that and all they did was move her furniture. Now you're the daffy person. Now if you call you are the daffy lady or daffy man who lives at your address. It's worth mentioning again it's by design. With it in mind, they will tamper with appliances and other belongings, having those items need premature replacing, this type of hardship is also very common. Near all targeted individuals suffer something along the lines of these basic examples.

What you need to realize is that there's a program in place from the moment we are selected as their victims, and you need to approach the issue as a whole. Those who are involved know what it is they're engaging in, although they don't need to know how exacting that toll is, they're doing their part to cause the hardship or harm. TIs, or targeted individuals, are on the short end of the stick because it's new to them, or happening at the moment, and it is by design. With a high degree of probability, the Ti is playing into their hands almost immediately. Amplified by them reacting to something very serious; it's their home.

Let's proceed as though this happens to you. What you need to do is approach it in a different way and not play into their hands, into the well-greased path that they have trenched out. Now, when speaking to a cop when you call to report how you are affected, remember, you're not alone. You know that the tactics are made to make you seem daffy, to make it harder for you to garner those support systems. So many before you have made those mistakes, gone down those well-greased paths playing right into the perpetrator's hands. You have concerns up and above the incident at hand, although we are now addressing the professional or cop who is there for that incident. You want to be the one doing a little bit of leveraging, being astute, keen to what's happening. You have a security concern, with your well-being in mind. You convey that you are in the understanding there's a larger program at hand, and that this is not unheard of for the perpetrators. It's part of the way they discredit their victim. You're supposed to play into that while complaining, with the well-greased path they put in place you become the daffy person. Ultimately you have exponentially less chance of being able to put scrutiny on their behavior. What do you do? They still stole it; you still need to replace it. At that point, you're starting to build an awareness foundation. You have a legitimate concern and are moving in a direction of having your legitimate concern equally legitimately addressed. Now what you have is a security concern. When the police walk away, you have a security concern. Perhaps they saw something they could not put their finger on or, they may see something in the community moving forward, which they wouldn't have made heads or tails of before. Now that you approached it in the right way, it might ensure that it is above their awareness radar and they would catch it. No longer are you the daffy person, you are the person with a security concern.
When you approach it as a whole you're much more able to communicate a legitimate concern, and having that legitimate concern equally legitimately addressed. You are building a continual awareness foundation. Almost all TI's will have experienced this "type" of tampering. If they have not experienced it they'll know somebody who has.

Keeping in mind who originally designed this program. The CIA Director ordered the destruction of documents, as I mentioned earlier, using the Church Hearings and co-Intel pro to substantiate this. They stated they stopped or would not continue, although they never purged it from society. They've studied the material, doctor study, in school, especially the psychiatric manual. They also study what cops learn or how they are trained, most importantly how they respond to certain situations, or a set of situations. Taxpayer dollars were funding this type of behavior or the development of these programs with the understanding it's been damned when it's comes to light. When the Senate got wind or found out there was damning of such behavior.

The whole thing is very meticulously stacked against the unwitting victim, or targeted individual, ensuring outcomes. That is very scary because most people don't have the ability to even contemplate countering something like this. The more you maneuver, the more south it goes, because you're slipping down a slippery slope that they've created and greased. It's not a complaint about underwear when someone starts to have this in their life; at the forefront is that we're being used for human experimentation.

Many Ti's have begun to discredit themselves as they are trying to grapple with the physical effects from being affected by their technologies, methods, and techniques. They are being led down the primrose path of being misdiagnosed in conjunction with what the perpetrators cause or create, attempting to cause the same misdiagnosis.

Long before we become aware, another thing they work on is causing and creating what they can use if and when we're to find out or bear witness, amplifying what I've just stated. It puts the targeted individual behind the eight ball and that's exactly what they want. It is well-orchestrated and they have efficiency at ensuring these outcomes. This makes us exponentially more susceptible to what they employ. The overall objective for them is to make it as difficult as possible, if not near impossible, to counter them as we attempt to put light on their actions, and put scrutiny on their damned behavior.

Two things to keep in mind: they've been through it thousands of times with thousands of victims and they are experts. And, they are astute at controlling the victims' environment in ways that only become apparent when you become aware of the program as a whole. As the pieces of the puzzle come together, it forms a fuller and fuller picture. Not only the severity of their behavior becomes apparent, but also it becomes clear how grossly affected a victim is. It is not just physical, it encompasses affecting the victims' lives, insuring the victim is vulnerable, and has as little recourse as possible. Very little is untampered with in a victim's life.

It is not necessarily in the hands of those who developed it. There's a physical side and how we are affected physically by what they're employing is crucial.

Their overall program is in line with Cointelpro and all those tactics that have been deemed illegal and that were damned. Their overall program is inclusive of not only the discrediting machine and the sapping of resources, but also burning of bridges of support, many times burning of bridges of support long before we know we need to cross those. Another big part of Cointelpro is the infiltrating of support systems, or groups, and running those things amok. Another tactic is the muddying and slandering of their victims, which is under the umbrella of the discrediting machine. That it is instrumental for it not to get back to us as victims should be a tip-off.

As far as I can tell, it ends when we die. When I, as a human organism, expire. They're rationalizing in human life. If we came down with an illness, or if a child came down with an illness, they are not going to state anything. With a high degree of probability, they would be that much more interested, and not for our well-being, to see how other variables and what else they employ affect us. With the understanding as we become aware, some have asked why would they not put a proverbial hole in their victims' backs? The answer is that then we would be of no use to them. It gets into how they view us, the victim, using the term "resources" as a business term, resources is inclusive of man hours. They're not going to let 20, 30 years go by the wayside.

They are acting that unscrupulously, immorally and illegally up to that point. They are that much more reluctant to remotely contemplate losing those types of resources. If you have something that is flopping, and smelling like a fish, then and now you have a fish.

How They Derail The Scrutiny