"I never gave anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell."
--Harry Truman
NOTE: I wrote this report in April, 2001, for News Making News, as part of the Gunderson Data Dump.
I should mention that since that time, I have been compelled (sadly) to change my views on Kurt Billings. Though my comments on the quality of his research still stand, I did learn (the hard way!) that he was not the trustworthy person I had believed him to be.
Yes, I believe that Kurt is very damaged (just like anyone who has ever been subjected to government abuses like mind control); and I believe that "mind control" was involved. But it is simply no excuse, and had I listened to Kurt's advice, I probably would not be alive today.
Many of those who claim to be "experts" on mind control (Susan Ford aka "Brice Taylor" comes to mind), would have you believe that "mind control" is an excuse for any kind of abhorrent behavior, such as sexual abuse of children, etc. These individuals try to justify their abuses of others --or at least exonerate themselves from blame-- claiming that "I couldn't help it, I was under mind control."
There are those who promote the idea of "a total mind control slave". (Ignoramus/shill/liar Ken Adachi; CIA operative Mark Phillips, charlatan Fritz Springmeier; COINTELPRO operative Ted Gunderson; low level penetration agent Doug Millar; G-Man wannabe/criminal stalker Tim White & Co.....)
Unfortunately, Kurt Billings was instrumental in promoting a death threat against me, in which an innocent man was being set up. Not surprisingly, predicate felon Tim White was the original source for this alleged death threat from a so-called "CIA assassin" (who in reality was former Special Forces, another target of the criminals in government.)
And being that White made a deal (to get out of jail) with the same feds in Denver Colorado who threatened to "bring the roof down" on Barbara Hartwell if I did not take my website offline (which I did not); and considering the fact that the timing of this death threat was very "convenient" (it happened around the same time this article was written and the public controversy over Ted Gunderson erupted); and lastly, that White is a snitch/stooge for Ted Gunderson et al........
Well, I think you get the picture.
Mind control is a much misunderstood topic, at least by the general public. There is so much disinformation swirling around this issue that it is very difficult to get to the core truths.
Add to this the fact that purposeful diversions have been put in place, lurid and sensationalist tales of sex slaves and satanism. This is mostly what you hear about, and what many people automatically associate with "mind control". Nothing could be further from the truth --at least the truth of what mind control is really about and the objectives of the perpetrators.
In truth, CIA's MK Ultra program was focused on "creating the perfect spy", an elite operative trained under mind control, during the Cold War Era.
Then of course, there's the "Monarch" sideshow. As I have stated many times, over a period of the last decade and a half, I was never involved in "Monarch", though idiots everywhere (including Tim White, Todd Fahey, Ken Adachi et al) keep repeating this libelous falsehood. As well, I have never found any evidence that "Monarch" was a CIA operation or that it was even connected to MK Ultra.
Worst of all, for me personally, is that the massive disinformation being disseminated about "Monarch" and the like has tainted the cases of real survivors of CIA black ops/mind control programs. But then, that was always the intention. The folks at CIA may be crazy, but they're not stupid.
For this reason, once I realized just how well organized was this CIA disinfo campaign and coverup, I decided that I would not be going into much detail about my own experiences with mind control programs. It would have been an exercise in futility, and ultimately self-defeating.
For me, "mind control" per se is not the only issue, nor even the main issue. Never has been. True, I am a survivor of government mind control. But so what? "Mind control" is only one issue among many that are of concern to me.
Primarily, defending Liberty and God-given rights --the rights of the Individual-- are what matters most to me. If everyone focused on this one objective, then mind control --like all other atrocities--would be stopped.
Lastly, beware of those who claim to be "experts" on mind control. Especially beware of the "Monarch" crowd. When you hear someone talking about "Monarch", that person is either a government dupe or he/she has an agenda (sometimes both) --and I can guarantee that agenda does not serve Truth, Liberty or Justice.
If you want the truth, first and foremost, pray that God will reveal it to you through the Holy Spirit. Secondly, do your own research. There is no substitute. And finally, use discernment (intellectually and spiritually) in evaluating research material or the testimony of witnesses and survivors.
Barbara Hartwell Percival
January 26, 2010
More on the MK Ultra Controversy
April, 2001
As regards the controversy which began when NEWSMAKINGNEWS published a letter written to MKULTRA researcher Kurt Billings by Martin Cannon, I would like to respond to the most recent additional viewpoints posted on the site. I have also received e-mail from Martin Cannon which I would like to comment on. And lastly, it is important to me that I further clarify my own position regarding some issues that have been raised in the continuing public debate regarding MKULTRA.
Let me start by thanking Kenn Thomas, editor of Steamshovel Press -- a researcher whose writings I have enjoyed for years-- for taking the time to write to me with his astute comments regarding Martin Cannon. Kenn Thomas's letter to me was then passed on to subscribers of TopView, by John Quinn, with John's additional editorial comments (insightful and humorous, as always ) and finally, forwarded by Quinn to be posted on NewsMakingNews, adding some new, albeit well-known, voices to the NewMakingNews debate.
Kenn's observations show that Mr. Cannon has a history of pointing an accusatory finger at other researchers, including Kenn himself, asserting that they are "liars" among other insults; and of instigating smear campaigns against those who fail to meet the requirements of Cannon's own very particular and stringent research standards.
It is clear that journalists Thomas and Quinn agree on a primary point: Cannon's approach to dealing with those he perceives as deserving of his cynical, hyper-critical scrutiny -- researchers and writers who fail to merit his seal of approval-- are targeted for nasty name-calling and a putative slander campaign. From what I have seen, Cannon's accusations are mudslinging of the lowest sort and do not have much --if anything-- to do with establishing truth or raising the generally accepted standards of research, per se. In fact I was not surprised when Kenn Thomas independently made very similar observations to my own, in additional messages to me.
Here, some selected excerpts. Thomas writes:
"Cannon's perception that mind control research has been taken over by religious fundamentalists reflects his own intolerance, but more importantly it masks his inability to come up with new research on the topic. Instead, he wants to do some literary parlor game finessing the history of conspiracy documents. A higher standard of evidence, indeed --thousands of people working over thirty years haven't come up with a high enough standard of evidence to prove the obvious fact that conspirators killed JFK. Again, it's a false dialogue inspired by the CSICOPS."
"Cannon's name-calling continues in this letter [an e-mail from Cannon to Virginia McCullough] as does his fantasy that he has some kind of role to play as a "Phil Klass" of conspiracy research. Calling Sherman Skolnick an old fool, saying that I have an attraction for 'skanky hos' --this really gets us closer to the truth now, doesn't it ? I think most people will see it for what it is, the language and attitude of despicable, immature people. It has nothing to do with "establishing truth" but with ego venting and factionalizing conspiracy researchers with false dialogue."
As for Kenn's observations, I couldn't agree more. And... "skanky hos"? Say...What? Clearly, the insults Cannon hurls at others who are totally undeserving of such invective, have nothing whatsoever to do with "truth" or reality in any sense of the word, much less "research standards".
Talk about sleazy smear tactics...It would appear that Cannon's own debauched psyche is the repository from which he draws the projections which he fires at others.
As regards more derisive comments Cannon has made about yours truly, as well as researchers John Quinn, Sherman Skolnick, the late Jim Keith and again, Kurt Billings, I'll get there momentarily.
But first I feel it is necessary to address some statements made by Virginia McCullough. In her latest editorial commentary, Lobs Lob More Shells in the Cannon War, Virginia describes her interactions with me by stating:
Let me start by thanking Kenn Thomas, editor of Steamshovel Press -- a researcher whose writings I have enjoyed for years-- for taking the time to write to me with his astute comments regarding Martin Cannon. Kenn Thomas's letter to me was then passed on to subscribers of TopView, by John Quinn, with John's additional editorial comments (insightful and humorous, as always ) and finally, forwarded by Quinn to be posted on NewsMakingNews, adding some new, albeit well-known, voices to the NewMakingNews debate.
Kenn's observations show that Mr. Cannon has a history of pointing an accusatory finger at other researchers, including Kenn himself, asserting that they are "liars" among other insults; and of instigating smear campaigns against those who fail to meet the requirements of Cannon's own very particular and stringent research standards.
It is clear that journalists Thomas and Quinn agree on a primary point: Cannon's approach to dealing with those he perceives as deserving of his cynical, hyper-critical scrutiny -- researchers and writers who fail to merit his seal of approval-- are targeted for nasty name-calling and a putative slander campaign. From what I have seen, Cannon's accusations are mudslinging of the lowest sort and do not have much --if anything-- to do with establishing truth or raising the generally accepted standards of research, per se. In fact I was not surprised when Kenn Thomas independently made very similar observations to my own, in additional messages to me.
Here, some selected excerpts. Thomas writes:
"Cannon's perception that mind control research has been taken over by religious fundamentalists reflects his own intolerance, but more importantly it masks his inability to come up with new research on the topic. Instead, he wants to do some literary parlor game finessing the history of conspiracy documents. A higher standard of evidence, indeed --thousands of people working over thirty years haven't come up with a high enough standard of evidence to prove the obvious fact that conspirators killed JFK. Again, it's a false dialogue inspired by the CSICOPS."
"Cannon's name-calling continues in this letter [an e-mail from Cannon to Virginia McCullough] as does his fantasy that he has some kind of role to play as a "Phil Klass" of conspiracy research. Calling Sherman Skolnick an old fool, saying that I have an attraction for 'skanky hos' --this really gets us closer to the truth now, doesn't it ? I think most people will see it for what it is, the language and attitude of despicable, immature people. It has nothing to do with "establishing truth" but with ego venting and factionalizing conspiracy researchers with false dialogue."
As for Kenn's observations, I couldn't agree more. And... "skanky hos"? Say...What? Clearly, the insults Cannon hurls at others who are totally undeserving of such invective, have nothing whatsoever to do with "truth" or reality in any sense of the word, much less "research standards".
Talk about sleazy smear tactics...It would appear that Cannon's own debauched psyche is the repository from which he draws the projections which he fires at others.
As regards more derisive comments Cannon has made about yours truly, as well as researchers John Quinn, Sherman Skolnick, the late Jim Keith and again, Kurt Billings, I'll get there momentarily.
But first I feel it is necessary to address some statements made by Virginia McCullough. In her latest editorial commentary, Lobs Lob More Shells in the Cannon War, Virginia describes her interactions with me by stating:
"In April 2000 Barbara Hartwell first contacted me wanting me to cover her allegations of MKULTRA abuse. She also expressed fear of a man named Ted Gunderson who had allegedly contacted her for speaking engagements."
It's important to me that I state my own point of view and that I make a few corrections. In fact, it was Virginia McCullough who initiated contact with me. My first contact with Virginia was an e-mail from her, complimenting me on an article I had written, The Scapegoat Syndrome, published by John Quinn of NewsHawk, with a preface written by John. My article focused on refuting some false allegations made about John Quinn/NewsHawk by a man named Habib Peter Kawaja (Desert Storm War Crimes Commission website) and his crony, journalist Carol Valentine. In a nutshell, I was able to refute these false allegations re NewsHawk by citing dated, published testimony and editorial comments by John Quinn and photographic evidence.
The Scapegoat Syndrome; Editorial Commentary on the Politics of Injustice
It's important to me that I state my own point of view and that I make a few corrections. In fact, it was Virginia McCullough who initiated contact with me. My first contact with Virginia was an e-mail from her, complimenting me on an article I had written, The Scapegoat Syndrome, published by John Quinn of NewsHawk, with a preface written by John. My article focused on refuting some false allegations made about John Quinn/NewsHawk by a man named Habib Peter Kawaja (Desert Storm War Crimes Commission website) and his crony, journalist Carol Valentine. In a nutshell, I was able to refute these false allegations re NewsHawk by citing dated, published testimony and editorial comments by John Quinn and photographic evidence.
The Scapegoat Syndrome; Editorial Commentary on the Politics of Injustice
I subsequently wrote back to Virginia, thanking her for her interest in my work. I then perused the NewsMakingNews website, for which Virginia had sent me the link , finding the articles written by Virginia and others very much along the lines of my interests.
Shortly thereafter, in an e-mail to Virginia, I mentioned my connection to Ted Gunderson. This was only a few months after I had broken off my association with Ted, primarily because of his allegations that Kurt Billings was a "CIA plant" --an allegation I told Ted I strongly disagreed with.
(For more info re that situation, please see my article:
Time to Set the Record Straight, published by SteamShovel Press:
[Note: Conspiracy Planet and Steamshovel Press have since removed my articles from their sites.]
But I never at any time expressed to Virginia -nor to anyone else- a "fear" of Ted Gunderson. Anyone who knows me would probably find such an idea laughable. I don't know why Virginia has assumed I was afraid of Ted, but it simply isn't true.
What I did express to Virginia -in private communications- was that I was in fear for my life, due to serious threats and "warnings" issued to me by perpetrators of criminal activities; and intimidation tactics which had been used against me and certain of my associates, and which had a direct connection to my going public with my history of CIA mind control abuses. This was the primary reason I wanted to make my case even more public and was trying to find journalists open-minded enough to listen to my testimony.
I also explained that I found it very necessary to find out the truth regarding Ted Gunderson. I said that I was open-minded and willing to listen to anything anyone had to say, and to review any evidence anyone could provide, in efforts to resolve the dilemma I found myself in as a result of having invested a degree of trust in Ted prior to my serious disagreement with him. Virginia made very clear to me her opinion of Ted Gunderson; and I understood from the git-go that she regarded him with contempt, to say the least.
It's true that I had asked Virginia, as a journalist, if she would be interested in information about my case as a survivor of MKULTRA. I requested that at least initially, any information I shared with her --aside from that which I had already made public-- be kept confidential and "off the record". This has been my standard policy when discussing my case with journalists or investigators, since I feel the need to exercise caution and discretion about what I reveal, given that I do not want to place myself, family members or others at unnecessary risk; and because if I speak publicly about certain sensitive issues or name names, it could work against me by compromising my credibility, unless and until I have substantive evidence to back up my claims.
I was surprised --and somewhat disturbed-- when shortly thereafter, I found my case posted on the Ted (Ex?) FBI (?) Agent Gunderson Data Dump. Of course, the fact that Ted had been working on my case had already been made public, as Ted and I had spoken together at conferences and in electronic media interviews. Although I was not particularly happy about my case being posted on the "dump", I knew that there was no breach of my confidence or legal rights involved and that NewsMakingNews had a right to use the link to my previously published material if they thought it to be newsworthy. I understood that my personal feelings were not relevant to the larger public issues, nor should they be.
The "Barbara Hartwell link" posted by NewsMakingNews on the Ted G. "dump" was to a "security letter" I had posted on Mind Control Forum, dated Oct. 13, 1999. Ted was frequently mentioned in this letter, along with other former gov't employees and ex-military personnel, such as ex-CIA agent Gene "Chip" Tatum, with whom I had --publicly as well as privately-- discussed my background and involvement in CIA black ops, under mind control programming; and who were able to attest to the general veracity of some of my testimony -especially regarding the types of drugs which had been administered to me; the types of programming to which I was subjected and operations in which I had been utilized; the abductions by gov't agents and the nature of the attempts by CIA and other gov't agencies to "neutralize" me --various harassment and intimidation tactics, as well as attempts on my life-- after I broke out of these black ops and related mind control programming.
I have not as yet been able to collect the necessary "official" documents to verify my claims, but those --such as Gunderson and Tatum-- who were willing to publicly endorse my credibility, did so knowing that there was a dearth of hard evidence. They were simply willing to say that based on my anecdotal testimony and some detailed knowledge I had about these black ops, that they believed, in light of their own "insider" knowledge, that I was a credible source of accurate information. They never claimed to have "hard" evidence about my case, any more than I myself ever made that claim.
The letter of April 12, 2000, which Virginia wrote to me, and which she has posted on NewsMakingNews, contains her own opinions without necessarily reflecting mine.
For instance, she says:
"I don't know if you still believe in the Mark Phillips/Cathy O'Brien scenario or not...."
The thing is, I never "believed" in anything to do with O'Brien/Phillips. I had never mentioned these people to Virginia before she wrote the letter and in fact I don't even know them. In my e-mail reply to Virginia, I explained that.
The only contact I ever had with them was initiated by Mark Phillips, in June of 2000, when he tried to discredit my testimony by publishing a critical commentary in response to a report about computer hacking, harassment with high-tech weaponry, and intimidation tactics used against my webmasters, which I had posted on American Patriot Friends Network.
The only contact I ever had with them was initiated by Mark Phillips, in June of 2000, when he tried to discredit my testimony by publishing a critical commentary in response to a report about computer hacking, harassment with high-tech weaponry, and intimidation tactics used against my webmasters, which I had posted on American Patriot Friends Network.
To paraphrase the main point in Phillips's argument: Barbara Hartwell was making a mistake by publicizing the persecution and harassment being directed at her. If I would only hush up, insisted Phillips, I would not continue to be harassed.
Phillips also made it clear, by implication, that he did not believe my claims about being a CIA black ops/mind control survivor were credible . He claimed that he and O'Brien were "experts" on mind control and seemed to think this was justification for offering his unsolicited advice, which he indicated was coming from a concern for my well-being.
I gave Phillips a piece of my mind (no pun intended) by telling him to mind his own business; and that I did not appreciate his presumptuous, arrogant attitude toward me, considering the fact that he does not know anything about me, nor about my background --except what he may have read on the Internet, or heard through the grapevine.
Since I'm on the general subject, I might as well mention what any reasonable, perceptive person who has ever been targeted for this sort of harassment should know: Guys like Phillips have their own agenda, one that could not possibly benefit any mind control survivor. Attempting to silence mind control survivors when they talk about harassment can only mean one thing: Those who try to foist such advice on the targeted individuals are part of the cover-up; those who have something to lose if the truth comes out.
And I must say that Phillips's M.O. seems suspiciously similar to that of Cannon: They both demand that hard evidence and documents be provided by victims/survivors/researchers when speaking out on any issue. For most of us, hard evidence is hard to come by; and for some of us, waiting for such evidence before offering anecdotal testimony might be like signing our own death warrants.
Virginia as well, mentions the "proof" of mind control which I failed to provide. I had tried to explain to her --as I have explained to many others-- that one of my greatest sources of frustration is that I have been able to gather very little hard evidence of the MKULTRA abuses which were perpetrated on me. The reasons may be familiar to other survivors. The agencies involved in the human rights violations take great pains to make sure no documents are readily available to investigators, survivors or their advocates.
Since I'm on the general subject, I might as well mention what any reasonable, perceptive person who has ever been targeted for this sort of harassment should know: Guys like Phillips have their own agenda, one that could not possibly benefit any mind control survivor. Attempting to silence mind control survivors when they talk about harassment can only mean one thing: Those who try to foist such advice on the targeted individuals are part of the cover-up; those who have something to lose if the truth comes out.
And I must say that Phillips's M.O. seems suspiciously similar to that of Cannon: They both demand that hard evidence and documents be provided by victims/survivors/researchers when speaking out on any issue. For most of us, hard evidence is hard to come by; and for some of us, waiting for such evidence before offering anecdotal testimony might be like signing our own death warrants.
Virginia as well, mentions the "proof" of mind control which I failed to provide. I had tried to explain to her --as I have explained to many others-- that one of my greatest sources of frustration is that I have been able to gather very little hard evidence of the MKULTRA abuses which were perpetrated on me. The reasons may be familiar to other survivors. The agencies involved in the human rights violations take great pains to make sure no documents are readily available to investigators, survivors or their advocates.
It costs money to do a thorough investigation or to hire someone for that purpose. I am financially destitute -- and have been ever since I broke out of the black programs; so poor that I can't even make a phone call out of my local area. I have no resources which would allow me to travel in search of documentation, nor for any other relevant purpose. But I will say that I will be more than happy to share any documentation I do get with NewsMakingNews or any other journalists because publication of this documentation can only help my case.
Although I have made several attempts, over the past seven years, I have not yet found an attorney who would touch my case with a ten foot pole, not necessarily because it doesn't have merit. Rather, the attorneys I spoke with were fearful of the consequences to themselves; or were told in no uncertain terms to back off; or did not want to be bothered with a case in which there was little chance of remuneration.
Although I have made several attempts, over the past seven years, I have not yet found an attorney who would touch my case with a ten foot pole, not necessarily because it doesn't have merit. Rather, the attorneys I spoke with were fearful of the consequences to themselves; or were told in no uncertain terms to back off; or did not want to be bothered with a case in which there was little chance of remuneration.
Most lawyers, very simply, and understandably, do not want to find themselves in a showdown with CIA or any other corrupt and powerful government agency. Considering the fact that my own life has been all but destroyed by these very agencies, I can't say I blame the lawyers for not wanting to get involved. And so, most of us are left to fend for ourselves and to investigate our own cases as best we can.
Speaking strictly for myself, my primary motive for wanting to collect hard evidence for my own case is that I want to see justice done for what these criminals have done to me, my family, my friends and any other innocent people who were victimized by mind control and other related abuses. Without enough hard evidence, I can't file a lawsuit.
Speaking strictly for myself, my primary motive for wanting to collect hard evidence for my own case is that I want to see justice done for what these criminals have done to me, my family, my friends and any other innocent people who were victimized by mind control and other related abuses. Without enough hard evidence, I can't file a lawsuit.
I should make it clear that I don't otherwise feel the need to "prove" my claims to anyone else; whether they be journalists, researchers or the general public. They are free to read my testimony, do their own research and draw their own conclusions. As many of us --the survivors-- know all too well, once we go public with our testimony, we will be met with a certain degree of incredulity; if not derision and hostility by people who don't want to believe that our government could commit such violations against its own citizens; or by those who have a vested interest in continuing a cover-up. As for witnesses: Most of the witnesses I had have been intimidated and will no longer even speak to me; much less come forward with testimony which could help my case.
Getting back to Virginia's recently published letter to me, and referred to in her editorial commentary, Virginia wrote:
Getting back to Virginia's recently published letter to me, and referred to in her editorial commentary, Virginia wrote:
"I assumed Hartwell got the message [the letter] because shortly thereafter she sent me an email telling me that her friend Kurt Billings was helping radio talk show host Art Bell in his lawsuit against former FBI agent/Satanist theorist Ted Gunderson. She contacted me and requested that I send her and Billings a significant amount of documentation on Ted Gunderson which I gladly did."
Why Virginia says she had to "assume'" I got her message, I don't understand. Because in fact, I answered Virginia's letter immediately, thanking her for taking the time to write out her thoughtful and detailed comments relating to mind control; Gunderson; O'Brien; Phillips; Taylor/Ford; etc.
I had asked Virginia to keep my e-mails to her private and confidential, so I won't go into further detail. But I will say that I did not request information on Ted Gunderson because of the Art Bell lawsuit, which was a separate issue entirely; one that I won't comment on here since I did not become directly involved, though I was aware that Kurt Billings had at one time been in contact with Art Bell's lawyers in connection with the case.
Virginia made the offer to send the hardcopy documents to me and the main reason I wanted them was so that I could have some documentation to work with which might be able to verify --or contrariwise, reveal the flaws-- in some of my own research. And of course, so that I could develop a more informed opinion about what I believed to be the truth about Ted Gunderson.
I received by post, from Virginia, a box of hardcopy documentation. Some of it was said to come from Michael Riconosciuto's files and some --but not most-- of the documents were connected to Ted Gunderson. Many of the documents and newspaper articles addressed other issues such as Promis/Inslaw; the death of Danny Casolaro; the IBCC; defense contracting firms connected to Riconosciuto and others allegedly part of the "Octopus", etc.
But even though I greatly appreciated that Virginia sent me the documents, that did not necessarily make it any easier for me to gather evidence about my own case. If I was unable to reciprocate, by making "proof a two way street" it was because it was not in my power to do so. I'm sorry if Virginia feels that I did not honor my part of what she apparently considered a "quid pro quo" deal. I have been working for years trying to collect documentation regarding my involvement in MKULTRA and other black operations.
As any survivor of one of these projects knows, it can be next to impossible to get our hands on evidence in the form of hardcopy documents. I don't even have access to my own childhood medical records! "Coincidentally " all my records and those of my siblings, were destroyed in a fire which consumed the office of the family physician a number of years ago. One of my family members cannot even get access to her own medical records from NIH (National Institute of Health) --notoriously hand-in-glove with CIA in its involvement in the medical and genetic-engineering aspects of black projects. And for that, I do have some evidence and am working to collect more.
I have family members employed by CIA and NIH and predictably, I haven't spoken to any of them in years, not since I broke out of the black programs. It seems they don't want anything to do with me, and I don't have to guess why. They've even stopped sending Christmas cards! I love my family and feel hurt by their attitude, but there's not much I can do to change things on that front so I just have to live with it and pray that someday they will see fit to break through their denial and indoctrination and see these agencies for what they really are.
Now, back to Martin Cannon. I should say that I have read some of his articles on the Internet and I give him credit for being a talented writer. I won't go into a long-winded analysis of his research or viewpoints; I will only say that "debunking" seems to be a major thrust of his writings. For the most part, even when their criticism is directed at me, I try not to waste time arguing with the debunkers. When necessary, I simply publicly make my position clear and do my best to correct any false allegations they have made.
Many debunkers--especially those focusing on the field of psychic/paranormal and UFO research-- have over the course of the past twenty-some-odd years set their sights on me and my colleagues. But being caught in the crosshairs of the debunkers' starlight scopes doesn't really bother me. At times, the debunkers and nay-sayers have actually provided an element of comic relief and entertainment, in what has otherwise been a somewhat grim scenario. But then, I have developed a thick skin and don't much care what anyone thinks of me. When I find misinformation or disinformation being disseminated, I try to correct it as best I can and move on to more important things.
In an e-mail sent to Virginia McCullough by Martin Cannon and copied to me, Cannon writes in the subject line: "Final (I hope) response to the cranks". It comes as no surprise to me that Cannon thinks I am a "crank". In fact, coming from someone of Mr. Cannon's ilk, I can only take it as a compliment.
Cannon writes: "Let's all be clear on one fact: I did NOT ask for, or expect, that private letter [his letter to BIllings] to be published." Well then, why did he forward his "private" letter, written to Kurt Billings, to NewsMakingNews? I think that's a rhetorical question, and one y'all reading this don't need me to provide the answer to.
In reply to my statement that Kurt happens to be a good friend of mine, Cannon quips: "Loyalty is admirable, even when misplaced." On this point, I would have to question whether Mr. Cannon can even fathom the objective concept of loyalty, much less presume to comment on the loyalties of others.
Cannon continues by presuming my ignorance of law:
Why Virginia says she had to "assume'" I got her message, I don't understand. Because in fact, I answered Virginia's letter immediately, thanking her for taking the time to write out her thoughtful and detailed comments relating to mind control; Gunderson; O'Brien; Phillips; Taylor/Ford; etc.
I had asked Virginia to keep my e-mails to her private and confidential, so I won't go into further detail. But I will say that I did not request information on Ted Gunderson because of the Art Bell lawsuit, which was a separate issue entirely; one that I won't comment on here since I did not become directly involved, though I was aware that Kurt Billings had at one time been in contact with Art Bell's lawyers in connection with the case.
Virginia made the offer to send the hardcopy documents to me and the main reason I wanted them was so that I could have some documentation to work with which might be able to verify --or contrariwise, reveal the flaws-- in some of my own research. And of course, so that I could develop a more informed opinion about what I believed to be the truth about Ted Gunderson.
I received by post, from Virginia, a box of hardcopy documentation. Some of it was said to come from Michael Riconosciuto's files and some --but not most-- of the documents were connected to Ted Gunderson. Many of the documents and newspaper articles addressed other issues such as Promis/Inslaw; the death of Danny Casolaro; the IBCC; defense contracting firms connected to Riconosciuto and others allegedly part of the "Octopus", etc.
But even though I greatly appreciated that Virginia sent me the documents, that did not necessarily make it any easier for me to gather evidence about my own case. If I was unable to reciprocate, by making "proof a two way street" it was because it was not in my power to do so. I'm sorry if Virginia feels that I did not honor my part of what she apparently considered a "quid pro quo" deal. I have been working for years trying to collect documentation regarding my involvement in MKULTRA and other black operations.
As any survivor of one of these projects knows, it can be next to impossible to get our hands on evidence in the form of hardcopy documents. I don't even have access to my own childhood medical records! "Coincidentally " all my records and those of my siblings, were destroyed in a fire which consumed the office of the family physician a number of years ago. One of my family members cannot even get access to her own medical records from NIH (National Institute of Health) --notoriously hand-in-glove with CIA in its involvement in the medical and genetic-engineering aspects of black projects. And for that, I do have some evidence and am working to collect more.
I have family members employed by CIA and NIH and predictably, I haven't spoken to any of them in years, not since I broke out of the black programs. It seems they don't want anything to do with me, and I don't have to guess why. They've even stopped sending Christmas cards! I love my family and feel hurt by their attitude, but there's not much I can do to change things on that front so I just have to live with it and pray that someday they will see fit to break through their denial and indoctrination and see these agencies for what they really are.
Now, back to Martin Cannon. I should say that I have read some of his articles on the Internet and I give him credit for being a talented writer. I won't go into a long-winded analysis of his research or viewpoints; I will only say that "debunking" seems to be a major thrust of his writings. For the most part, even when their criticism is directed at me, I try not to waste time arguing with the debunkers. When necessary, I simply publicly make my position clear and do my best to correct any false allegations they have made.
Many debunkers--especially those focusing on the field of psychic/paranormal and UFO research-- have over the course of the past twenty-some-odd years set their sights on me and my colleagues. But being caught in the crosshairs of the debunkers' starlight scopes doesn't really bother me. At times, the debunkers and nay-sayers have actually provided an element of comic relief and entertainment, in what has otherwise been a somewhat grim scenario. But then, I have developed a thick skin and don't much care what anyone thinks of me. When I find misinformation or disinformation being disseminated, I try to correct it as best I can and move on to more important things.
In an e-mail sent to Virginia McCullough by Martin Cannon and copied to me, Cannon writes in the subject line: "Final (I hope) response to the cranks". It comes as no surprise to me that Cannon thinks I am a "crank". In fact, coming from someone of Mr. Cannon's ilk, I can only take it as a compliment.
Cannon writes: "Let's all be clear on one fact: I did NOT ask for, or expect, that private letter [his letter to BIllings] to be published." Well then, why did he forward his "private" letter, written to Kurt Billings, to NewsMakingNews? I think that's a rhetorical question, and one y'all reading this don't need me to provide the answer to.
In reply to my statement that Kurt happens to be a good friend of mine, Cannon quips: "Loyalty is admirable, even when misplaced." On this point, I would have to question whether Mr. Cannon can even fathom the objective concept of loyalty, much less presume to comment on the loyalties of others.
Cannon continues by presuming my ignorance of law:
"Babs should read more about libel law.....I can recommend a few other books if she wants to escape her current state of ignorance."
Very gracious of him, but he seems to assume much, while knowing little, regarding the level of my ignorance.
Very gracious of him, but he seems to assume much, while knowing little, regarding the level of my ignorance.
He assumes --falsely-- that I know nothing more than a few excerpts from books which I merely quoted as sources in order to illustrate my point: That Cannon's allegations were potentially libelous, since they were clearly made with intent of malice against Kurt Billings. I would hardly have included a lengthy legal brief --who would want to be bothered reading it?
Cannon claims his malicious comments about Billings to be "protected speech...all protected speech".
Cannon claims his malicious comments about Billings to be "protected speech...all protected speech".
Cannon further states that "Kurt Billings is a public figure.....The courts have long given people wide latitude in offering opinion on public figures."
In fact, whether or not Kurt is designated as a "public figure" would come from an opinion issued by the court in a preliminary hearing, before any such libel case could be litigated-- and NOT from Mr. Cannon. And in fact, Mr. Cannon's personal opinion is irrelevant in any legal sense.
In my humble opinion --despite my "ignorance"-- I think it most likely that Kurt Billings would be deemed by the court to be what is known as a "limited purpose public figure". Which changes the rules for "protected speech" considerably. But hey, what do I know? According to Mr. Cannon: "Babs knows zilch about the law."
But there's more: According to Mr. Cannon I am not only "ignorant" I am also "fascistic" due to his presumption that my "inability to recognize" that in his "private" (?!) communication to Billings, he had a "right to negatively react to any author's work"...." He is a public figure. I have in private, attacked his published writings. What is wrong with that ?"
Well, I guess Mr. Cannon sees nothing wrong with that, but in an ethical --even if not in a legal sense-- I'm sure there are many people who would beg to differ. But then no one could accuse Cannon of being an ethicist.
According to Cannon, yours truly, Barbara Hartwell, is not only an ignorant, fascistic crank, she is also a "gullible fool" along with John Quinn, Sherman Skolnick, Kurt Billings and doubtless, others too numerous to mention. Well, at least I'm in good company. Thank you Mr. Cannon, for the backhanded compliment though I'm sure you did not not intend it as such.
Finally, back to Kurt Billings. In the same letter to Virginia McCullough Cannon states: "Kurt Billings makes a living lying to the public. Perhaps he does not lie deliberately --nevertheless he lies "
Now I have some things to say about Kurt Billings, which I probably should have said in my original response to Martin Cannon's letter. Better late than never. In fact, I have never seen Kurt Billings speak anywhere in public without a fistful of documents or heard him on a radio program without quoting directly from government documents, technology patents or newspaper articles as his sources. Kurt's presentations are impressive because speculation plays no role in the information he presents. As far as "lies"? I've never heard him lie about anything.
And if Mr. Cannon ever took the trouble to watch one of Kurt's videotapes, he might realize that the tapes Kurt sells to earn his living contain detailed information about mind control programming; the classified, unclassified and declassified technologies and hi-tech weaponry deployed by gov't agencies in implementing mass mind control, as well as the specifics of certain projects such as MKULTRA and some of its subdivisions. In fact, I have never met anyone who was as knowledgeable on the combined technical and psychological aspects of mind control, with just a few exceptions, such as Michael Ash, a clinical hypnotherapist, robotics engineer and a survivor of the Montauk Project.
I defend and support Kurt not just because he is a friend, and not just because I have loyalty to my friends. Kurt is one of very few people who had any real understanding of my own experiences with mind control, or of the family background I come from. Kurt's background is strikingly similar to mine....CIA all the way.
And lastly, Kurt may be a Christian, but he does not attempt to impose his religious beliefs on others. In his public presentations he states that he is a Christian, but leaves it at that. The thrust of his presentations is information. Information which is needed for the general public to understand the massive violations of human rights which are instrumental in all government mind control programs. I for one, would like to see more mind control researchers come forward with the quality of information and evidence Kurt presents.
Mr. Cannon may wish to spend his time debunking the research of others and starting petty disputes about the existence of the Illuminati and the New World Order, Satanists, long-dead philosophers, religious figures, scam artists and what not. But for the rest of us, there's real work to do: Like bringing forth every piece of information, documentation and testimony we can get our hands on. And doing all in our power to make our research public.
People like Kurt Billings, Kenn Thomas, John Quinn and Sherman Skolnick have better things to do than wage war with debunkers and intellectual snobs like Martin Cannon. And I for one am very glad that they do.
In fact, whether or not Kurt is designated as a "public figure" would come from an opinion issued by the court in a preliminary hearing, before any such libel case could be litigated-- and NOT from Mr. Cannon. And in fact, Mr. Cannon's personal opinion is irrelevant in any legal sense.
In my humble opinion --despite my "ignorance"-- I think it most likely that Kurt Billings would be deemed by the court to be what is known as a "limited purpose public figure". Which changes the rules for "protected speech" considerably. But hey, what do I know? According to Mr. Cannon: "Babs knows zilch about the law."
But there's more: According to Mr. Cannon I am not only "ignorant" I am also "fascistic" due to his presumption that my "inability to recognize" that in his "private" (?!) communication to Billings, he had a "right to negatively react to any author's work"...." He is a public figure. I have in private, attacked his published writings. What is wrong with that ?"
Well, I guess Mr. Cannon sees nothing wrong with that, but in an ethical --even if not in a legal sense-- I'm sure there are many people who would beg to differ. But then no one could accuse Cannon of being an ethicist.
According to Cannon, yours truly, Barbara Hartwell, is not only an ignorant, fascistic crank, she is also a "gullible fool" along with John Quinn, Sherman Skolnick, Kurt Billings and doubtless, others too numerous to mention. Well, at least I'm in good company. Thank you Mr. Cannon, for the backhanded compliment though I'm sure you did not not intend it as such.
Finally, back to Kurt Billings. In the same letter to Virginia McCullough Cannon states: "Kurt Billings makes a living lying to the public. Perhaps he does not lie deliberately --nevertheless he lies "
Now I have some things to say about Kurt Billings, which I probably should have said in my original response to Martin Cannon's letter. Better late than never. In fact, I have never seen Kurt Billings speak anywhere in public without a fistful of documents or heard him on a radio program without quoting directly from government documents, technology patents or newspaper articles as his sources. Kurt's presentations are impressive because speculation plays no role in the information he presents. As far as "lies"? I've never heard him lie about anything.
And if Mr. Cannon ever took the trouble to watch one of Kurt's videotapes, he might realize that the tapes Kurt sells to earn his living contain detailed information about mind control programming; the classified, unclassified and declassified technologies and hi-tech weaponry deployed by gov't agencies in implementing mass mind control, as well as the specifics of certain projects such as MKULTRA and some of its subdivisions. In fact, I have never met anyone who was as knowledgeable on the combined technical and psychological aspects of mind control, with just a few exceptions, such as Michael Ash, a clinical hypnotherapist, robotics engineer and a survivor of the Montauk Project.
I defend and support Kurt not just because he is a friend, and not just because I have loyalty to my friends. Kurt is one of very few people who had any real understanding of my own experiences with mind control, or of the family background I come from. Kurt's background is strikingly similar to mine....CIA all the way.
And lastly, Kurt may be a Christian, but he does not attempt to impose his religious beliefs on others. In his public presentations he states that he is a Christian, but leaves it at that. The thrust of his presentations is information. Information which is needed for the general public to understand the massive violations of human rights which are instrumental in all government mind control programs. I for one, would like to see more mind control researchers come forward with the quality of information and evidence Kurt presents.
Mr. Cannon may wish to spend his time debunking the research of others and starting petty disputes about the existence of the Illuminati and the New World Order, Satanists, long-dead philosophers, religious figures, scam artists and what not. But for the rest of us, there's real work to do: Like bringing forth every piece of information, documentation and testimony we can get our hands on. And doing all in our power to make our research public.
People like Kurt Billings, Kenn Thomas, John Quinn and Sherman Skolnick have better things to do than wage war with debunkers and intellectual snobs like Martin Cannon. And I for one am very glad that they do.
Barbara Hartwell
April, 2001
