• 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.
Some more from my conversation with him that he's given me permission to post. There is some juicy stuff here:

MH, you are being questioned, over on FF.What is it with these posters? They keep saying that they need 'concrete evidence',Can they actually show one single piece of 'concrete' evidence, over any paranormal activity since records began?

What they are asking for, is the impossible.Unless, of course, GLP were to come clean over matters.That is highly unlikely to happen.Firstly, because he has signed the Official Secrets Act. Secondly, because to alter his stance now would leave him open to ridicle. It would label him as a Fraud.He is unlikely to want that, is he?

So what we are left with is circumstantial evidence. And, of course, my own experience of the events. My experience is second to none.Except that I wasn't taking notes at the time. Nor did I keep a diary. Thats about the only thing that GLPs book is useful for.

A timeline over events is indeed useful.

Those posters have absolutely no idea of what I went through.

They speak out of ignorance, of course, and their general responses seem to be the result of accepting the Status Quo, for nearly 40 years now.

That is not my fault.

If I were to relate my experience of being hynotised by John Beloff in 1980, over these matters would that make a difference?

These posters seem to think that everything is a situation of black and white.

Life is more complex than that.

There is nothing much more complex than the events of the Enfield case.

If I were to tell of how that hypnotism only served me for approx 5 years, would that make a difference?

Or how I was re-hypotised, forcibly and this time with the use of drugs and then was labotomized via electric shock treatment?

Do you think that this would make a difference?

I doubt it. They would then want proof of this.
Click to expand...

And then here is a comment he just posted on the Polterwotsit board.

There is no doubt in my mind, that if Maurice Grosse had still been alive then he would have wanted to speak to me. That he would seek to see me and speak to me in person.
He would not have run away, like Guy Playfair has.
Click to expand...

I will only post things he says on here if he provides new information, like he has. There will be no more "I can't tell you". I understand how that might have rubbed people the wrong way.

For those posters accusing me of being SC, all I can say is that our writing styles are visibly different (hint: one of us is American and the other is British), and the moderators have the ability to check our IP addresses.
 
Roland Deschain said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's not about only discrediting Janet, she is just a pawn. It's about discrediting paranormal activity to the public. Why this is done is up for debate, but most believers on this board have long realized how odd it is that paranormal activity is so strictly denied by the scientific and academic communities. Now we are beginning to open up a can of worms showing that this is on purpose.

Roland Deschain said:
Controlled opposition to what? Again what was so important.
Click to expand...

Controlled opposition to what really happened. Namely, genuine poltergeist activity witnessed by numerous people. Playfair was a government plant/handler placed there to monitor the situation under the guise of writing a book. In order to discredit the poltergeist activity in the media, he created the circumstances that led to Janet being accused of faking events. If you think the idea of a MI6 agent being present in an event like this is unusual, it isn't. More people work in intelligence or close to intelligence than you can imagine.

As for why Janet would say she faked some things, read SC comments above that I just posted. These people were broken and forced to forget. If you don't believe the government has the ability to do this, just look up MK Ultra.
 
musichunch said:
Some more from my conversation with him that he's given me permission to post. There is some juicy stuff here:



And then here is a comment he just posted on the Polterwotsit board.



I will only post things he says on here if he provides new information, like he has. There will be no more "I can't tell you". I understand how that might have rubbed people the wrong way.

For those posters accusing me of being SC, all I can say is that our writing styles are visibly different (hint: one of us is American and the other is British), and the moderators have the ability to check our IP addresses.
Click to expand...


Not that difficult to hide your IP - people use proxies.

Didn't realize SC had been a Mental Health consumer - it can be a harrowing experience and with that I'm out of this thread.

I'm not saying that to belittle anyone but it does complicate things.
 
Last edited:
Naughty_Felid said:
Not that difficult to hide your IP - people use proxies.

Didn't realize SC had been a Mental Health consumer - it can be a harrowing experience and with that I'm out of this thread.
Click to expand...

If you can think of another way to prove we are two different posters, then tell me and I will do it. Until then, there is nothing else I can do.
 
skinny said:
The supercharged agenda, the proximity in time ... it's enough to convince the casual observer you're the same desperado.
Click to expand...

Like I said, if you can think of another way to prove we're two different people that will suit you, let me know. But I'm afraid that just like some people want "concrete evidence", they won't be satisfied with this either.

For anybody who's really unsure, I suggest you read all of SC's posts on this board or even just this thread and then read mine. I am confident you will realize that not only are we not the same guy, we are nothing alike at all.

Naughty_Felid said:
Didn't realize SC had been a Mental Health consumer - it can be a harrowing experience and with that I'm out of this thread.

I'm not saying that to belittle anyone but it does complicate things.
Click to expand...

Anything to avoid arguing the topic at hand.
 
Last edited:
Is SC male or female*, they sounds like they was one of the kids involved

*Can never tell, even if they do use a male/ female name
 
titchagain said:
Was janet really a terrified little girl? i seem to remember she was just the opposite.NOW she seems a terrified and broken women, but i suppose thats what messing with secret services does to you
Click to expand...

Well said. Perhaps if she'd had a better advocate when she was young, rather than all the exploitative twattery she got, she might have had a better chance.

"Intelligence has had an arm in major publishing for decades"

They didn't do too well with 'Spycatcher' or the Zicon affair did they.
 
oldrover said:
Well said. Perhaps if she'd had a better advocate when she was young, rather than all the exploitative twattery she got, she might have had a better chance.

"Intelligence has had an arm in major publishing for decades"

They didn't do too well with 'Spycatcher' or the Zicon affair did they.
Click to expand...

I'm unfamiliar with British intelligence scandals but here is a terrific rundown on intelligence fronts in publishing, particularly in the USA:

http://mileswmathis.com/ramp.pdf

No need to dismiss what I said just because there was a scandal in the 80's. And a government-funded channel like BBC doing an expose on it's own government sounds suspicious to me from the beginning.
 
Last edited:
Ok, thanks, and apologies for the rather crap grammar in that post
 
Shady said:
Ok, thanks, and apologies for the rather crap grammar in that post
Click to expand...

No worries.

He hasn't yet relayed to me exactly who he was, but from his writing style I believe he is in his 50's or 60's which means he would be in his 20's during Enfield. From his posts in other threads he seems to be from the Enfield area.

(Which by the way is another reason the posters accusing us of being the same person are ridiculous. The age difference in our posts is obvious. I wasn't even born yet during that time.)
 
You can tell the age of the poster by their posts :eek: Ok, how old am I ? :p
 
Shady said:
You can tell the age of the poster by their posts :eek: Ok, how old am I ? :p
Click to expand...

Going through your posts it's clear that you're from somewhere in the UK (forgive me if you're Irish or Scottish or something since I have difficulty telling the difference).

Most of your posts are very short so it's not easy to get a good read on you. I'd say you are on the younger side. If you wrote a couple long posts, it would be much easier to tell.

The point being, I'm not a psychic, but you can tell the difference between a British poster that is 50+ and a younger American poster. I don't think there is anything controversial about that.
 
musichunch said:
Going through your posts it's clear that you're from somewhere in the UK (forgive me if you're Irish or Scottish or something since I have difficulty telling the difference).

Most of your posts are very short so it's not easy to get a good read on you. I'd say you are on the younger side. If you wrote a couple long posts, it would be much easier to tell.

The point being, I'm not a psychic, but you can tell the difference between a British poster that is 50+ and a younger American poster. I don't think there is anything controversial about that.
Click to expand...
I was pulling your leg dear ;)
I get a feeling, weird as it might be, that Stuart is Janet, i know, daft
 
musichunch said:
Playfair was a government plant/handler placed there to monitor the situation under the guise of writing a book. In order to discredit the poltergeist activity in the media, he created the circumstances that led to Janet being accused of faking events.
Click to expand...
This makes no sense when his book said the events were genuine poltergeist activity, and he still appears on TV and in print - to this day - saying it was real!
 
[* takes bait. Again. *]

musichunch said:
Anybody doing anything more productive than sneering and placing ad hominem attacks would be welcome in this thread.
Click to expand...

Response: I don't see any ad hominem attacks. But I do see reasonable scepticism regarding the quality (in a broad sense) of the 'information' being, er...leaked.

musichunch said:
I'd argue certain members of this board have a vendetta again SC, for IMO very suspicious reasons.
Click to expand...

Question: And what could they (the suspicious reasons) possibly be?

musichunch said:
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?
Click to expand...

Question: Of course the events could be part real, part faked. By what logic is this an impossible scenario?

----------------------

General Question: Please clarify (if only through vague, infuriating hints) which person or group of persons a putative Playfairist / anti-Certain PR campaign might benefit - and why the intelligence community would give the fleetingest fuck about the case anyway.

I'm not being aggressive or 'attacking' anyone... these are genuine queries.

Thanking you.

----------------------

Edit: apologies...been away on 'digital detox' and notice that other posters have previously covered the same lines of enquiry, for example Roland Deschain here:

http://forum.forteantimes.com/index.php?threads/the-enfield-poltergeist.28669/page-20#post-1576476
 
Last edited:
Andy_X said:
Oh yeah, but apart from that...? ;)
Click to expand...

er.... Nobody Expects the Secret Service?


Andy_X said:
apologies...been away on 'digital detox' and notice that other posters have previously covered the same lines of enquiry
Click to expand...

I don't think they were answered then.......

Glad the detox is over and once more you are portending in the larch forest! :clap:
 
Lol, yes, the terrifying Fortean Secret Police: our chief weapons are inquisitiveness and politeness *shudder*

Thanks Frides, btw when I say 'digital detox' I don't mean paying some chancers two grand to live in a yurt for a week (although I wouldn't mind doing that)...just avoiding all media, including News. It's very relaxing :cool:
 
I wasn't going to post further for the same reasons as naughty felid but I think I'll sign off with a few points I hope are taken in by our Enfield resident and not dismissed out of hand by him.

musichunch said:
It's not about only discrediting Janet, she is just a pawn. It's about discrediting paranormal activity to the public. Why this is done is up for debate, but most believers on this board have long realized how odd it is that paranormal activity is so strictly denied by the scientific and academic communities. Now we are beginning to open up a can of worms showing that this is on purpose.
Click to expand...
I think 'scientists' tend to cover specific areas of expertise. Would a metallurgist have much clout confirming/denying a poltergeist? I guess you mean people working in fields related to the human experience. Yes their default position is likely to be one of scepticism as all experimental data to date is at best inconclusive regarding anything paranormal.
I'm going to suggest that the vast majority of people working in scientific fields have little or no interest in this area and are unlikely to be asked to comment anyway. Are you suggesting a worldwide blanket gagging all acedemia? Isn't that unlikely?

musichunch said:
Controlled opposition to what really happened. Namely, genuine poltergeist activity witnessed by numerous people. Playfair was a government plant/handler placed there to monitor the situation under the guise of writing a book. In order to discredit the poltergeist activity in the media, he created the circumstances that led to Janet being accused of faking events. If you think the idea of a MI6 agent being present in an event like this is unusual, it isn't. More people work in intelligence or close to intelligence than you can imagine.

As for why Janet would say she faked some things, read SC comments above that I just posted. These people were broken and forced to forget. If you don't believe the government has the ability to do this, just look up MK Ultra.
Click to expand...
Well I'm not sure why MI6 specifically gets name checked. Is this poltergeist activity a national security risk ala Helen Duncan? Was this entity spilling the beans on something classified? Surely MI6 is military in nature. Don't you mean MI5 or police? Just how much school did the poor children miss when subject to this alleged programming. Did no one notice?
Also Playfair clearly didn't do much of a job in discrediting the activity as we seem to be discussing it here. In fact quite the opposite as he published on the subject.

These are rhetorical questions BTW. No answers required.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top