Talk:Cathy O'Brien

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

From talk:project monarch[edit]

talk:Cathy O'BrienHello, I have firm arguments for the existence of the Monarch programming article: 1) Let's see Google searching - about 4 330 000 results(0.15 sec). These are written evidence of about 4 millions people who know about term "monarch programming" and who have made articles about it. So you can see that is impossible that the article is original research.

2) http://www.getacd.org/listen_iu5EtbyPNS8/cathy_o_brien_trance_formation_of_america_1_7

these are some of the major independent source of information you can see a thousands of them - some are publish online and they are free.

3)If the facts in these books have been a complete lie why the government agencies mentioned to be involved in such despicable and illegal activities do not start trial against the authors of statements that exposed the as absolute villains? I think we all know the answer and it is very simple. Silence is the tactics of guilty conscious.

I will ask for support for that external link. I think that Bulgarians reader will mark it that it is notable reference. Others can use the Google translate features.

http://alchemicaltechnologies.blogspot.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollmodel (talkcontribs) 16:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Monarch programming - this is really a very dangerous way to put people in slavery!!! And this thing is not some kind of illusion - this is something real that happening all over the world! For example : http://alchemicaltechnologies.blogspot.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.10.28.135 (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Vox populi - vox dei - http://alchemicaltechnologies.blogspot.com !!!

  • You can remove the deletion template if you object to the article's deletion. It will probably then be taken through the AfD process, where you can make these arguments in a more public forum. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I object to article's deletion. I insist it be taken through the AfD process, where I can make these arguments in a more public forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollmodel (talkcontribs) 10:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

There's not a snowball's chance in hell the page would survive the AFD discussion given those sources. Blogs, web fora and whale.to are not reliable sources even for a fringe theory like this one. Google hits are not useful for anything. The New Inquisition produces no relevant results for Monarch or O'Brien. Your interpretation of "independent" doesn't meet our criteria for reliability or notability. Given the sources and the obvious consensus, I've used common sense and redirected the page here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)---------------------------------------

YOU SAY OUR STANDARDS, are you one of the chief editors who decides what is allowed in wiki articles? How can a book published by oxford house not meet your criteria for reliability or notability? Wheres the consensus? Your voice? When you say freely available web documents are not allowed, but it says newspaper articles which are freely available online are allowed, and lots of the articles have links to non-governmental webpages so is it only in the case of non-controversial issues that freeweb pages are allowed? Or are you saying that each author has to buy their old fashioned hard copy sources, thus the knowledge on Wikipedia can only be provided by those with resources? Freely available online journals are not allowed because they are free? And that springter is not a self-published work but is a publishing company. Who gets to vote in these things, just senior editors like yourself? On the cults artilce the following is deemed a good enough website: http://www.religioustolerance.org/acm.htm so what websites are deemed to be published by a 3rd party?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSpaceBetween2 (talkcontribs) 00:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC) 
Monarch programming (trauma based programming) is scientific method for impacting human psychic, based on violation the universe law of free will and fragmenting of human consciousness to different self-contained parts. The technique origins from the dark priest of Babylonian cabal of the Illuminati. Initially it serves their god masters and during the centuries they start utilizing the technique for their own purposes.
According hermetic knowledge the matter of Monarch programming is based on the fundamental principle that human mind is a mathematical matrix that can be extended to 13*13 separated and in independent person individuals. The fragmentation of human conscious is done extreme pain – physical, spiritual or even both. The dark masters of this technique forced violently the victim conscious to collapse and to be fragmented. After that they form new individual person who do not know about the other sharing the same body.
This is what really O.Brian has been trough. Let's people talk about that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollmodel (talkcontribs) 16:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Reliable sources indicate MKULTRA was an essential failure and the generation of dissociative alters through traumatic programming is a myth. Project Monarch is not discussed in any reliable sources that I'm aware of, but please feel free to provide them. Wikipedia is not a soapbox to promote fringe theories about unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. We don't lower our standards because people allege they've been tortured. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
My dear wiki friends, MK ULTRA and monarch programming evidences are real. They are kept very carefully in the CIA file storages. Why do not we write an open letter to them about the case. The fact that something is classified do not make it automatically false.
About the new forms of inquisitors of mind:
"people allege they've been tortured" - do you have a degree in forensics to make such a summery. The scars of trauma based torture can be observed only by expert at forensics. When you claim "people allege they've been tortured" please expose to public your license to make such professional conclusion at the area of forensics. Otherwise your position could be considered as unreliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollmodel (talkcontribs) 16:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Not your friend. If you can't verify your claims with reference to reliable sources, they shouldn't be here and will be removed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/illuminati_formula_mind_control.htm

"The Illuminati Formula Used to Create an Undetectable Total Mind Controlled Slave, by Cisco Wheeler and Fritz Springmeier" - what about that source of information - is it not reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.130.73.253 (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Who is the publisher? Looks like it's a freely available web document or vanity press (amazon gives the publisher as "Springmeier & Wheeler". Self-published works are not reliable per our guidelines on reliable sources (WP:RS), particularly for such extreme claims. Fritz Springmeier isn't a reliable source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

And what about this - http://www.parallelreality-bg.com/index.php/statii/control/348-2011-07-21-16-49-00.html- ? Even in the Balkans the technique of monarch programming has been exposed and has been described. You can see - just use the Google translate features. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.130.73.253 (talk) 06:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Random webpages are not reliable sources. Please also see our policies on notability, fringe theories, what wikipedia is not (particularly WP:SOAP) and neutrality; it's very possible, in fact it's almost inevitable, that these ideas have no place on wikipedia. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)