Fornits

General Interest => Feed Your Head => Topic started by: ajax13 on December 10, 2011, 02:50:47 PM

Title: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: ajax13 on December 10, 2011, 02:50:47 PM
http://www.documentary-film.net/search/ ... p?&ref=150 (http://www.documentary-film.net/search/watch.php?&ref=150)

I was quite astounded by the interviewee's claims at around 30 min.  I have never heard the statements about a Mauser rifle being found in the Schoolbook Depository.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: ajax13 on December 10, 2011, 04:20:55 PM
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/evidence-of-revision/ (http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/evidence-of-revision/)

This is a much better site.  No time limit, and the whole doc is available at once.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Anonymous on December 11, 2011, 10:28:09 AM
.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Xelebes on December 11, 2011, 01:01:39 PM
The experiments may have stopped in the mid 60s, but the programs started popping up then.  I think they were done experimenting by then and were just barging ahead with it, if that makes sense.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Anonymous on December 11, 2011, 01:10:35 PM
.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: ajax13 on December 11, 2011, 01:28:18 PM
Quote from: "Xelebes"
The experiments may have stopped in the mid 60s, but the programs started popping up then.  I think they were done experimenting by then and were just barging ahead with it, if that makes sense.

The "programs" had been popping up since the First World War.  The subject population changed.  Soldiers were suitable subjects, as they were already experiencing behavior modification and deference to institutional hierarchy.  Prisoners were great too, for the same reasons.  Adolescents proved to be the ideal subjects as the procedures could be sold as life-saving, society-preserving money-makers.

Could you please present some evidence that the experimenting stopped in the mid-sixties?  Lexington Farm had certainly not ceased experimental procedures by the mid-sixties.  Do you suppose that the professional interrogators at Camp X-Ray, Abu Grahib and every black site from Poland to Turkmenistan pulled out some mouldy Kubark manual, printed up in 1963 for use in South-east Asia?
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Anonymous on December 11, 2011, 02:12:26 PM
.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: ajax13 on December 11, 2011, 02:38:54 PM
I don't know what you mean that the experiments" seem to end in the sixties.  Lexington Farm was operating until 1975, that is a fact not subject to dispute.  There is evidence of CIA experiments continuing into the seventies, and this evidence is from mainstream, reasonably accessible sources.  My grandmother sent me a little plaque when I was small, and it said, "You aren't learning anything when you're talking."  Does that make sense?
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Anonymous on December 11, 2011, 02:52:06 PM
.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: ajax13 on December 11, 2011, 02:57:07 PM
Quote from: "Wayne Kernochan"
Does "Go fuck yourself" make sense? Don't take what I say out of context and get arrogant with me ya little piss ant

In the context of your frustration with your inadequacy, of course it does.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Anonymous on December 11, 2011, 02:59:40 PM
.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Xelebes on December 11, 2011, 03:57:05 PM
Quote from: "ajax13"
Quote from: "Xelebes"
The experiments may have stopped in the mid 60s, but the programs started popping up then.  I think they were done experimenting by then and were just barging ahead with it, if that makes sense.

The "programs" had been popping up since the First World War.  The subject population changed.  Soldiers were suitable subjects, as they were already experiencing behavior modification and deference to institutional hierarchy.  Prisoners were great too, for the same reasons.  Adolescents proved to be the ideal subjects as the procedures could be sold as life-saving, society-preserving money-makers.

Could you please present some evidence that the experimenting stopped in the mid-sixties?  Lexington Farm had certainly not ceased experimental procedures by the mid-sixties.  Do you suppose that the professional interrogators at Camp X-Ray, Abu Grahib and every black site from Poland to Turkmenistan pulled out some mouldy Kubark manual, printed up in 1963 for use in South-east Asia?

If you want to reach very far back, you can find yourself in the 1840s at the start of the Temperance Movement.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Xelebes on December 11, 2011, 04:58:22 PM
Which brings up a good point: what caused the whole temperance movement?  Most articles will say that it was a revulsion against the increasing instances of alcohol abuse in Britain and the Continent and the increasing presence of it in the urbanisation of the countries.  Is it possible to surmise that the whole temperance movement is merely scapegoating and drawing away the attention from the deteorating working conditions - the very same working conditions that led to the European Spring of 1848?
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: ajax13 on December 12, 2011, 12:05:10 AM
If you want to reach very far back, you can find yourself on the savannah of Africa 700 000 years ago.  The temperance movements arose in the Anglo countries generally, not in the European nations that experienced revolts in 1848.  I would be hard-pressed to describe the temperance movements as the equivalent of scientific experiments conducted with the aim of discovering methods of controlling people through psychological manipulation.  Craiglockhart falls within that description; I don't know that the Women's Christian Temperance Movement does.  No hard feelings, Wayne.  I was hoping Xelebes would enlighten us with his evidence that the mind control experiments stopped in the sixties, what with the indisputable fact  that the Seed and Straight were receiving federal funds, and the Seed was determined to be experimental by at least one government investigation.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Xelebes on December 12, 2011, 12:58:51 AM
I have no evidence to offer, quite frankly.  I'm just offering some possible reasonings - I don't have the resources to go find any evidence, although I will be taking auditing courses in the next semester and some.  

To put what I've so far been able to read from here and elsewhere, the programs were not experiments themselves but for the most part fleshed out ideas of the developments made in the 30s-60s.  Other experiments were being conducted, but I don't think they played a material role in the development of the Synanon-styled programs.  It has been more mimickry than trying anything remarkably new since the end of the 60s.

The only other cases where the development of aversives was being tried do not resemble Synanon, but rather relied on hardware, as far as I have seen.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Xelebes on December 12, 2011, 01:06:58 AM
Quote from: "ajax13"
The temperance movements arose in the Anglo countries generally, not in the European nations that experienced revolts in 1848.  

True.  Misread a bit.  It was a portion of the Chartists (1838 and on) who pushed the temperance as a demonstration of responsibility, but the decade prior had people deciding to give up drink.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: ajax13 on December 12, 2011, 01:48:16 PM
Quote from: "Xelebes"
Quote from: "ajax13"
The temperance movements arose in the Anglo countries generally, not in the European nations that experienced revolts in 1848.

True. Misread a bit. It was a portion of the Chartists (1838 and on) who pushed the temperance as a demonstration of responsibility, but the decade prior had people deciding to give up drink.

So the fact that the Seed was experimental and government-funded and government-initiated and opened in 1970 supports your claim that the experiments stopped in the sixties?  And your statement about the Chartists somehow supports your claim that the temperance movement can be equated to government research into behaviour modification?
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Xelebes on December 12, 2011, 03:32:34 PM
See, I don't know how experimental it was.  It had its funding from the government, yes, but can you tell me what the hypothesis was?  What were the controls on the experiment that differentiated it from the previous experiment/programs like Synanon.  See, I'm missing something.  How does a charlatan like Art Baker become privy to the experimental data and funding that is accessible to the military-scientific community?  Art Baker had no prior scientific experience and had no prior military experience.  The only way I can feasibly imagine that he got access to the funding was that he sold to the stringholders of the purse that his program worked, lifting directly the techniques used in Paradise House and mishmashing them a bit to come up with something that would appear experimental, but truly was nothing more than charlatanry - nothing different than what we see with attachment therapy.  And if you sell it well enough to the stringholder, you can get a lot of fuzzy deals that ensure that the operation can work in secrecy.

Dr. Davidson's Elan is a bit different.  Ricci was a charlatan, but we don't know much about Dr. Davidson.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Xelebes on December 12, 2011, 03:35:20 PM
Quote from: "ajax13"
And your statement about the Chartists somehow supports your claim that the temperance movement can be equated to government research into behaviour modification?

The Chartists do offer some insight into the relationship between alcohol and political power.  It's not direct, but you cannot deny the mix of factors that lead to the outright silliness that we face with when dealing with alcohol and substance abuse.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: ajax13 on December 12, 2011, 04:56:55 PM
Quote from: "Xelebes"
See, I don't know how experimental it was.  It had its funding from the government, yes, but can you tell me what the hypothesis was?  What were the controls on the experiment that differentiated it from the previous experiment/programs like Synanon.  See, I'm missing something.  How does a charlatan like Art Baker become privy to the experimental data and funding that is accessible to the military-scientific community?  Art Baker had no prior scientific experience and had no prior military experience.  The only way I can feasibly imagine that he got access to the funding was that he sold to the stringholders of the purse that his program worked, lifting directly the techniques used in Paradise House and mishmashing them a bit to come up with something that would appear experimental, but truly was nothing more than charlatanry - nothing different than what we see with attachment therapy.  And if you sell it well enough to the stringholder, you can get a lot of fuzzy deals that ensure that the operation can work in secrecy.

Dr. Davidson's Elan is a bit different.  Ricci was a charlatan, but we don't know much about Dr. Davidson.

No doubt you are missing something, see, and no doubt you don't know how experimental it was, see.  Your statement that what was done in the Seed is no different than what is seen with Attachment Therapy shows a distinct lack of familiarity with either the Seed or Attachment Therapy, or both.  Buchmanism is not used in attachment therapy at all, yet it is the stated basis of the Seed/Straight/Kids/AARC model.  The techniques of turning peers into masters and fostering a culture of betrayal and alienation are not part of Attachment Therapy.  Nor is rewarding comlpiance with power over other clients.  You have picked the wrong venue to make pronouncements about these phenomena given the little knowledge that you have.  Nobody likes a tourist.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Xelebes on December 12, 2011, 05:16:47 PM
And all that was lifted from Synanon.  Synanon was considered the experiment but it more importantly ran as a program and was allowed to become a profitable enterprise.  The Seed and Straight are profitable enterprises - they didn't need the experiments.  They already had the experiments done for them.  

I never conflated Buchmanism with Attachment therapy.  I said that the Seed and Straight are charlatanry, just like attachment therapy - not that they are attachment therapy.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: ajax13 on December 12, 2011, 06:07:41 PM
Synanon was considered "the experiment" by whom?  As I stated earlier, and you ignored earlier, the Seed was determined to be experimental in a government investigation.  The money made available to Art Barker from the Federal Law Enforcement slush fund and NIDA was intended to fund experimentation.  I find your claim that the experiments "were already done for them" to be baffling.  Modifications to psychological theory appear consistently to this day.  Do you suppose that the people who saw Ewen Cameron's experiments go to shit were satisfied and just packed it in when Psychic Driving failed to produce the intended results?  
The Seed and Straight were the experiments, being conducted on another party's behalf.  Whether or not you feel that the experiments had scientific validity is not really relevant.   The techniques used in the Seed, Straight, Kids, AARC and the other clones were derived from those used in Synanon but were not identical.  There are elements common to Synanon and the Seed line of institutions, and there are also differences.  So "nothing different" means that something is not the same, but is rather "just like" something?
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Xelebes on December 12, 2011, 06:38:47 PM
There is only tenuous evidence that it truly was experimentation.  Senator Ervin stipulated that The Seed prove itself to be experimental and issue the forms.  The Seed didn't do this and so folded.  Now, we could say that it was experimental before it was demanded to be shown to be experimental, but I think that misses the point of the stipulation in the first place.  There are two possible states before that: Art Baker was winging an experiment and gathering some data but not enough data to satisfy the experiment stipulations or Art Baker was winging a private enterprise and gathering no data.  I find it odd that Ervin felt himself compelled to stipulate it.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Xelebes on December 12, 2011, 06:52:44 PM
Also, with regards to differences and shifts.  Things change, especially when you have new influences.  They develop dialects.  Especially when we have these things started up by amateurs and participants, it's going to lead to cut corners and some unexpected shifts.  The Seed is two steps away from Synanon.  AARC is three steps away from The Seed (Straight ? KHK ? AARC.)  There is going to be a substantial difference between each one of them.  That difference does not to automatically suggest that they were experiments.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: ajax13 on December 12, 2011, 08:39:04 PM
Quote from: "Xelebes"
There is only tenuous evidence that it truly was experimentation.  Senator Ervin stipulated that The Seed prove itself to be experimental and issue the forms.  The Seed didn't do this and so folded.  Now, we could say that it was experimental before it was demanded to be shown to be experimental, but I think that misses the point of the stipulation in the first place.  There are two possible states before that: Art Baker was winging an experiment and gathering some data but not enough data to satisfy the experiment stipulations or Art Baker was winging a private enterprise and gathering no data.  I find it odd that Ervin felt himself compelled to stipulate it.

You are very much misinformed, and yet you seem compelled to present yourself as someone with a unique understanding of this phenomenon, or newly discovered information.  There is no evidence the Senator Ervin demanded forms to prove that the Seed was experimental.  Consent forms were demanded because it had been deemed experimental.  The Seed did not fold.  AARC did not come from KHK, it is a renamed Kids program, a completely separate stream from KHK.  As such, it is only two degrees removed from Straight.
Do you suppose that after thirty years of B-mod research, the US intelligence-backed research just stopped at a time when US society was torn by the unrest of the late sixties?  That is rather counterintuitive.  So again, what is this evidence that the Thought Reform research stopped in the mid-sixties?
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Xelebes on December 12, 2011, 08:41:02 PM
Quote from: "ajax13"
Quote from: "Xelebes"
There is only tenuous evidence that it truly was experimentation.  Senator Ervin stipulated that The Seed prove itself to be experimental and issue the forms.  The Seed didn't do this and so folded.  Now, we could say that it was experimental before it was demanded to be shown to be experimental, but I think that misses the point of the stipulation in the first place.  There are two possible states before that: Art Baker was winging an experiment and gathering some data but not enough data to satisfy the experiment stipulations or Art Baker was winging a private enterprise and gathering no data.  I find it odd that Ervin felt himself compelled to stipulate it.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Anonymous on December 12, 2011, 08:56:34 PM
.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Xelebes on December 12, 2011, 09:24:44 PM
Eh, I'm not here to call him any names or to dismiss what he has to bring to the table.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: ajax13 on December 12, 2011, 09:51:26 PM
Claiming, with no evidence to support the idea, and lots to refute it, that US intelligence gave up B-mod experiments in the mid-sixties constitutes "bringing something to the table", but pointing out fundamental inaccuracies in a public statement is hair-splitting?
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Anonymous on December 12, 2011, 09:53:59 PM
.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Anonymous on December 12, 2011, 09:56:48 PM
.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: DannyB II on December 12, 2011, 10:09:17 PM
Well the least you could do Wayne is show her your cunt...lol. Your avatar.
Anyway, let's not dissolve into pettiness. This conversation was going somewhere (for me anyway).
Ajax everyone doesn't have to be exactly where you are at in knowledge to have something to say.
Why can't we share information with diplomacy.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Ursus on December 12, 2011, 10:14:38 PM
Quote from: "Xelebes"
See, I don't know how experimental it was.  It had its funding from the government, yes, but can you tell me what the hypothesis was?  What were the controls on the experiment that differentiated it from the previous experiment/programs like Synanon.  See, I'm missing something.  How does a charlatan like Art Baker become privy to the experimental data and funding that is accessible to the military-scientific community?  Art Baker had no prior scientific experience and had no prior military experience.  The only way I can feasibly imagine that he got access to the funding was that he sold to the stringholders of the purse that his program worked, lifting directly the techniques used in Paradise House and mishmashing them a bit to come up with something that would appear experimental, but truly was nothing more than charlatanry - nothing different than what we see with attachment therapy.  And if you sell it well enough to the stringholder, you can get a lot of fuzzy deals that ensure that the operation can work in secrecy.

Dr. Davidson's Elan is a bit different.  Ricci was a charlatan, but we don't know much about Dr. Davidson.
Ummm... Maybe this is a minor point, but Art Barker *did* serve in World War II. How efficaciously is another story. I seem to remember that he might have gone AWOL at one point, but I may well be remembering the story incorrectly.

If he *did* go AWOL at some point, however, there's the possibility that he may have been "thrown in the brig" for that, and if so, may have been exposed to the form of rehabilitative "group therapy" that the DOD was attempting to install and promulgate via its military prisons in the mid 1940s, namely Guided Group Interaction. (This paragraph here is strictly speculation on my part with regard to Barker's personal history; I cannot stress that enough.)

Nevertheless, whether or not Barker went through the above noted experience, the fact remains that GGI was mentioned as one of the methodologies that Barker used to formulate the magical voodoo that was put into practice at the Seed.

As to how someone like Barker could be given such reins? For that you'll need to look into local political history in Florida in the late 1960s and early 1970s. I'm not from Florida, so there's obviously a lot I don't know, but I rather suspect that a hell of a lot of this had to do with attempts to close down places like Marianna and the man Florida recruited to do that job. That would be Oliver Keller.

Keller's vision was to do away with the large scale prison-like institutions rife with nightmarish physical brutality like Marianna, and install lots of smaller, community-based programs. I imagine there was ample room, perhaps also ample support, for local small scale business opportunities in this arena.

The idea was to do away with the physical coercion, and instead, to resort to the "kinder, gentler" forms of psychological persuasion exemplified by former experiments like GGI originator Lloyd McCorkle's Highfields RTC in New Jersey (1950) and Cottage 6 in metro NYC (shortly after Highfields; PIs escape me at the moment). [Fwiw, note that these two experiments predate Synanon by quite a bit.]
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: DannyB II on December 12, 2011, 10:44:23 PM
Thanks Ursus for bringing the conversation back to intriguing insights.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Ursus on December 12, 2011, 10:48:30 PM
Quote from: "ajax13"
Nobody likes a tourist.
I can really only speak for myself on this, but I tend to believe that, at one point or another, earlier in our personal histories with this industry, ALL of us have been, more or less, "tourists" of a sort in this game...
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Xelebes on December 12, 2011, 11:09:00 PM
Quote from: "Ursus"
Quote from: "Xelebes"
See, I don't know how experimental it was.  It had its funding from the government, yes, but can you tell me what the hypothesis was?  What were the controls on the experiment that differentiated it from the previous experiment/programs like Synanon.  See, I'm missing something.  How does a charlatan like Art Baker become privy to the experimental data and funding that is accessible to the military-scientific community?  Art Baker had no prior scientific experience and had no prior military experience.  The only way I can feasibly imagine that he got access to the funding was that he sold to the stringholders of the purse that his program worked, lifting directly the techniques used in Paradise House and mishmashing them a bit to come up with something that would appear experimental, but truly was nothing more than charlatanry - nothing different than what we see with attachment therapy.  And if you sell it well enough to the stringholder, you can get a lot of fuzzy deals that ensure that the operation can work in secrecy.

Dr. Davidson's Elan is a bit different.  Ricci was a charlatan, but we don't know much about Dr. Davidson.
Ummm... Maybe this is a minor point, but Art Barker *did* serve in World War II. How efficaciously is another story. I seem to remember that he might have gone AWOL at one point, but I may well be remembering the story incorrectly.

Hm, most biographies I've read on here and elsewhere state that he never served in the army, that he bragged about serving in the army but never actually served.  Got a good source?
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Xelebes on December 12, 2011, 11:09:48 PM
By good, I mean better than what I have read only.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Anonymous on December 12, 2011, 11:15:09 PM
.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: ajax13 on December 12, 2011, 11:32:14 PM
Right then, case closed.  B-mod experiments conducted on behalf of US intelligence ended in the mid-sixties.  Neither the Seed, nor Straight were experimental.  Art Barker didn't serve in the US military, and the techniques used in the Seed and it's offspring were no different than Attachment Therapy, but they were not the same.  I feel smarter from having had the opportunity to take in all the information provided by commenters in this thread.  Truly, we are all blessed in having the opportunity to share in this knowledge.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Xelebes on December 12, 2011, 11:33:39 PM
Do you understand what charlatanry is?  Or what being a charlatan means?
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Anonymous on December 12, 2011, 11:47:02 PM
.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: ajax13 on December 12, 2011, 11:56:25 PM
Quote from: "Wayne Kernochan"
All I said is that I read the government said MKUltra ended in the 60s, I didn't say it did. And, I'm more than happy to be taught something, but not the way you did it. It's not your lesson I have a problem with, it's your presentation
No, Xelebes said that experimentation ended in sixties.  He also said that the Seed was not experimental, he said that Senator Ervin demanded proof that the Seed was experimental, that Art Barker did not have a military record, and that AARC came from KHK.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Ursus on December 13, 2011, 12:26:01 AM
Quote from: "Xelebes"
Quote from: "Ursus"
Quote from: "Xelebes"
How does a charlatan like Art Baker become privy to the experimental data and funding that is accessible to the military-scientific community?  Art Baker had no prior scientific experience and had no prior military experience.
Ummm... Maybe this is a minor point, but Art Barker *did* serve in World War II. How efficaciously is another story. I seem to remember that he might have gone AWOL at one point, but I may well be remembering the story incorrectly.
Hm, most biographies I've read on here and elsewhere state that he never served in the army, that he bragged about serving in the army but never actually served.  Got a good source?
Well... here are some excerpts from a newspaper article... It could be the case that he just bragged to the reporter, eh? Some better proof might be an actual copy of his military records (this might be a good job for someone skilled in FOIA requests).

From the article "Art Barker: The Seed's Chief Sows A Mixed Crop of People Reactions (http://http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27775#p338485)" (by Eleanor Randolph; December 16, 1973; St. Petersburg Times):


ART BARKER was born 49 years ago in a rough section of Brooklyn. As Barker tells it, with the flair of a man who has been on stage, his father was an alcoholic and his first vacation from selling razor blades and needles was when he joined the U.S. Army in 1942.

Police reports on Barker from those early years show that when he was 16, he was arrested for burglary and "being a wayward minor." Those charges were dismissed. Two years later he was charged with assault and robbery and those charges also were dismissed as young Art Barker enlisted in the U.S. Army a few days later.

Early in his Army career, Barker went AWOL, but the war had started by then, and Barker was beginning to find something that he could do well. He could fight.

As a tail gunner with the Army Air Corps that later became the U.S. Air Force, Barker received an Air Medal with silver leaf cluster, a Good Conduct Medal, a Purple Heart, and a Presidential Unit Citation.

BARKER LEFT active duty in 1948 and told one reporter later that he took with him more than a box of medals. Like many young men after those war years, he had a drinking problem...[/list][/size]
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Xelebes on December 13, 2011, 01:09:55 AM
Quote from: "ajax13"
Quote from: "Wayne Kernochan"
All I said is that I read the government said MKUltra ended in the 60s, I didn't say it did. And, I'm more than happy to be taught something, but not the way you did it. It's not your lesson I have a problem with, it's your presentation
No, Xelebes said that experimentation ended in sixties.  He also said that the Seed was not experimental, he said that Senator Ervin demanded proof that the Seed was experimental, that Art Barker did not have a military record, and that AARC came from KHK.

If you have sources you can provide, then I would gladly entertain it.  I'm reading what is readily available here and elsewhere I can get information.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: ajax13 on December 13, 2011, 10:22:06 AM
Quote from: "Xelebes"
If you have sources you can provide, then I would gladly entertain it.  I'm reading what is readily available here and elsewhere I can get information.

There is no evidence to support what you said about Sam Ervin demanding proof of the Seed's experimental nature.  Either you misread something, or you made that up.  There is scarce evidence about Barker's military background, yet what evidence there is indicates that he has a military record.  It is an indisputable fact that AARC was established as Kids of the Canadian West.  The documentary posted as the "raison d'etre" of this thread indicates that CIA was still involved in mind control experiments, and Jonestown was an example of this, and yet you assert that this type of experiment ended in the mid-sixties.  If you post assertions with no evidence to back them up, and in spite of evidence that refutes them, I am left wondering what it is that you are trying to do.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: DannyB II on December 13, 2011, 09:32:49 PM
X, I believe there is a bit more Machiavellian here then Charlatanry  ....LOL!!!!
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Xelebes on December 13, 2011, 10:30:36 PM
I'm not saying that folks were not more than willing to not only take the bait but avidly willing to fund the programs.  I just have difficulty reconciling the cynical acts of Art Baker with experimentation.  To me, there was no hypothesis, no control variables, no data collected and no peer review.  

If there was a hypothesis, there would be something considerably more different than a mere shift in dialect.  A hallmark of such would be out right weirdness, instead of just a harsher regimen.

If there were control variables, then it would not be assembled in such a makeshift manner.  Mattresses in an abandoned hangar?  Well, maybe.  But what about the actual programme?

What was the data collected?  How was the data collected?  Was somebody walking around with a clipboard?  Or did Art solely rely on parent-volunteers to do the data collection?

What was the peer review?  Were there psychiatrists who came in and observed and gave their thumbs up?  If so, how often did this happen?  How did they express their thumbs up?
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Anonymous on December 13, 2011, 10:36:25 PM
.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Xelebes on December 13, 2011, 10:37:45 PM
Maybe all he had to show them was that the kids were being kept from escaping.  How frightening would that be?
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Anonymous on December 13, 2011, 10:39:30 PM
.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: none-ya on December 13, 2011, 10:43:31 PM
I escaped (ran away) from the seed. I wonder how long he billed the government for my stay after I was gone.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: DannyB II on December 13, 2011, 11:33:58 PM
When I said that things were a more Machiavellian here I meant it. Barker pulled off the biggest ruse ever. He honestly got the gov't to believe he could help children. I don't believe it was any more complicated then that.
Bare with me as I go off on a tangent. As of 1968-1972 Vietnam military personnel  had more junkies per-capita then most cities I would think. This was right in the faces of most congressmen and senators, shit even Nixon called it a disgrace of sorts. Didn't Nixon have a bill or plan in place to deal with the drug problem home and abroad ("Golden Triangle" which the CIA ran for awhile).  
So money was there to fix the problem for "DRUG ADDICTS". Problem was, "what if you were not a drug addict". I don't think they thought that far ahead, so why not swipe a broad brush across the entire TTI canvas.
Barker wasn't going to complain.
Another thought (tangent). I asked myself countless times why was the military always referred to in these discussions we have and it came to me because it is a microcosm that they can see and study and can also have a illusion of control over. The military refused to acknowledge its drug problem in Vietnam so why not throw money at it when these vets get back stateside. Better yet why not go further and deal with the drug problem stateside too.
In the movie Independence Day you saw Tom Cruise and Willem Dafoe in Mexico at a resort. It was a retreat for vets with a drug and alcohol problem.    
I know that Synanon was already operating with much help from AA from the onset. It is no coincidence that the 12 steps were integrated into so many T/C's. It gave the program a behavioral structure for their residents to work at. I am not saying that the steps are successful or not. I am just pointing out that many found this easier then thinking up their own methods.
Just thinking...
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: ajax13 on December 14, 2011, 11:56:01 PM
Quote from: "Xelebes"
The experiments may have stopped in the mid 60s, but the programs started popping up then.  I think they were done experimenting by then and were just barging ahead with it, if that makes sense.

No.  Page 173 of the PDF, or 169 of the actual report.

http://www.neurosoup.com/mkultra/mkultra_hearings.pdf (http://www.neurosoup.com/mkultra/mkultra_hearings.pdf)
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Xelebes on December 15, 2011, 12:04:44 AM
MKSEARCH "biological, chemical or radioactive material systems and techniques"

Do you know what is meant by that?
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: ajax13 on December 15, 2011, 12:47:37 AM
Quote from: "Xelebes"
MKSEARCH "biological, chemical or radioactive material systems and techniques"

Do you know what is meant by that?

Does it have something to do with "producing predictable human behavioral and/or physiological changes in support of highly sensitive operational requirements.  You know, like say mind control or behavior modification?
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Xelebes on December 15, 2011, 12:55:38 AM
No.  That might mean aversives ala Judge Rotenburg, but it does not mean the normal psychological experiments were being conducted.  It means a shift towards psychiatry and more experimental things (maybe one of the reasons why Scientology is so against psychiatry.)  What we know as behaviour modification, or brainwashing, is no longer being pursued under those criteria.

Also, Kids Helping Kids was an offshoot of Straight, either as a sister program of Kids of Bergen County and the sort, or an offshoot of Kids of _____.  So I kindly ask you to knock it off this fool's crusade.  The programs are hard to keep track of.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: ajax13 on December 15, 2011, 01:02:32 AM
Quote from: "Xelebes"
No.  That might mean aversives ala Judge Rotenburg, but it does not mean the normal psychological experiments were being conducted.  It means a shift towards psychiatry and more experimental things (maybe one of the reasons why Scientology is so against psychiatry.)  What we know as behaviour modification, or brainwashing, is no longer being pursued under those criteria.

Also, Kids Helping Kids was an offshoot of Straight, either as a sister program of Kids of Bergen County and the sort, or an offshoot of Kids of _____.  So I kindly ask you to knock it off this fool's crusade.  The programs are hard to keep track of.

The programs are not hard to keep track of.  Kids of Bergen County/New Jersey/Salt Lake are one stream.  KHK/Pathways is another.  Which normal psychological experiments are you referring to?  MKSearch was "the continuation of the MKUltra program".
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Xelebes on December 15, 2011, 01:05:03 AM
Quote from: "ajax13"
Quote from: "Xelebes"
No.  That might mean aversives ala Judge Rotenburg, but it does not mean the normal psychological experiments were being conducted.  It means a shift towards psychiatry and more experimental things (maybe one of the reasons why Scientology is so against psychiatry.)  What we know as behaviour modification, or brainwashing, is no longer being pursued under those criteria.

Also, Kids Helping Kids was an offshoot of Straight, either as a sister program of Kids of Bergen County and the sort, or an offshoot of Kids of _____.  So I kindly ask you to knock it off this fool's crusade.  The programs are hard to keep track of.

The programs are not hard to keep track of.  Kids of Bergen County/New Jersey/

Um, yes they are.  Not only is there Straight, but there is WWASP, Hyde Schools, CEDU, Synanon, AEG as well as the ones not derived from Synanon like the IFB schools.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: ajax13 on December 15, 2011, 01:09:24 AM
Since I am familiar with the Seed/Straight/Kids stream, I do not find it confusing.  You on the other hand, are not familiar with this subject, and yet you are making statements about the subject, rather than asking questions about it.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Xelebes on December 15, 2011, 01:24:19 AM
Quote from: "ajax13"
Since I am familiar with the Seed/Straight/Kids stream, I do not find it confusing.  You on the other hand, are not familiar with this subject, and yet you are making statements about the subject, rather than asking questions about it.

That's great.  The research I'm trying to do is figure out where the experiments began and when they forked off.  I'm also leading my research into the Canadian Residential and the American Indian schools and how did they factor in the development.  I can say with a couple interviews I've had with the natives, the conditions of the schools was (may have been) not as egregious in the 70s as they were being wound down as they were in the period 1930-1965.

Synanon's experiment - the demonstration of efficacy.  That's all it had to do.  Psychiatrists and psychologists walked in, offered tips and hints, leading Dederich to refine the "Game."  That was the experimentation as far as it went.  That's all it had to do.  The Seed didn't even have that - although I think DuPont did visit and did give his grace, or at least jumped in as a consultant with Straight.  I don't know how much advice was given but from what I can discern of the financial documents, it was a skinflint operation that may have padded the wallets of Baker somewhat, unlike what Sembler, Newton and Vause could do.  This fact might suggest that it was an experiment, but I find it an unsatisfactory hypothesis.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: ajax13 on December 15, 2011, 01:46:29 AM
Quote from: "Xelebes"
Quote from: "ajax13"
Since I am familiar with the Seed/Straight/Kids stream, I do not find it confusing.  You on the other hand, are not familiar with this subject, and yet you are making statements about the subject, rather than asking questions about it.

That's great.  The research I'm trying to do is figure out where the experiments began and when they forked off.  I'm also leading my research into the Canadian Residential and the American Indian schools and how did they factor in the development.  I can say with a couple interviews I've had with the natives, the conditions of the schools was (may have been) not as egregious in the 70s as they were being wound down as they were in the period 1930-1965.

Synanon's experiment - the demonstration of efficacy.  That's all it had to do.  Psychiatrists and psychologists walked in, offered tips and hints, leading Dederich to refine the "Game."  That was the experimentation as far as it went.  That's all it had to do.  The Seed didn't even have that - although I think DuPont did visit and did give his grace, or at least jumped in as a consultant with Straight.  I don't know how much advice was given but from what I can discern of the financial documents, it was a skinflint operation that may have padded the wallets of Baker somewhat, unlike what Sembler, Newton and Vause could do.  This fact might suggest that it was an experiment, but I find it an unsatisfactory hypothesis.

The fact that the Seed was a "skinflint operation" suggests that it was an experiment?  You think DuPont did visit, but you don't know, but you're still going to say that psychiatrists and psychologists who walked into Synanon and offered tips and hints to Chuck Dederich constituted "the experimentation as far as it went"?  The Seed received close to $2 million in the early seventies.  You've had a couple interviews with the natives, so you figure it's accurate for you to say that the conditions of the residential schools "may have been not as egregious in the 70s"?
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: none-ya on December 15, 2011, 01:59:20 AM
Having suvived the seed,and from what I've learned since finding fornits, I believe the abuses were turned up a notch with each new program. Straight was worse than the seed. Kids was worse than straight ect...
And the seed WAS a skinflint outfit. They didn't pay for anything. It was all donated,or paid for by the state. From the rent on the morgan yact building to the peanut butter sandwiches(which my parents made about 500). All pure profit. No overhead.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Xelebes on December 15, 2011, 10:17:28 AM
Quote from: "none-ya"
Having suvived the seed,and from what I've learned since finding fornits, I believe the abuses were turned up a notch with each new program. Straight was worse than the seed. Kids was worse than straight ect...
Yes, but does it follow that because it got worse each iteration, that they were experiments.  Look at WWASP - it is probably the most horrid of them all.  Was that an experiment?
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: none-ya on December 15, 2011, 01:17:24 PM
The seed was nothing but human warehousing. For as long and as cheaply as possible.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: DannyB II on December 15, 2011, 03:12:32 PM
Quote from: "Xelebes"
Quote from: "none-ya"
Having suvived the seed,and from what I've learned since finding fornits, I believe the abuses were turned up a notch with each new program. Straight was worse than the seed. Kids was worse than straight ect...
Yes, but does it follow that because it got worse each iteration, that they were experiments.  Look at WWASP - it is probably the most horrid of them all.  Was that an experiment?

No!! It does not follow that there were any experiments, studies or monitored Doctor of Psychology visits worth a hoot. I don't believe any of these programs were looking to be studied or wanted a team of professionals to do any experiments.
Men like Joe Ricci and Art Barker were selfish ego maniacs who believed they were onto a money making scheme. I really believe it is and was that simple. They honed their craft from the streets and jails experiences.
These men were con artist elite, who could get professionals to do what they wanted. Art and Joe needed what in order to establish their mini empires? A legit partner. Joe got Dr.Davidson as a co-owner, several states to supply kids and throw in Dr. Marvin Schwartz from Illinois to help with the rich kids and well you know the rest. Art Barker figured out how to manipulate the state ad federal agencies for funds.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Xelebes on December 15, 2011, 03:48:05 PM
And go back further, the deepest connection to the military-industry complex is with Dederich.  It might even be worthwhile to ponder whether Dederich's Synanon was an operation divorced from experimentation, and that Dederich used his connections with the MIC in Douglas Aircraft to grease the wheels financially and legally.  There is enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that Dederich was privy to that information due to his work, which I presume included spy planes and combat aircraft, with Douglas Aircraft.  Is there enough evidence to say that Synanon was an experiment or was it merely a byproduct of the experiments?

I think that is another interesting avenue to look at?  What is more frightening?  That the CIA is conducting experiments or that the CIA is not paying attention to the byproducts of its experimentation until it is too late?
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: ajax13 on December 15, 2011, 04:03:26 PM
Quote from: "Xelebes"
And go back further, the deepest connection to the military-industry complex is with Dederich. It might even be worthwhile to ponder whether Dederich's Synanon was an operation divorced from experimentation, and that Dederich used his connections with the MIC in Douglas Aircraft to grease the wheels financially and legally. There is enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that Dederich was privy to that information due to his work, which I presume included spy planes and combat aircraft, with Douglas Aircraft. Is there enough evidence to say that Synanon was an experiment or was it merely a byproduct of the experiments?

I think that is another interesting avenue to look at? What is more frightening? That the CIA is conducting experiments or that the CIA is not paying attention to the byproducts of its experimentation until it is too late?

Privy to what information?  You presume Dederich's work included spyplanes and combat aircraft?  Of what experiments was Synanon a by-product?  Grease what wheels?  Not paying attention to the byproducts of its experimentation until it is too late?  Too late for what?
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Anonymous on December 15, 2011, 04:32:06 PM
.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Xelebes on December 15, 2011, 10:36:28 PM
Oh, I know.  But the heart attacks by ajax are too funny to watch.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Xelebes on December 15, 2011, 10:42:46 PM
I guess I really shouldn't say that as that would be trolling.  But eh, there is too much supposition going on here.  We think we might have proof, but I think it's wise to keep the options open.  The MKUltra experiments have so much mystique around them as though they could actually create Manchurian candidates.  The reality was what they developed was much more crude and inexact - enough to do their actual jobs but not enough to actually get things done.  There is a lot of cruelty done by the CIA, but let's not pretend they are capable of creating a NWO.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Ursus on December 15, 2011, 10:50:48 PM
Quote from: "Wayne Kernochan"
Synanon was a phenomenon. What followed was experiments.
You seem to forget the many many experiments that preceded Synanon. Moreover, there were quite a number of other such enterprises that would be behavioral engineers had their eyes on as well.

Had a rattlesnake not been put in someone's mailbox, chances are, in retrospect, that Synanon would not be half so notorious in people's consciousness.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: none-ya on December 15, 2011, 10:53:47 PM
You guys are debating semantics.Those old programs were not controlled experiment.But they were experimental in as much as they didn't know what the hell they were doing.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Anonymous on December 15, 2011, 10:56:52 PM
.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Xelebes on December 15, 2011, 11:00:19 PM
Quote from: "none-ya"
You guys are debating semantics.Those old programs were not controlled experiment.But they were experimental in as much as they didn't know what the hell they were doing.

*raises a beer*
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Anonymous on December 15, 2011, 11:04:36 PM
.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Xelebes on December 15, 2011, 11:11:42 PM
Quote from: "Wayne Kernochan"
Who were the first with degrees that beat kids with the blessing of the state?  Who in the government made this possible, and how?

Did they pass a law?

Was it legal at all?

If not, how could it be legal now?
There was various laws that passed that allowed for institutionalised children to be beaten and were later revoked.  The strap in Alberta public schools was outlawed in the 80s, to give you an idea.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Xelebes on December 15, 2011, 11:12:05 PM
Quote from: "Wayne Kernochan"
I read somewhere that the governor of California changed a law which made it legal for people who have been through a program to work in TCs. I assume it was just for raps, not beatings. How did that change?

Who changed it?

How can I find out?

Bump.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: none-ya on December 15, 2011, 11:20:47 PM
Anybody ever get beaten in public school? (that's how old I am. The seed did it a little different. They did it behind closed doors,not in front of the group. They would even have hparents come in and smack their kids around in the office.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Xelebes on December 15, 2011, 11:34:21 PM
Quote from: "none-ya"
Anybody ever get beaten in public school? (that's how old I am. The seed did it a little different. They did it behind closed doors,not in front of the group. They would even have hparents come in and smack their kids around in the office.

I only got locked in tiny rooms.  I feel so left out!
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Ursus on December 15, 2011, 11:37:14 PM
Quote from: "none-ya"
Anybody ever get beaten in public school? (that's how old I am. The seed did it a little different. They did it behind closed doors,not in front of the group. They would even have hparents come in and smack their kids around in the office.
I've heard that Joe Gauld conducted a public paddling at Hyde School. This seems to have been mostly for humiliation purposes. I did not witness this, but Joe has bragged about it in the past. From an old Time magazine article, "School of Hard Knocks (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=21249&p=255725#p255725)," emphasis added:

short-tempered Gauld treats them like a drill instructor faced with a platoon of left-footed recruits. He occasionally slaps and routinely humiliates the kidsówith their parents' tacit consentóin a no-holds-barred effort to toughen them up and build their characters. "The rod is only wrong in the wrong hands," Gauld likes to say. When he finds that a student has what he considers a "bad attitude," Gauld may order him to wear a sign saying I ACT LIKE A BABY, or tell him to dig a 6-ft. by 6-ft. trench and then fill it up. He has even conducted a public paddling ceremony at Hyde.[/list][/size]
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Anonymous on December 16, 2011, 08:14:35 AM
.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: DannyB II on December 16, 2011, 10:17:06 AM
Quote from: "none-ya"
You guys are debating semantics.Those old programs were not controlled experiment.But they were experimental in as much as they didn't know what the hell they were doing.

 :cheers:

This is a fact!!!!

We give these programs and their owners way to much credit. If the military was interested in Synanon or any other program it was for their purposes and they would not be sharing their conclusions.
So we speculate, which in and of itself is interesting but lets call it what it is.
Wayne brings up the most interesting question I had heard in months. Who the hell gave Elan permission to have a ring, spankings, haircuts (screaming at another), GM's. Every state and many parents knew.
I can only speak during the 70's on this. Please don't don't let state of Illinois, R.I or New York fool you by their actions. They knew exactly what was going on. Marvin Schwartz (Ill.) played a big part in comforting parents that Elan was a great place during the fiasco in 1975. The powers to be wanted to save their asses.
There is a large population of legislators both state and federal who believe the abuse that goes on in these programs is justified. Much has not changed IMO in 40 years with this sentiment.
Exposer is the only way. The politicians in Maine who approved this abuse need to be named publicly and so on with every state.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: ajax13 on December 16, 2011, 12:31:06 PM
[quote="Xelebes"
I only got locked in tiny rooms.  I feel so left out![/quote]

Your persistence, lack of familiarity with the facts, counterintuitive speculation, and demonstrably incorrect assertions made it seem like you had a disinfo agenda, but it is clear now that you just want someone to pay attention to you.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: Anonymous on December 16, 2011, 12:55:51 PM
.
Title: Re: What Are You Looking At?
Post by: DannyB II on December 16, 2011, 08:43:33 PM
Quote from: "Wayne Kernochan"
Did our parents sign off on the corporal punishment? I can see how they would. It wasn't as frowned upon at the time

They spanked us with a paddle in Catholic school. The priests beat us with belts. It was pretty common to have outsiders do it to your kids then

Experiments or not, I want to know what happened. I think we all deserve that. I may never find the truth but I'm not going to stop looking


Being a State kid from Rhode Island I can only assume that they signed off on it, if by idle complicity at the very least.  My parents knew and they were
for it. They signed me over with no conditions.