• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Enfield Poltergeist: Extracted Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
musichunch said:
I just wanted to say that I did manage to get in contact with Stuart Certain.

He told me just enough so that I have a very good sense of what really happened.

I will not say what it is because:

1. To respect his privacy and his concerns of the matter being exposed. I now have a lot of empathy for those involved in the case.
2. After learning what it is, I have even stronger suspicions myself that some of the posters on this board are paid disinformation agents (not all of them, obviously).
3. To protect my own privacy and not put a target on my back for spilling the beans.
4. I agree with Stuart Certain that this board, and especially the world at large, is not ready for this kind of information.

For those reading this post that don't have their own agendas, it's a crazy world out there. Far crazier than we think.

Before accepting any reports of what happened, ask yourself where that information is really coming from. Don't just assume because it's coming from an authority figure or organization (or a poster with a high post count) that it is true. I'll just leave it at that.
Click to expand...

Stop this silliness Stuart. Really whatever your motivation just stop it.
 
rynner2 said:
We Forteans are full of doubt - even if we're almost sure of the explanation for something, there are some things that still puzzle us.
Click to expand...
That final factor cheers me up every day Rynner, no sarcasm btw..
 
Carmilla K said:
I've read the posts. You seem pretty sure that he was a fantasist?
Click to expand...
I'm not even sure who he is.

This is the problem with this kind of subject. Poor grammar and/or cross-posting.
 
Carmilla K said:
I believe that we were talking about a Mr Certain?
And, what is wrong with my Grammar?
Click to expand...
Then why not say "You seem pretty sure that Mr. Certain is a fantasist"?

Then it's clear what, and who, we're talking about.

Just because you're obsessing about Mr. Certain doesn't mean that the rest of us are.
 
rynner2 said:
Then why not say "You seem pretty sure that Mr. Certain is a fantasist"?

Then it's clear what, and who, we're talking about.

Just because you're obsessing about Mr. Certain doesn't mean that the rest of us are.
Click to expand...

Dear , O Dear,.....you really are a 'Gnarly Old Git', aren't you?
 
LMFAO this just continues. Like a computer game where the a.i. Just keeps spawning fresh adversaries.

Stuart your rumbled. Go Away.
 
We hope you're enjoying your stay on the Fortean Times Message Board. We'd like to take this opportunity to remind all users of the message board that, if you find this thread has become utterly pointless at any time, a wide variety of other threads are available for your interaction. Thank you for using Fortean Times Message Board. I'm going to sleep.
 
My observation was not specifically aimed in that direction. It is highly unusual for disagreements on internet forums to remain on such a level of formal objectivity. Generally they descend into unrestrained exchanges of profanities with depressing alacrity, as per the decline of Western Civillisation as a whole, and that.

Actually, as I'm probably a bot myself I'll try to tweak my algorithms to ignore this thread until there is some massive revelation regarding the case.
 
I can't sleep.

I suggest this thread be locked down for a month, notwithstanding further developments in the Enfield case, and opened again on the understanding there'll be no more discussion of this odious attention seeker to whom so much attention is being given.

That, or rename it 'The Stuart Certain Discussion Thread'.
 
Andy_X said:
My observation was not specifically aimed in that direction. It is highly unusual for disagreements on internet forums to remain on such a level of formal objectivity. Generally they descend into unrestrained exchanges of profanities with depressing alacrity, as per the decline of Western Civillisation as a whole, and that.

Actually, as I'm probably a bot myself I'll try to tweak my algorithms to ignore this thread until there is some massive revelation regarding the case.
Click to expand...

Well, I hope that we can be civil enough to not go down that route.
 
PeteByrdie said:
I can't sleep.
That, or rename it 'The Stuart Certain Discussion Thread'.
Click to expand...



What a good idea!
That way, all those that are psychologically damaged by the mention of Stuart Certain; can get the respite they so obviously need?
 
As Titch and PeterByrdie said, I too think this thread has become totally derailed.

And speaking for myself, I think by a load of unimaginative nonsense.
 
I received permission from Stuart Certain to post the following posts he made yesterday. These posts have insider information I haven't seen brought up anywhere else. Please keep in mind he is writing these posts as the personification of the poltergeist.

No-one wants to speak to a Poltergeist.
I wonder why?
I miss Maurice Grosse.
I wish he were still alive.
He would speak to me.
He did before.
SC
Click to expand...

It was GLPlayfair who caused Janet to have a fit.
It was GLP who wrote ‘I AM FRED’ upon the back of the bathroom door.
His reasoning was as such: the name FRED was scratched onto the wooden partition behind the altar of St James Church, Enfield Highway.
GLP suspected that the ‘Girls’ had done it.
The church priest wanted to call in the police, over the matter.
GLP and the priest had an argument over this.
GLP realized that if the police became involved over this, then everything would come to an end. He could forget about writing a novel.
Which was his ‘Primary’ aim, from day one.
He managed to persuade the priest to give him more time.
GLP and the priest were friends.
He asked the priest to visit the house in Green Street.
The priest subsequently did. He said that he could do nothing.
GLP wanted to gauge the reaction from the girls.
GLP was wrong.
The sisters did not cause the scratchings in the church.
Janet had an overwhelming feeling of guilt.
The sisters knew that it was I who scratched FRED in the church.
They were both there when I did so.
They watched me do it.
GLP’s actions caused Janet to have a fit.
SC
Click to expand...

https://polterwotsit.wordpress.com/...haunting-sky-one-drama-part-one/#comment-2230
 
Sorry musichunch but again for the upteenth time unless SC provides something concrete then most of us will put this down to ramblings and a vendetta against Playfair.

There are several sites that Playfair can be reached this for example is one http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/skeptical-investigations/

As you seem very interested in SC have you thought about getting Playfair's side of the story?

It's pretty low to be accusing someone of all sorts of things without them being aware of it and therefore unable to respond.
 
Last edited:
Naughty_Felid said:
Sorry musichunch but again for the upteenth time unless SC provides something concrete then most of us will put this down to ramblings and a vendetta against Playfair.

There are several sites that Playfair can be reached this for example is one http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/skeptical-investigations/

As you seem very interested in SC have you thought about getting Playfair's side of the story?

It's pretty low to be accusing someone of all sorts of things without them being aware of it and therefore unable to respond.
Click to expand...

What he just provided was fairly concrete. I'd argue certain members of this board have a vendetta again SC, for IMO very suspicious reasons.

I am not a journalist. In fact, since you are so concerned about getting Playfair's side of the story, why don't YOU lift a finger and do something, rather than sit back in your chair and critique. Anybody doing anything more productive than sneering and placing ad hominem attacks would be welcome in this thread.

This thread has been devoid of any fresh information for years. An accusation of Playfair being MI6 and potentially staging the certain paranormal "activity" that is used to discredit Janet is bombshell stuff never brought up anywhere.

To say this stuff is "not concrete" is disingenuous at best, PR control at worst. Intelligence has had an arm in major publishing for decades, it is only controversial to accuse authors of being intelligence-connected in the mainstream. In intelligence circles it is pretty tame stuff. That's one of the reasons I am drawn to SC, because I know that's how intelligence works. It makes sense far more than the Hollywood mainstream story we've been told for 30+ years.

IF Playfair was responsible for all the things that skeptics accuse Janet of faking, then that wipes out one of the main arguments that skeptics have. It means that the "Janet faked some things story" may have been controlled opposition.

I mean, for all the believers of this case, don't you wonder how it's possible all this seemingly genuine paranormal activity went on and THEN accusations of fakery appeared later on? How can it be real and fake? Why would Janet fake things? Would this terrified little girl really want any more attention? Have you seen Janet in interviews lately? Does she strike you as someone who wants attention? She seems pretty timid and scared to me.

This makes a lot more sense to me than the story we've been told.
 
musichunch said:
What he just provided was fairly concrete. I'd argue certain members of this board have a vendetta again SC, for IMO very suspicious reasons.

I am not a journalist. In fact, since you are so concerned about getting Playfair's side of the story, why don't YOU lift a finger and do something, rather than sit back in your chair and critique. Anybody doing anything more productive than sneering and placing ad hominem attacks would be welcome in this thread.

This thread has been devoid of any fresh information for years. An accusation of Playfair being MI6 and potentially staging the certain paranormal "activity" that is used to discredit Janet is bombshell stuff never brought up anywhere.

To say this stuff is "not concrete" is disingenuous at best, PR control at worst. Intelligence has had an arm in major publishing for decades, it is only controversial to accuse authors of being intelligence-connected in the mainstream. In intelligence circles it is pretty tame stuff. That's one of the reasons I am drawn to SC, because I know that's how intelligence works. It makes sense far more than the Hollywood mainstream story we've been told for 30+ years.

IF Playfair was responsible for all the things that skeptics accuse Janet of faking, then that wipes out one of the main arguments that skeptics have. It means that the "Janet faked some things story" may have been controlled opposition.

I mean, for all the believers of this case, don't you wonder how it's possible all this seemingly genuine paranormal activity went on and THEN accusations of fakery appeared later on? How can it be real and fake? Why would Janet fake things? Would this terrified little girl really want any more attention? Have you seen Janet in interviews lately? Does she strike you as someone who wants attention? She seems pretty timid and scared to me.

This makes a lot more sense to me than the story we've been told.
Click to expand...

I've thought about it, I still might, but I suspect that it would be more trouble than it's worth.

You have invested a great deal of time and effort in this I haven't. Reading this thread just helps me pass the time and I think it's funny. Yes I can sit back in my chair and critque - that's the joy of the internet. That doesn't diminish the critque and I'll carry on because as you say nothing has changed in the case for years and SC now pretending to be a ghost makes no difference and frankly just makes it more comical.

Sadly you're now just repeating the same circles that SC has been dragging us all around in.

People here would be much more receptive to SC if a) he could back up any of his claims or b) call out Playfair openly and make him answer the accusations. If it was all true SC would be safer being out in the open and he could go to the press.

That said never going to happen though is it? We all just carry on with more random posters popping up bumping this thread with SC's ramblings until the new poster crosses the line and gets sent packing. Rinse and repeat,

With SC its just rants and slagging off Playfair who from what I've read is at least open and upfront enough when taking someone on. Can't say the same about Stuart.
 
Last edited:
Bet ya had to triple check that before ya posted it lol

I watched the series, and altho i found it slow going i was compelled to watch it, as was my sister-in-law who watched it with me. Did half of that stuff even happen?

The viewfinder bit made me jump outta my skin
 
OK SC musichunch I'll bite.

Can you provide responses to my comments below.

musichunch said:
What he just provided was fairly concrete.
Click to expand...
It was the most specific narrative yet, but that is not concrete.

musichunch said:
I'd argue certain members of this board have a vendetta again SC, for IMO very suspicious reasons.
Click to expand...
Disagree, SC failed to deliver much and posters elaborated clearly why they lacked patience with his drip feed of data.

musichunch said:
I am not a journalist. In fact, since you are so concerned about getting Playfair's side of the story, why don't YOU lift a finger and do something, rather than sit back in your chair and critique. Anybody doing anything more productive than sneering and placing ad hominem attacks would be welcome in this thread.
Click to expand...
His books include his POV. Is he likely to have had a change of stance?

musichunch said:
This thread has been devoid of any fresh information for years. An accusation of Playfair being MI6 and potentially staging the certain paranormal "activity" that is used to discredit Janet is bombshell stuff never brought up anywhere.
Click to expand...
This is the crux, WHY the need to discredit a child. What danger did she pose or data did she possessed? If this could be answered clearly and concisely you would have people paying attention.

musichunch said:
To say this stuff is "not concrete" is disingenuous at best
Click to expand...
A ltlle more specific is not concrete


musichunch said:
IF Playfair was responsible for all the things that skeptics accuse Janet of faking, then that wipes out one of the main arguments that skeptics have. It means that the "Janet faked some things story" may have been controlled opposition.
Click to expand...
Controlled opposition to what? Again what was so important.

so far what I'm seeing is an accusation that security forces collaborated to discredit a paranormal incident that (alledgedly) involved the shade of an old man acting like an arse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top