Denialism

[Mikado14]

From the Token:

http://www.cosmic-token.com/forum/viewt ... 682#p30682

<snip>
So please Jess.... we can continue the discussion here of " conspiracy" because I am still locked on to what Paul was doing with the information that I was uncovering in 2003. The program itself of course is interesting and will make fascinating reading , especially with DARPA involved and we might be able to fill in some holes..the timing 1958-1963 is possitively encouraging. if some of you want to ride in that direction .... please have at it... I am going to stick here for awhile and see if this leads me to the reason that Paul eventually dropped the entire book the way he did.... and understanding THAT might help me understand the Mikado situation too..there are some odd similarities in the way things happened with the two of them.. difficult to explain how I get there but I guess its just one of those " Wait for it" moments huh? Linda

I emboldened the important part.

The characteristic of someone who refuses to accept the truth is called "Denialism".

It has been told to Linda on many occasions as to the general reasons that Paul quit. It has also been told to Linda as to what happened between us. The commonality is the simple fact that the characters described as twigsnapper, Morgan and Juan are not real....they don't exist in physical form.

This was verified by talking with Harold. This was verified by talking with Dave. As to Juan, he was asked by a relative if he knew Linda Leach or Brown and his reply was in the negative.

The commonality between Paul and myself is quite simple....Linda is a prevaricator of stories carefully blending historical events into them. It goes along with the theory that if you throw enough crap at the wall, some of it will stick but the problem is, there is a pile of it where the wall meets the floor.

A bag of empty shells.

Mikado

[Mikado14]

Another priceless moment in time....

http://www.cosmic-token.com/forum/viewt ... 784#p30784

Rereading this particular message Fruitbat and I want to respond to it again if I haven't already. Some new informtion has come into my view so I have some additional things to say.... You said

"Maybe Paul "broke" under the pressures that were brought to bear on him, and if these pressures were accompanied by a raft of lies and disinformation, then it would be relatively easy for a skilled third party having broken his psyche to place the blame at your feet..

Are we trying to "let Paul off the hook here for his responsibility of writing a well written and presented book? If not "Well" then AT LEAST up to the standards of the Industry... which is what he promised me when I signed that contract with him. To make matters worse it really does seem now that he had this poor rendition and presentation of the life of my Dad in mind from the very first. Legally....how should I view that?

Everyone keeps harping on that "raft of lies and disinformation." Show that raft to me. If it exists and it can be proven that the forces that were at work to help Paul Schatzkin in any way were detrimental to his actions... someone show me. I think that raft is a figment of another agenda/ which can be easily found by just one visit to the HUT. ( ttownsendbrown.com )

Here you go missy, here is evidence that can be traced out to show the disinformation given to Paul from twigsnapper and Morgan that proved to be lies...

viewforum.php?f=45

1. Where was Robert Sarbacher in 1945 and the spring of 1946? Not where twigsnapper said he was
2. Who was Richard (Walter) Miethe? Not in a Gulag as twigsnapper said he was
3. A flight into Germany? Not taken by Brown for the NA 337 was already under water
4. An examination of Townsend Brown’s “A Short Autobiography” A very poor "autobiography" which appears due to sentence structure etc that does not fit with examples of Brown's writing.
.....maybe Andrew can shed some light on this
5. USS Nashville’s Maiden voyage to Europe ...inaccuracies in twigsnappers version and Morgans as to where the Nashville was.

Now when it was so easy or relatively easy to find this information, which I might add did not come on the Internet until after 2010 which further indicates that the perpetrator never expected this to come out only shows the level of deceit that was done to Paul Schatzkin. So there you have it Linda Leach....a raft of information given to Paul by twigsnapper and Morgan that was proven false.

And then there is this:

http://www.cosmic-token.com/forum/viewt ... 788#p30788

I appreciate what you are trying to do... but you must realize when you refer to "If these "lurid stories are TRUE" Thats a VERY BIG IF.... and it might be well to wonder why all of a sudden things are so friendly over there. And as far as Paul starting out to be a disinformation agent. No, I don't believe that either. But I do believe that it is odd that he displayed such a rabid sense of mental distress just weeks after leaving Mikados company....causing what he called a near mental break down. If Paul is a victim..... He was not MY PREY but someone elses, quite obviously..

But you are right. The subject really is only fit for entertainment value.

A classic example of denialism. What may have started out as an honest endeavour to write the story of perhaps an obscure scientist turned into a situation where you "liked" the attention and the lure of possible money, something your daddy failed to do so perhaps you believed it was your last and only chance to capitalize on him. And so you made, at some point, a conscious effort to deceive and Paul became an unknowing victim and in that light, he was your PREY.

You deny the fact that he wanted some hard evidence from twigsnapper when he went to Huntingdon. He just wanted to be shown "something"...."anything"....afterall the confusing IP's. The PREY turned and confronted the HUNTER, something that was totally alien to you and YOU cracked. The only problem was...there were some of us still drinking the Kool Aid and you then HUNTED the new PREY.

You are in denial about the facts. May you someday find it and those that enable you further, may they someday find mercy for taking advantage.

Mikado

[TheTraveler]

This thread kind of angers me.

First, don't like to cut and paste past info into my threads, so read all the above when considering my comments.

I was working to some degree with Paul when all this took place, and first off, his "trauma" better know as a growing sense of mistrust and realization did not just start all at once. His growing concerns over what was true and what was not just finally crystalized into the realization that he was being had.

As to the pattern of deception, Linda is actually correct about this... except the true architect of the pattern is Linda.

Here is what I can tell you for a fact. I have seen the Blowup with Paul and the subsequent attacks on his character repeated, almost exactly three other times. Once with Mikado, once with me, and now with Andy. I will guarantee that if all of us wrote our "story", then posted it in these forums, the patterns would be quite clear.

Now, there are those that would say that we just got together and make all our stories the same, but I will bet you any amount of money that you want to wager that you can't find one person that knows any of us that would say we have ever lied to distorted the facts about anyone in an attempt to harm or mislead them.

Some may wonder why I am now posting this, so here is your answer. The people involved here have become my friends, and though contact with them I have found them to be honest and really care about those around them. I have great respect for not only their dedication to proving Townsend Browns work was real, but also for their honesty, integrity and the commitment to stand with their friends in the foxhole.

I once included Linda Brown in that group, but over time have found that the only thing she brings to the foxhole is a hand grenade.

So, do I sound mad or angry? Hell yes I am mad, and not just a little bit!


Edited for typo's

[Mikado14]

I am putting this here due to the fact that this involves denialism of facts obtained.

http://www.cosmic-token.com/forum/viewt ... 851#p30851

More information, shoddily presented ... with an agenda which is oozing around the edges. Lets look at this for example.... with my comments in red.

ttownsendbrown.com

"The information of Brown not graduating High School comes from an alumni information card, from 1938, that "he" filled out in his own handwriting that indicated that he "did not" finish High School. ( Essentially correct as my Dad would be quick to say. But there is no mention of WHY he did not finish at Hill School. So there is a hole in the HUTS precious "due diligence" that you can drive a truck through.) This is "hard" evidence, this is considered "factual" evidence when someone is researching information where a biography of a person is being performed. ( Absolutely correct. But you have to have ALL of the evidence before you form any conclusions)This was done as due-diligence of facts reported in the book "Defying Gravity" by Paul Schatzkin.( Absolutely and he was correct and so far Paul Schatzkins Biography of my Dad is the best Biography of him so far presented. Even unedited it is better than most out there and well worth the reading. I would suggest that those on the HUT who haven't read Paul Schatzkins book... avail themselves of a copy. It would help with their research.)

Secondly, a letter written by Lewis Brown, Townsend's Father, in the late summer early fall of 1921, indicates that due to "issues" with his son from the previous year at School, he would not be returning. ( Absolutely. My Grandfather had spent alot of money for the education experience that his son got at HILL. He was disappointed in the school being closed and the students sent home. He thought that Doane Academy was closer...those were the only "issues" he was addressing.")

Interesting how when reporting what he likes to call " Facts" the writer at the HUT overides his own need for Due Diligence in his agenda driven attempt to paint his own picture of the events when he doesn't even know what was actually happening. The reader might get the impression that there was some sort of " problem" with Townsend Browns performance or attitude at Hill school? Thats the innuendo left behind by this slipshod and agenda driven piece of information from the HUT. It won't stand.

Linda

Let's do this one at a time:

1. Essentially correct as my Dad would be quick to say. But there is no mention of WHY he did not finish at Hill School. So there is a hole in the HUTS precious "due diligence" that you can drive a truck through.

The reason is fairly well spelled out in the letter written by Lewis Brown...Townsend was a bad boy. What it is he did was not spelled out specifically but in reading the letter, it is apparent that the scrivener and the reader knew exactly what the "incident" was. If it were due to an outbreak, why wouldn't he have mentioned such instead of referring to it in an oblique manner? If a truck can be driven through then it would be a Matchbox truck.

2. Absolutely correct. But you have to have ALL of the evidence before you form any conclusions

This comment is preposterous in that it implies that a quantifiable amount of information is available. When a person performs an investigation, they acquire information. Results are formulated based upon the information found. So far, the preponderance of the evidence suggests that he did not finish High School and that "something" happened at the Hill School. IF you have more evidence then present it otherwise your inaction implies that you are hiding something. It is so easy to criticize the evidence that others find out but what you should do is provide evidence that contradicts the evidence or reinforces your position, otherwise, your comments are....like a bag of empty shells.....you castigate but offer nothing substantial other than your criticisms. When more "hard" evidence comes forth then this position will be corrected as it would be for any information in the Due-Diligence section. You criticize facts so much but offer nothing to counter, the conclusion is that you are either hot air or a bag of empty shells...or both.

3. Absolutely and he was correct and so far Paul Schatzkins Biography of my Dad is the best Biography of him so far presented. Even unedited it is better than most out there and well worth the reading. I would suggest that those on the HUT who haven't read Paul Schatzkins book... avail themselves of a copy. It would help with their research.

And I would recommend to anyone who reads the book and when finished, read the Due-Diligence done here and see there are inaccuracies that were provided to Paul by anonymous individuals and by Elizabeth Helen Drake. And when done, ask yourself how many other "things" are there that a preponderance of evidence can be applied to counter facts presented? There are several....quite a few in fact.

4. Absolutely. My Grandfather had spent alot of money for the education experience that his son got at HILL. He was disappointed in the school being closed and the students sent home. He thought that Doane Academy was closer...those were the only "issues" he was addressing

Let's look at it from your point of view. Lewis Brown spent a lot of money and then the school was closed due to chickenpox. Even back then, the school would have been obligated to reimburse the parents for the funds spent for they surely would have been taken to court. Your argument is another bag of empty shells. Lewis Brown's disappoint was in his own son as evidenced by the letter.

Now this is very important, from what information I was able to find, IF there was an outbreak at the Hill School of chickenpox then it would have been quarantined. However, in 1920, there was an outbreak of measles and mumps in Pottstown.

5. Interesting how when reporting what he likes to call " Facts" the writer at the HUT overides his own need for Due Diligence in his agenda driven attempt to paint his own picture of the events when he doesn't even know what was actually happening. The reader might get the impression that there was some sort of " problem" with Townsend Browns performance or attitude at Hill school? Thats the innuendo left behind by this slipshod and agenda driven piece of information from the HUT. It won't stand

It does stand. It is hard evidence which is something that has not been provided from your end. All you ever provide are words from your mouth and they disappear like breath on a cold morning. The only agenda is to prove what was written. What are you so afraid of? But let's look at what you said..."Townsend Browns performance or attitude at Hill School". So, your Daddy was a poor student? He had an attitude? What kind or type of attitude? P)erhaps you can't accept the fact that your Daddy got in trouble with some other boys and Lewis Brown wanted to eliminate that atmosphere and bring his little boy home where he could keep a better eye on him.

http://www.cosmic-token.com/forum/viewt ... 854#p30854

"When Paul is ready...if ever and the report of hell freezing over has occurred, I would be more than willing to give him any and all "hard" facts I have acquired. Hell, even if he doesn't finish the book and wants the info...it's his."


I don't think Paul has demonstrated any interest at all in these "hard facts" and I doubt that he has any interest in communicating with the person who has written the above.

Actually... It might be better for Paul to do exactly what he is doing... maintaining a very low profile on all of this. Perhaps he has already fulfilled his role. Perhaps nothing more can be expected of him.

You think? How would you know anything since you have not talked with Paul in what...6 years? I would wager that if between the two of us Paul had a choice of one to talk with...it wouldn't be you. Also, if "perhaps" were candy and presents you would have Christmas all year...

Mikado