The Enfield Poltergeist: Extracted Posts

[Heckler]

From what I've heard, the Warrens were more interested in pushing their hardline Christian message than investigating cases scientifically, which makes sense when you see the first Conjuring film, which is well nigh fire and brimstone fundamentalist in its outlook (though I think they were Catholic).

This^

Their books are very hard reading for anyone who doesn't buy into their world view of all pervasive and very real evil spirits, hovering around waiting to possess anyone who dares to falter on a very strict Catholic path. Some of their case files show people clearly in the throes of mental illness being told not only that they are possessed but that their condition was a result of their lack of faith or dabbling in the 'occult', a term they use to cover almost anything from Dungeons and Dragons to tarot cards.

To be fair, the film shows if anything, a more mild version of them than comes over in their books. There is never an attempt to investigate, never seems to be an attempt to explain or even seek explanation, simply everything is demons.

I guess when your worldview is a hammer, you're only going to see (demonic) nails.

 

[Rerenny]

This^

Their books are very hard reading for anyone who doesn't buy into their world view of all pervasive and very real evil spirits, hovering around waiting to possess anyone who dares to falter on a very strict Catholic path. Some of their case files show people clearly in the throes of mental illness being told not only that they are possessed but that their condition was a result of their lack of faith or dabbling in the 'occult', a term they use to cover almost anything from Dungeons and Dragons to tarot cards.

To be fair, the film shows if anything, a more mild version of them than comes over in their books. There is never an attempt to investigate, never seems to be an attempt to explain or even seek explanation, simply everything is demons.

I guess when your worldview is a hammer, you're only going to see (demonic) nails.

initially I thought the Warren's were sceptic investigators, sort of like people from the SPR. I was truly surprised and disturbed when I found that they were essentially fundamentalist Catholics. I'm High Church Church of England and although I have issues with the Catholic Church, I'm not opposed to it. But if you allow your religion to so cloud and obfuscate what is a research area, you're preventing any real research to happen. Strange things happen, I think it's important to find out what those strange things really are, research in these areas could, potentially, gain extra funding to the mental health world. To blame everything on demons is completely useless (and, so far as I'm aware, not what the Vatican generally proposes) and is damaging for people in the real world who would probably benefit from mental health intervention.

 

[GNC]

To be fair, the film shows if anything, a more mild version of them than comes over in their books. There is never an attempt to investigate, never seems to be an attempt to explain or even seek explanation, simply everything is demons.

If The Conjuring is the toned down version, the books must be real foaming at the mouth nutzoid. But it's OK for them to be, because they have God on their side, I suppose.

 

[musichunch]

I just joined this forum mainly because I am very intrigued by this Stuart Certain character that just got banned. My gut was telling me he was for real.

So I started doing Google research on "Stuart Certain". It seems that was one of the names Janet gave to her poltergeists. Searching around I found a "Simon" who claims that "Stuart Certain" is his father who was involved with Enfield. The style of writing matches including the common use of initials to represent names you see all over his posts on this message board.

I found this comment on a blog post from Simon:

Becky, As far as I’m concerned; It’s fine for you to go ahead and reproduce the Graham Norris images. Actually, he (Graham), had no right to publish those images, without the express permission of my father; Stuart Certain: The ENFIELD POLTERGEIST.The fact that he (G.N) did so, was a long-standing irritation to my father. After all; Dad was the focus of attention. I, myself; think of it as a breach of confidence.
I’m considering legal action.
Meantime, I wouldn’t mind seeing those images of my father, in action, again
You have to admit; he was a class act.
SC

Followed by another post saying "C.J, even"

This was in response to a part of this lady's blog post that said

Enfield produced a crop of iconic images, especially those by Graham Morris. I’m not reproducing them here. You have probably already seen them, and I don’t own the copyrights, and respect the owner’s IP, so sorry.

So it looks like Simon/Stuart Certain is the son of somebody involved in Enfield that was in a famous photograph taken by Graham Norris.

A Google search brings up a few possible choices. Maurice Grosse (who I doubt it is seeing as Stuart Certain mentioned elsewhere he didn't have a connection to SPR) and the gentlemen in these photographs. I suspect it's the man in the first photo since he is the focus of attention. I don't see why the 2nd or 3rd photographs would upset somebody over lack of permission.

Can anyone identify the men in these photographs? Let's do some research.

Edit:
Forgot to include the link to the blog post:
https://polterwotsit.wordpress.com/...-the-enfield-haunting-sky-one-drama-part-one/

There are a few other blogs that Simon has posted on with references to his father. If interested try Googling "Stuart Certain" Enfield Poltergeist

 

[Swifty]

I just joined this forum mainly because I am very intrigued by this Stuart Certain character that just got banned. My gut was telling me he was for real.

So I started doing Google research on "Stuart Certain". It seems that was one of the names Janet gave to her poltergeists. Searching around I found a "Simon" who claims that "Stuart Certain" is his father who was involved with Enfield. The style of writing matches including the common use of initials to represent names you see all over his posts on this message board.

I found this comment on a blog post from Simon:



Followed by another post saying "C.J, even"

This was in response to a part of this lady's blog post that said


So it looks like Simon/Stuart Certain is the son of somebody involved in Enfield that was in a famous photograph taken by Graham Norris.

A Google search brings up a few possible choices. Maurice Grosse (who I doubt it is seeing as Stuart Certain mentioned elsewhere he didn't have a connection to SPR) and the gentlemen in these photographs. I suspect it's the man in the first photo since he is the focus of attention. I don't see why the 2nd or 3rd photographs would upset somebody over lack of permission.

Can anyone identify the men in these photographs? Let's do some research.

Edit:
Forgot to include the link to the blog post:
https://polterwotsit.wordpress.com/...-the-enfield-haunting-sky-one-drama-part-one/

There are a few other blogs that Simon has posted on with references to his father. If interested try Googling "Stuart Certain" Enfield Poltergeist

Great research, thanks for sharing that !

 

[Naughty_Felid]

I just joined this forum mainly because I am very intrigued by this Stuart Certain character that just got banned. My gut was telling me he was for real.

So I started doing Google research on "Stuart Certain". It seems that was one of the names Janet gave to her poltergeists. Searching around I found a "Simon" who claims that "Stuart Certain" is his father who was involved with Enfield. The style of writing matches including the common use of initials to represent names you see all over his posts on this message board.

I found this comment on a blog post from Simon:



Followed by another post saying "C.J, even"

This was in response to a part of this lady's blog post that said


So it looks like Simon/Stuart Certain is the son of somebody involved in Enfield that was in a famous photograph taken by Graham Norris.

A Google search brings up a few possible choices. Maurice Grosse (who I doubt it is seeing as Stuart Certain mentioned elsewhere he didn't have a connection to SPR) and the gentlemen in these photographs. I suspect it's the man in the first photo since he is the focus of attention. I don't see why the 2nd or 3rd photographs would upset somebody over lack of permission.

Can anyone identify the men in these photographs? Let's do some research.

Edit:
Forgot to include the link to the blog post:
https://polterwotsit.wordpress.com/...-the-enfield-haunting-sky-one-drama-part-one/

There are a few other blogs that Simon has posted on with references to his father. If interested try Googling "Stuart Certain" Enfield Poltergeist

I googled his name when he first arrived and came up with nothing, strange that.

 

[Graylien]

I'm slightly confused. Is Stuart Certain a witness to the Enfield Poltergeist or is he the poltergeist itself? And is his son Simon now calling himself Stuart Certain on forums?

 

[Naughty_Felid]

There appears to be a couple of ways of contacting indirectly Guy Playfair, I reckon someone should do this. I'm in the middle of several appraisals at work so can't, (that's why I've not posed much recently).

http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/skeptical-investigations/associates-and-advisors/

http://whitecrowbooks.com/us/contact

https://www.linkedin.com/in/guy-playfair-45a82065

 

[David Plankton]

I googled his name when he first arrived and came up with nothing, strange that.

The only link I can find is to this thread. Tried Bing as well - zilch.

 

[Naughty_Felid]

The only link I can find is to this thread. Tried Bing as well - zilch.

the only place Simon exists or Stuart Certain is mentioned is this blog. Note there are a few replies by Simon, that I don't have time to read.

https://polterwotsit.wordpress.com/...-the-enfield-haunting-sky-one-drama-part-one/


The blog's author might also shed some light on the subject.

 

[Heckler]

Simon AKA Stuart Certain posts on the comments on these sites:

https://polterwotsit.wordpress.com/2015/11/03/sex-and-the-poltergeist-part-one/

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/...o-survived-a-car-crash-and-a-coma-morgan.html

Same style, same nonsense. What do we have here then, a serial troll who hangs around Paranormal sites?

 

[rynner2]

Stuart is a common name; certain is a common word. So Search engines find loads of stuff containing those two words.
But the only pairing of those two words seems to be an art exhibit from 2014!
http://www.lglondon.org/index.php/project/2405---12072014/

Make of that what you will!

 

[sherbetbizarre]

I found this comment on a blog post from Simon:

So it looks like Simon/Stuart Certain is the son of somebody involved in Enfield that was in a famous photograph taken by Graham Norris.

The way I'm reading it, is he claims his father IS the poltergeist. Therefore you cannot reproduce any of his handywork without his, or his sons, permission!

Maybe if we didn't ban him, Stuart's big reveal was going to be "I'm the Poltergeist"!

Julie, I see that you like poetry.
Heres one (unfinished) from my father, Stuart Certain: The Enfield Poltergeist

Red sky at night,
Janet's in sight
(circa 1977-78)

Posted by: Simon | December 07, 2015 at 04:54 PM

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/...o-survived-a-car-crash-and-a-coma-morgan.html

Simon
November 11, 2015 at 11:41 pm
Knock, Knock; anyone there?
I, Simon; son of Stuart Certain: The ENFIELD POLTERGEIST, do hereby declare, on this day of 11/11/2015 to be the 1st (first) POLTERGEIST to communicate via E-MAIL.

https://polterwotsit.wordpress.com/2015/11/03/sex-and-the-poltergeist-part-one/

 

[PeteByrdie]

Maybe if we didn't ban him, Stuart's big reveal was going to be "I'm the Poltergeist"!

Followed by a 'Mwuh-ha-ha-haaaa!', then silence.

 

[Graylien]

I believe Mr Certain also promised information about the Holy Grail.

 

[PeteByrdie]

I believe Mr Certain also promised information about the Holy Grail.

If your dad's a poltergeist, why wouldn't you know the location of the Holy Grail? It's probably on his mantlepiece.

 

[Naughty_Felid]

If your dad's a poltergeist, why wouldn't you know the location of the Holy Grail? It's probably on his mantlepiece.

Very good!

 

[rynner2]

The Holy Grail should be on the Round Table in Camelot!

 

[PeteByrdie]

The Holy Grail should be on the Round Table in Camelot!

He probably lives in Camelot. With Lord Lucan and Shergar.

 

[musichunch]

The way I'm reading it, is he claims his father IS the poltergeist. Therefore you cannot reproduce any of his handywork without his, or his sons, permission!

Maybe if we didn't ban him, Stuart's big reveal was going to be "I'm the Poltergeist"!


http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/...o-survived-a-car-crash-and-a-coma-morgan.html


https://polterwotsit.wordpress.com/2015/11/03/sex-and-the-poltergeist-part-one/

He's certainly an interesting character. But I wonder if it's just an odd sense of humor.

Here's a quote from a blog post that mentions Stuart Certain as a name of one of the poltergeists Janet would talk as:

“Just before I died, I went blind, and then I had an haemorrhage and I fell asleep and I died in the chair in the corner downstairs.” Although the cavalcade of other (identical) voices coming out of Janet, numbered at times by the girls between three and sixty, are never gifted origins of their own. Some have names, however, and Dirty Dick, Andrew Gardner and Stuart Certain sound like nothing but the typical childlike naming of imaginary friends.

http://sabotagetimes.com/tv-film/remembering-ghostwatch-90s-paranormal-tv-at-its-best

Very odd name for somebody to choose.

Last night I was watching this documentary about the Enfield Poltergeist and they mentioned that the man in the picture below is the brother of Mrs. Hodgson. His name was (I might be completely butchering this) John Berkem. The part starts at around 57:00 and talks about the phenomena he witnessed.

So if we take Simon/Stuart Certain at his word, he is the son of the brother of the mother of the home. Meaning he is a 1st cousin of the girls. Which would mean he would be privy to insider information nobody else would have. Can anybody look in the Census or Geneology records to find out if John Berkem (spelling?) had a son named Simon?

Earlier in this thread he says this:

I had acquaintanced them upon a couple of occasions, but did not know them 'well.'
Enough to say hello.
I took no notice of the name upon the grave; in fact I'm not even sure if it had a headstone. It was definitely a grave though.

Which contradicts everything I concluded above. Perhaps I chose the wrong photo? Maybe he said it to protect his identity? But across his other posts he does seem to have grown up/lived in the Enfield area:

The actual site where I talked to the girls - they had an Ouija Board set upon a grave - was much closer to the church.

...Approx: August 17th 1977

Then there's a long post he wrote about a ghost experience where he mentions in great detail his locations.

1978, a warm summers afternoon in Enfield Town had left me feeling parched, so, deciding I'd had enough of window shopping, I decided to wait for the bus home.

http://forum.forteantimes.com/index...ten-songs-returning.59411/page-3#post-1560184

Believe it or not but Stuart Certain first got my attention not in this thread, but in the "Who Decides What Science Thinks" thread. He made some very unique and interesting observations about parapsychology. I was intrigued and starting reading his other posts until I eventually stumbled onto this thread.

He seemed very grounded in his other posts and was very consistent about vaguely mentioning Enfield, and talking about his Forces of Enchantment theory. It was certainly interesting. At no point whatsoever did I think this guy was unbalanced through the dozens of posts I read. There were a few points that were odd (talking about Henry VIII) but this is a Fortean board and even I have fringe beliefs like that and assume many others do too. It's tough to defend the Holy Grail/Ark of the Covenent stuff but he's hardly the first person to say they know where it is. Hell the Cayce Foundation has been trying to find the Hall of Records under the Sphinx in Egypt since the 70's.

I hit a bit of a dead end in researching this. He has a Google+ and Youtube page but they are empty. For those that need help searching on Google, make sure to put Stuart Certain in quotation marks so that it searches that exact string. This will filter out lots of random results. Will be back if I find anything else.

Edit:
Googling around the uncle's name was John Burcombe.

 

[Naughty_Felid]

He's certainly an interesting character. But I wonder if it's just an odd sense of humor.

Here's a quote from a blog post that mentions Stuart Certain as a name of one of the poltergeists Janet would talk as:



http://sabotagetimes.com/tv-film/remembering-ghostwatch-90s-paranormal-tv-at-its-best

Very odd name for somebody to choose.

Last night I was watching this documentary about the Enfield Poltergeist and they mentioned that the man in the picture below is the brother of Mrs. Hodgson. His name was (I might be completely butchering this) John Berkem. The part starts at around 57:00 and talks about the phenomena he witnessed.

So if we take Simon/Stuart Certain at his word, he is the son of the brother of the mother of the home. Meaning he is a 1st cousin of the girls. Which would mean he would be privy to insider information nobody else would have. Can anybody look in the Census or Geneology records to find out if John Berkem (spelling?) had a son named Simon?

Earlier in this thread he says this:


Which contradicts everything I concluded above. Perhaps I chose the wrong photo? Maybe he said it to protect his identity? But across his other posts he does seem to have grown up/lived in the Enfield area:



Then there's a long post he wrote about a ghost experience where he mentions in great detail his locations.



http://forum.forteantimes.com/index...ten-songs-returning.59411/page-3#post-1560184

Believe it or not but Stuart Certain first got my attention not in this thread, but in the "Who Decides What Science Thinks" thread. He made some very unique and interesting observations about parapsychology. I was intrigued and starting reading his other posts until I eventually stumbled onto this thread.

He seemed very grounded in his other posts and was very consistent about vaguely mentioning Enfield, and talking about his Forces of Enchantment theory. It was certainly interesting. At no point whatsoever did I think this guy was unbalanced through the dozens of posts I read. There were a few points that were odd (talking about Henry VIII) but this is a Fortean board and even I have fringe beliefs like that and assume many others do too. It's tough to defend the Holy Grail/Ark of the Covenent stuff but he's hardly the first person to say they know where it is. Hell the Cayce Foundation has been trying to find the Hall of Records under the Sphinx in Egypt since the 70's.

I hit a bit of a dead end in researching this. He has a Google+ and Youtube page but they are empty. For those that need help searching on Google, make sure to put Stuart Certain in quotation marks so that it searches that exact string. This will filter out lots of random results. Will be back if I find anything else.

Edit:
Googling around the uncle's name was John Burcombe.

We never had a problem with his beliefs, it was his behavior that was out of order. Trolling, belittling, only engaing on his terms.

 

[musichunch]

We never had a problem with his beliefs, it was his behavior that was out of order. Trolling, belittling, only engaing on his terms.

Fair. And I saw that.

But there were a couple things he said from the information he gave that really intrigued me and could help explain his behavior.

Playfair has always rubbed me the wrong way with his strange shifty eyes and closed off demeanor. Stuart Certain made the suggestion that he was MI5 disinformation. I have not heard that anywhere else. It intrigued me because that is exactly how intelligence communities operate. IF this was a real poltergeist phenomenon, the MI5 would absolutely be there to keep a lid on everything. Even if it wasn't, they would still be there to check it out.

His suggestion that intelligence communities hide the real truth and collaborate with SPR to do so, would be an absolute bombshell of the highest proportions in the paranormal and parapsychology communities. It would mean SPR is infested with agents who sandbag real psychics and phenomenons from getting out to the mainstream. It would also mean that "There is no scientific evidence" and "the scientific community doesn't believe in it" is a red herring explanation as to why the paranormal is not accepted in the mainstream.

I have been involved with several fringe conspiracy boards who have been uncomfortably close to the truth (I won't mention which ones). These message boards become filled with disinformation agents, shills, and bots who infiltrate the message boards, gain goodwill, then attempt to discredit. It's a very real phenomenon and intelligence agencies are GOOD at it. And since the mainstream doesn't accept it, anybody accusing them of disinformation is called paranoid. This is not only a CIA/MI5/Mossad thing. Major corporations like the NFL hire contractors in India to create fan accounts on team message boards that build a long-time reputation but then defend the NFL brand whenever there is a controversy. It's not well known, but it's a way of life nowadays.

So I understand why Stuart Certain may have been paranoid. Now I'm not saying the poster he accused of being disinformation really was, but I'm saying that if he's telling the truth, then there would most certainly be disinformation posters on this board due to it's large size. Another thing is that intelligence is so good at disinformation, it creates suspicion among real posters who then start accusing innocent posters of being shills. This is very common and shows the success of disinformation. So I understand his behavior.

From reading his posts on other blogs and his posts on this board, along with timelines, I'm fairly certain he created this "Stuart Certain" avatar for the sole purpose of releasing sensitive information to the public. You'll notice that at first he reaches out and mentions, without questioning, his connection to the case. He clearly wants to speak but wants to tell the right people who he feels comfortable telling. He wasn't posting on childish boards or blogs. He posted here and on Prescott's blog (which I coincidentally happen to frequent). These are very intelligent blogs/boards.

To play devil's advocate, posters in this thread were pushy and impatient at first. When he held back, he was then accused of potentially being a fake and lumped in with past posters. IF this was a man who has been harassed by intelligence in the past for his knowledge and is willing to spill bombshell stuff, I would understand why he would have second thoughts.

I feel like his behavior was understandable and this board misread him, ganged up on him, and banned him unnecessarily. I will attempt to contact him myself in anyway I can, but I think it would be a smart move for a board administrator to contact him and give him one last chance to say what he knows. But do it with sensitivity.

And if he turns out to be a troll, then what did we lose? But how much would we gain if he was for real?

 

[stu neville]

Fair. And I saw that.

But there were a couple things he said from the information he gave that really intrigued me and could help explain his behavior.

Playfair has always rubbed me the wrong way with his strange shifty eyes and closed off demeanor.

OK, but that's a personal reaction, not mitigating evidence for the authenticity of Stuart Certain's assertations.

.. Stuart Certain made the suggestion that he was MI5 disinformation. I have not heard that anywhere else..

Any idea why that might be?

.. It intrigued me because that is exactly how intelligence communities operate. IF this was a real poltergeist phenomenon, the MI5 would absolutely be there to keep a lid on everything. Even if it wasn't, they would still be there to check it out.

But you just said that you'd never heard this suggestion anywhere else. And then you leap to the conclusion that this is exactly what they must do, regardless of whether the claims are credible or not.

..His suggestion that intelligence communities hide the real truth and collaborate with SPR to do so, would be an absolute bombshell of the highest proportions in the paranormal and parapsychology communities. It would mean SPR is infested with agents who sandbag real psychics and phenomenons from getting out to the mainstream. It would also mean that "There is no scientific evidence" and "the scientific community doesn't believe in it" is a red herring explanation as to why the paranormal is not accepted in the mainstream.

Again, IF.

I have been involved with several fringe conspiracy boards who have been uncomfortably close to the truth (I won't mention which ones). These message boards become filled with disinformation agents, shills, and bots who infiltrate the message boards, gain goodwill, then attempt to discredit. It's a very real phenomenon and intelligence agencies are GOOD at it. And since the mainstream doesn't accept it, anybody accusing them of disinformation is called paranoid. This is not only a CIA/MI5/Mossad thing. Major corporations like the NFL hire contractors in India to create fan accounts on team message boards that build a long-time reputation but then defend the NFL brand whenever there is a controversy. It's not well known, but it's a way of life nowadays.

So - your contention is, I assume, that anyone who counters this argument must obviously be an agent of disinformation or discrediting? There was a rather good Forum piece discussing of this very kind of reductive argument in FT 335.

So I understand why Stuart Certain may have been paranoid. Now I'm not saying the poster he accused of being disinformation really was..

..that would be me and no, I'm not, but then I would say that, wouldn't I?..

..but I'm saying that if he's telling the truth, then there would most certainly be disinformation posters on this board due to it's large size...

Evidence for this..? What you're saying here is "I'm not saying that Stuart Certain was right, but he's bound to be right." Doesn't follow.

Another thing is that intelligence is so good at disinformation, it creates suspicion among real posters who then start accusing innocent posters of being shills. This is very common and shows the success of disinformation. So I understand his behavior.

More of the same, I'm afraid.

From reading his posts on other blogs and his posts on this board, along with timelines, I'm fairly certain he created this "Stuart Certain" avatar for the sole purpose of releasing sensitive information to the public. You'll notice that at first he reaches out and mentions, without questioning, his connection to the case. He clearly wants to speak but wants to tell the right people who he feels comfortable telling. He wasn't posting on childish boards or blogs. He posted here and on Prescott's blog (which I coincidentally happen to frequent). These are very intelligent blogs/boards.

You are correct, this is not a childish board. Unfortunately, he frequently posted childishly.

To play devil's advocate, posters in this thread were pushy and impatient at first. When he held back, he was then accused of potentially being a fake and lumped in with past posters...

Purely and simply as we have seen this so, so many times in the past. "I have special and secret knowledge! I can answer x, y and z!! I can…" right up until they're actually asked to answer x, y and z, at which point they go all coy or throw a tantrum or start telling us we are all unworthy to share this info. That's what that's about.

..IF this was a man who has been harassed by intelligence in the past for his knowledge and is willing to spill bombshell stuff, I would understand why he would have second thoughts.

More IF. And he was given ample and repeated opportunities and encouragement to share the alleged "bombshell stuff" - which he then amply and repeatedly failed to do. No-one was gagging him.

I feel like his behavior was understandable and this board misread him, ganged up on him, and banned him unnecessarily.

I respectfully disagree.

I will attempt to contact him myself in anyway I can, but I think it would be a smart move for a board administrator to contact him and give him one last chance to say what he knows. But do it with sensitivity.

The board administrator continues to disagree. I gave him more chances than I strictly needed to on that very basis. So no, that isn't happening.

And if he turns out to be a troll, then what did we lose?

A troll.

 

[musichunch]

OK, but that's a personal reaction, not mitigating evidence for the authenticity of Stuart Certain's assertations.

True. But I never said I had evidence. Only a strong hunch based on the research I gathered and my own personal experiences.

Any idea why that might be?

Not yet. He did not explain himself fully. Only made a mention of it.

But you just said that you'd never heard this suggestion anywhere else. And then you leap to the conclusion that this is exactly what they must do, regardless of whether the claims are credible or not.

I said that I never heard the suggestion that Playfair or anybody involved with Enfield was MI5. I never said that I never heard of MI5 being involved in a news story ever.

What I suggested is that there is a very strong chance that the intelligence community would be involved in a case like this whether or not there was real poltergeist activity involved. I feel that is a very reasonable idea to have. Some may conclude it is naive to think they weren't involved at all.

Again, IF.

Yes.

So - your contention is, I assume, that anyone who counters this argument must obviously be an agent of disinformation or discrediting? There was a rather good Forum piece discussing of this very kind of reductive argument in FT 335.

Counters what argument? That there are disinformation agents on this board. They can counter it, it's just that in my experience there is a very high chance of that being so. I am new to this board however so I have not had any time to spot any in particular. Although the size and subject matter makes it likely.

At no point did I allude to somebody "must obviously be an agent of disinformation". Those are your words. And your misinterpretation. I only meant that there is a high chance, in my opinion, that they are out there. Not accusing anybody in particular for any reason.

..that would be me and no, I'm not, but then I would say that, wouldn't I?..

I was referring to his accusations against sherbetbizarre.

Evidence for this..? What you're saying here is "I'm not saying that Stuart Certain was right, but he's bound to be right." Doesn't follow.

I admit there was some circular logic there. Let me explain my logic further so that it makes better sense.

1. In my experience, online disinformation agents are not only real, but a daily way of life on countless message boards on the internet in all countries.

2. A real/fake poltergeist phenomenon with major media attention would have a close to 100% chance of attracting an intelligence agency.

3. It is very strange that something many people on this board know is real (paranormal activity, ghosts, telepathy, etc.) is outright denied by all major establishments. There is something very funny going on.

4. Stuart Certain came off to me as a very astute and intelligent poster with unique views who thinks for himself, despite what you say.

5. He is the first person I have ever heard bring up the subject of intelligence agencies hiding real paranormal activity from the public and conspiring with the SPR to spread disinformation about it.

6. This meshed incredibly well with my experience and observations along similar lines. Thus, I have a strong intuition that Stuart Certain is the real deal.

More of the same, I'm afraid.

It was a very good point that you are not taking seriously. You should reread it.

You are correct, this is not a childish board. Unfortunately, he frequently posted childishly.

I felt he posted better than a majority of posters on this board in other threads. It was only when he was pressed and attacked did he post "childish".

Purely and simply as we have seen this so, so many times in the past. "I have special and secret knowledge! I can answer x, y and z!! I can…" right up until they're actually asked to answer x, y and z, at which point they go all coy or throw a tantrum or start telling us we are all unworthy to share this info. That's what that's about.

I'm sure. But I don't believe that is the case here.

More IF. And he was given ample and repeated opportunities and encouragement to share the alleged "bombshell stuff" - which he then amply and repeatedly failed to do. No-one was gagging him.

I reread all of those posts yesterday. I completely disagree with what you are saying.

I respectfully disagree.

That's fine.

The board administrator continues to disagree. I gave him more chances than I strictly needed to on that very basis. So no, that isn't happening.

A troll.

My concern is that it's personal between you and him, thus I have difficulty trusting you to be fair about this. His last post directed towards you was very strong. I understand if you fear that changing your stance will make you appear weak to other posters.

In this case, I'll do what I can to contact him myself. If I find him and he speaks, and he gives me permission, I will post what he says in this thread.

 

[rynner2]

Hmm.. all this pseudophilosophical whiff-whaff isn't getting us very far.

But I've known Stuneville on this MB for very many years now, and I would trust his logic, analysis, and 'fairness' far more than that of any 'New Member'.

But by all means post any new info (with references, if possible).

But my personal opinion is that the intelligence services have far more important things to deal with than reports of poltergeists.

 

[Naughty_Felid]

SPR - an organization that is the least likely to be involved in the secret service even with it's connections with Cambridge uni.

 

[sherbetbizarre]

What I suggested is that there is a very strong chance that the intelligence community would be involved in a case like this whether or not there was real poltergeist activity involved. I feel that is a very reasonable idea to have. Some may conclude it is naive to think they weren't involved at all.

I can understand them spreading disinformation in the UFO community - but why would they get involved with poltergeists?

 

[oldrover]

So Guy Lyon Playfair the book writing advocate for this case was in fact a disinformation agent. To what end? Without him, except for a few TV interviews and some newspaper articles nearly forty years old, what would be left of the Enfield Poltergeist for anyone to remember?

 

[Zeke Newbold]

Fair. And I saw that.

But there were a couple things he said from the information he gave that really intrigued me and could help explain his behavior.

Playfair has always rubbed me the wrong way with his strange shifty eyes and closed off demeanor. Stuart Certain made the suggestion that he was MI5 disinformation. I have not heard that anywhere else. It intrigued me because that is exactly how intelligence communities operate. IF this was a real poltergeist phenomenon, the MI5 would absolutely be there to keep a lid on everything. Even if it wasn't, they would still be there to check it out.

His suggestion that intelligence communities hide the real truth and collaborate with SPR to do so, would be an absolute bombshell of the highest proportions in the paranormal and parapsychology communities. It would mean SPR is infested with agents who sandbag real psychics and phenomenons from getting out to the mainstream. It would also mean that "There is no scientific evidence" and "the scientific community doesn't believe in it" is a red herring explanation as to why the paranormal is not accepted in the mainstream.

I have been involved with several fringe conspiracy boards who have been uncomfortably close to the truth (I won't mention which ones). These message boards become filled with disinformation agents, shills, and bots who infiltrate the message boards, gain goodwill, then attempt to discredit. It's a very real phenomenon and intelligence agencies are GOOD at it. And since the mainstream doesn't accept it, anybody accusing them of disinformation is called paranoid. This is not only a CIA/MI5/Mossad thing. Major corporations like the NFL hire contractors in India to create fan accounts on team message boards that build a long-time reputation but then defend the NFL brand whenever there is a controversy. It's not well known, but it's a way of life nowadays.

So I understand why Stuart Certain may have been paranoid. Now I'm not saying the poster he accused of being disinformation really was, but I'm saying that if he's telling the truth, then there would most certainly be disinformation posters on this board due to it's large size. Another thing is that intelligence is so good at disinformation, it creates suspicion among real posters who then start accusing innocent posters of being shills. This is very common and shows the success of disinformation. So I understand his behavior.

From reading his posts on other blogs and his posts on this board, along with timelines, I'm fairly certain he created this "Stuart Certain" avatar for the sole purpose of releasing sensitive information to the public. You'll notice that at first he reaches out and mentions, without questioning, his connection to the case. He clearly wants to speak but wants to tell the right people who he feels comfortable telling. He wasn't posting on childish boards or blogs. He posted here and on Prescott's blog (which I coincidentally happen to frequent). These are very intelligent blogs/boards.

To play devil's advocate, posters in this thread were pushy and impatient at first. When he held back, he was then accused of potentially being a fake and lumped in with past posters. IF this was a man who has been harassed by intelligence in the past for his knowledge and is willing to spill bombshell stuff, I would understand why he would have second thoughts.

I feel like his behavior was understandable and this board misread him, ganged up on him, and banned him unnecessarily. I will attempt to contact him myself in anyway I can, but I think it would be a smart move for a board administrator to contact him and give him one last chance to say what he knows. But do it with sensitivity.

And if he turns out to be a troll, then what did we lose? But how much would we gain if he was for real?

This is a thoughtful and well written post.

I despise almost all conspiracy theories, but, on the basis of my own experience I am open to the view that there are active `disinformation agents` on Message Boards concerned with the paranormal.But why be so lurid as to drag MI5 into it though? It is enough to know that there is an evangelistic Skeptoid community out there who see it as their duty to oppose anything `woo` (their key term) and will use all means both fair and foul to do so.

As regards Stuart Certain: from time to time we get fleeting posters on here who at first seem rather brilliant but who then seem to be pursuing their own unfathomable egotistic agenda.He was of that ilk. He was obviously able to write well and I much enjoyed one of his posts about his time in London and how he was suckered into going along to a religious meeting by attractive young ladies: this (again) tallied with my own experience.Then he ruined this credible tale by dragging an unnamed rock star into it, and suggesting some sort of conspiracy.

He started to remind me of another poster that we once had. I had better not name him - but he was someone who claimed to be 24, but to have lived in the Middle east in the 90's - and also (like Mr Certain) to have been struck by lightning! That guy disappered at roughly the same time as Certain turned up, so I began to wonder if he was a reincarnation of the same guy (Is this technically possible?)

Nobody `ganged up` on him - he just started to make less and less sense and people became exasperated. The whole way he introduced the Enfield issue was kind of strange and allusive, to the point of being contemptuous.

I began to suspect mental instability of some kind, and, if so, it would have been wrong of us to indulge it.

As regards Stuneville's role in this: I grant you that he can appear to be a bit aggressive but I have never known him to be unfair or intrusive. My guess is that he has a lot of experience of trolls in the past and is determined for this board to be rid of them - in which case all power to his elbow.

Musichunch: if you find some new,and checkable, information by all means share it with us. Please remember though that many of us here (like yourself) take paranormal issues quite seriously, and we don't take kindly to being lead up the garden path by self-advertisers.

 

[stu neville]

In the interest of brevity, and as others have already addressed many of your points, I'll just respond to a couple of them:

True. But I never said I had evidence. Only a strong hunch based on the research I gathered and my own personal experiences.

I was querying your suspicions about Playfair based upon "..his strange shifty eyes and closed off demeanor." Have you met him, in person? Spoken with him directly?

I said that I never heard the suggestion that Playfair or anybody involved with Enfield was MI5. I never said that I never heard of MI5 being involved in a news story ever.

We've all heard mainstream news stories that involve MI5 in some capacity or another. So that's clearly not what I was addressing.

Counters what argument? That there are disinformation agents on this board. They can counter it, it's just that in my experience there is a very high chance of that being so. I am new to this board however so I have not had any time to spot any in particular. Although the size and subject matter makes it likely...At no point did I allude to somebody "must obviously be an agent of disinformation". Those are your words. And your misinterpretation. I only meant that there is a high chance, in my opinion, that they are out there. Not accusing anybody in particular for any reason.

OK, I accept that you didn't directly accuse any one individual of being an agent of disinformation. However, your assertion that it is likely that they are active on this board stands, is that correct?

I was referring to his accusations against sherbetbizarre.

Yes, SherbertBizarre was accused of being part of Special Branch. Mr Certain did conclude that I had been "got at", though in this post.

..3. It is very strange that something many people on this board know is real (paranormal activity, ghosts, telepathy, etc.) is outright denied by all major establishments. There is something very funny going on.

There's a host of magazines - one particularly good - and culture devoted to that very concept. Mainstream denial is absolutely nothing new, but to ascribe this attitude to establishment pressure over scientific conservatism and sociological factors is misguided.

4. Stuart Certain came off to me as a very astute and intelligent poster with unique views who thinks for himself, despite what you say.

See my initial response to you. Articulate, yes, promised much but ultimately delivered nothing.

It was a very good point that you are not taking seriously. You should reread it.

I did. I still don't take it as seriously as you think I should.

I felt he posted better than a majority of posters on this board in other threads. It was only when he was pressed and attacked did he post "childish".

Well, for a new member you got through the half-million-odd threads on here in order to make any meaningful comparison in record time. Well done.

I reread all of those posts yesterday. I completely disagree with what you are saying.

As is your right.

..My concern is that it's personal between you and him, thus I have difficulty trusting you to be fair about this. His last post directed towards you was very strong. I understand if you fear that changing your stance will make you appear weak to other posters.

You are free to trust, or distrust my fairness as you see fit - I would point out that I have been called much, much worse by far more virulent personalities than Mr Certain. However, please be assured that it was not personal. I actually don't care how my stance appears - I've been doing this for far too long now to worry over much about PR. That said, I do know that the majority of posters, especially long-term, established ones with a correspondingly good sense of the context and zeitgeist of the board are perfectly happy with the way that I run it (as is the editor), and that I apply judgements and arbitration in a balanced way. I don't bluff, I do what I say I'll do, and I take whatever action I have to take without fear or favour.