First, I want to thank everyone who has come forward. This is not an easy subject to discuss. God bless you.
For those unsure of what's going on but may have been affected by predatory behavior within the "Son of Sam community," I will do my best to respectfully explain the situation at hand.
For roughly three years now, an individual has been targeting female researchers, using Maury Terry and the Son of Sam case as bait.
This individual puts on a big performance. He's dedicated to Maury, he's dedicated to defending Maury's legacy, dedicated to defending the community, etc.
Flattery is immediately offered to the intended victim. Friendly banter is exchanged. Gossip is shared. As time goes on, personal problems are presented to the female researchers for sympathy.
From what I gather, by the time his heavy flirting has begun, these women felt like they were backed into a corner. They don't want to hurt his feelings. They try to let him down easy.
At a certain point, very subtle threats are made, little hints about what could happen if other people found out whatever it is this guy is now holding over these women's heads. A little gaslighting might be thrown in for good measure.
Some of these women were left with such an uneasy feeling, to put it mildly, that they withdrew from the research community altogether. I can't help but wonder if this was one of his goals from the outset.
Four, possibly five women [EDIT: now I'm being told six] have gone through this in a relatively short period of time. I suspect there's more.
I don't know what to do next. Obviously Facebook mods need to be made aware because that's where it begins. Is this a law enforcement issue? Possibly. That's not for me to decide, unless I am personally put in a position to make that decision. I hope we're clear on this.
This is not a "he said/she said". This is a THEY said. It's not a simple falling out over a misunderstanding, this is a campaign against these women.
Do I personally expect retribution of some kind, accusations made about me? Or worse? Sure. This guy and his crew are garbage, that's all they know. But the smart thing to do would be to back away and leave everyone alone because people have taken measures to protect themselves, I can assure you of that.
TO THIS UNNAMED PERSONS FRIENDS: I'm sure he "can explain". Make him. Make him explain why he has treated SIX people like this?
Please stay safe, everyone.
Unbelievable.
ReplyDeleteSame modus operandi almost to the t, although I'm still unclear if mine is the person based on comments in the other blog thread.
Regardless, I think these men are working as a rag tag team.
I wish I could give more details because people would be alarmed.
If certain individuals are talking smack about me, trying to blame me, implying I'm the cause division or any of the other ladies, they can kindly find another passtime.
Because guess what? Timelines are important. .
And mine happened during the winter/spring of 2023. These other incidents date back 3 years.
I've been accused of starting trouble.
DeleteStanding up for your friends, and yourself, and Maury, and anyone else being run over by these loons is not "starting trouble".
F__k 'em, pardon my French. Seriously. What planet are they from?
Honey pot exposed!
ReplyDeleteThere are actually 6 women that I know of. I won't reveal anyone, so let's just talk stats. 3 have been VERY descriptive. 2 are still being bullied — they won't speak at all because they feel ultimately compromised; they're afraid of their peers and family members finding out. I don't know everyone's identity. In one case, the woman's friend contacted me. Most just want to move on and for it to somehow go away. I should note there is one woman who doesn't feel she has enough to claim the same experience, but she got the same lovebombing treatment that begins the abuse.
ReplyDeleteSo, what I can tell you is that unnamed #1 has learned nothing at all. He is still working the angles as we speak: intimidation, pleading, and gaslighting.
Nathan, I appreciate your instruction to make him explain, but it appears we are dealing with someone that has strong narcissistic qualities — with a weird blend of co-dependent qualities, as I've been saying — and I'm willing to bet a month's salary that unnamed #1 will see no wrongdoing whatsoever on his part. Even if all of us were to publicly name him. The gaslighting, pleading, and threats go on to this day.
The offer is open to anyone, if you'd like to contact me or have a friend contact me, you have my solemn oath that I will keep you under cover. Warning to bad actors: keep my name out of your mouth, and do not dare to show up in my inbox unless you're looking to get dragged. Gloves off now.
Oops! Gloves off now — that's me, ParkerFate.
ReplyDeleteI'll say I could care less about my family finding out. Despite my offender saying please don't tell you husband, which I said I hadn't, I told him anyhow. My husband was initially amused, unfortunately, but became less so as other events unfolded. I think he was amused at the sheer desperation, excuses, and pleading.
ReplyDeleteAs for friends? No concerns either.
I do feel fairly protective of one or two individuals it could effect based on what I know about this individual and the others he surrounds himself with. Which is why I'm holding back. Things said to me that seemed fairly intimidating in phone conversations that are well documented. I placed in writing to him that I felt he was intimidating me; he replied he was sorry and didn't mean to come across that way and wasn't.
I recently received a phone call from someone who is connected to him through the second man, stored the message away, and emailed the person and said he'd need to keep everything in writing. I had not talked to him in awhile nor wanted to. The exchange was interesting. . .and the timing.
When did you start discussing wanting to write the Jun 9 blog, Nathan?
I started discussing it the day before when I told him to leave people alone and he went right back to bothering two of them.
DeleteSo I take it his "friends" are aware of all of this?
@Nathan
ReplyDeleteYou made a post saying these men are researching their victims, correct? I am assuming it would purely be research that would compromise the person's integrity and would make her look suspect in ties to the overall swirling cult conspiracy correct? Really, anything else would be irrelevant. But they can knock themselves out on my end. Who cares. There are more important issues on the table.
Either way, these guys could be looking a future despositions in civil court. Big time.
So, why not? It is the best forum to get everything put on the table and permanently recorded in US history, right? Maybe it can all get placed in a book like TUE. A deposition is in there if I recall correctly. Narcissists love to be the center of attention. So let them eat their cake.
I know I've had one mild accusation thrown my way, not specifically by phone, email, or text. But I was alerted to some erroneous statements being made by this person, I checked out for validation myself, and the statements made have been well documented on my end. I won't state what was said, because it will give my person away with the right research, but needless to say the person who alerted me to the statements was not amused. My person loves to make innuendos about a lot of people. Well documented.
Well, gotta roll.
I'm off to McDonalds to aggressively shove a double quarter pounder with cheese in my pie hole to alleviate the stress and my urge to continue to blow my mouth off. I hope it doesn't go straight to my @$$.
Unnamed #1, the man of the hour, has done the research on "other researchers"; one of the "others" is actually someone who has defended Unnamed #1 in the past. Last I heard they were still friends.
DeleteThe pot just never stops being stirred on his end.
If it was the day before the timeline doesn't match up. I was contacted under other pretenses about a week prior but the email conversations abruptly stopped when I was alerted to your blog. This person knows I was alerted to your blog, but the person who forwarded to me did so for other reasons. I'll have to check the date he sent it to me.
DeleteI had words with the Holy Man about two weeks ago over this crap. Briefly.
DeleteI'd also argue there can be questionable motivations for researching this case. Remember, Manny Grossman entered this research because of Covid19 restrictions. He lost his landscaping contracts and obviously needed revenue. True crime series on TV and elsewhere have escalated 400% following Covid19. Oh, and he wanted to "scratch an artistic itch". Kind of a bad reason to get involved in true crime research.
ReplyDeleteI guess if these guys are going to look into the women for trash, maybe people need to start examining them closely, including motivations for entering into research and their ties to others.
Parker, here.
ReplyDeleteIf I may offer my perspective… I wasn’t keen to tell what happened to me, but I told 4 people what had occurred — in varying levels of detail — soon after it happened 2 years ago. The incident busted-up our research team at that time. There are some ironies: 1) one of the 4 ppl I told was unnamed #2 (the wingman), though the detail was sparse; 2) this was (at that time) the 2nd research group unnamed #1 had destroyed within a short timeframe.
The situation, as it was, was a scar on my circle of people. Unnamed #1 managed to alienate me from people I care about. He continued to triangulate me with certain others — something that never slowed down. He is extremely jealous when it comes to my show of respect for certain men in the community. There remains an ongoing effort to destroy my alliances with those men by any means necessary, and I do mean ANY means. Nothing is sacred. But we were letting that ride, until…
— it was discovered that one of our dearest friends fell prey to unnamed #1. I cannot even begin to express how this angered me.
— suddenly we noticed unnamed #1 and #2 circling our new research comrade, Dana. Tag-team duo. They entered the chat together one night (first time for both), and became fixtures in her comment section over several weeks. The weirdest thing is that unnamed #1 pretended he hadn’t spoken to #2 in a long time. An obvious lie. But unnamed #1’s lies no longer phase me. I’ve caught him in too many.
— recently, in the comment section section under my presentation on Maury Terry, unnamed #2 began to bully me indirectly — via Nathan, in fact. It was said, basically, that if I don’t show my evidence, I’m lying. It was insinuated that I invited this; that I encouraged it; that I agreed with it. This is, by the way, why I call #2 “wingman.”
— I reached out to unnamed #1 to see if he would like to tell his friend to shut the fuck up, to which he indicated that he did not.
That is how we find ourselves here. Technically, it began almost 3 weeks ago.
As far as Manny getting into it because of CV… just more horses#it lies. That’s not directed at you, Anonymous. I’m not trying to plug my presentation, here — but I contend this is an orchestrated campaign, as outlined in "The Vanishing Legacy Of Maury Terry" (on youtube).
ReplyDeleteUnnamed #1 will tell you that he supported the vid, therefore he isn’t part of the campaign. But what he actually did was a passive-aggressive hit on my work. The wingman voiced his disapproval elsewhere. Unnamed #1 also shared the video in a certain venue — by doing so, he kept ME from sharing it which kept the views down. These guys are subtle. They can’t control everything, but they clearly work as a team.
@Nathan
DeleteThat is extremely interesting. So someone within the group is familiar with how to manipulate podcast views. That takes knowledge of podcasting, marketing, social media. I'm fairly educated but couldn't tell you how it operates other than dollars made. It would take someone with some serious industry
experience, right?
How long do you suspect these guys have been pulling these kinds of stunts on you? What is your specific area of research focus?
Yeah, I get Manny's podcast is psyops and isn't purely financial based on what I've collected so far. Still, there also seems to be a financial motivation, too.
@Nathan
ReplyDeleteI'll give you an example of one mild intimidating statement without giving other details that lead up to it. Because I am all wound up now and hoping made the numbers are so high.
I was told by the person who did this to me that I needed "a clean break" with someone I am researching with and someone I consider to be one of the better friends I've had in my life.
Um, no. You don't get to designate who I talk to and who I don't. This person also wanted me to just work with him which was a clear red flag. You don't try to socially isolate people from their network. All signs of abusive behavior.
I had no idea for the longest time that he was stabbing me in the back along those same lines, trying to isolate a female researcher.
DeleteThis obviously is not his first rodeo. He has a technique down pat.
Addressing “this is extremely interesting” re podcasting... I don’t believe that unnamed #1 is sophisticated in that sense. He specializes in manipulating people. Even Manny, who is obviously backed by someone, has a hard time scraping up legit views and likes — just take a look at his numbers. For the most part, people know bullshit when they see it. A good portion of Manny’s viewership is people that tune in to keep an eye on his lies.
ReplyDeleteThese guys are no titans of podcasting or marketing; I’m not suggesting that. The hedge around Manny is a higher-up. Someone provides cover for him, steers him, and I guess we will see very soon how sophisticated THAT party is, as there is something in the works. It’s a slick operation. Still CONCERTED, you get me?
But unnamed #1 did sequester my vid — took “possession” of it — because it’s about control. Narcissism is about control. Intimidation is about control. Isolating a person is about control. Dictating who you speak to, research with, and talk to is about control. That is unnamed #1’s game.
I would have shared my own vid; he knows that. He’d already been doing his passive-aggressive strikes. He posted it within a couple hours in this other venue. It got zero play. Had it been my post, ppl would have engaged with me about the video. I have a rapport there. It’s just another time that unnamed #1 stepped in to try to control me.
I’d like to clarify something… when I said I asked unnamed #1 if he would like to tell his friend to stfu and he indicated he didn’t, I was kinda being a smartass the way I described it. What unnamed #1 actually said was: “There was two sides to all those conversations and you know that I have them.” Plus a lot of other blah blah blah blah.
Well. Who’s holding the Royal Flush?
— Parker
@Parker and Nathan
ReplyDeleteI'm really not clear if my man is the same but the modus operandi appears to be strikingly similar. Which makes me wonder if mine is affliated with yours. I've said this prior.
I also have had issues with people telling me they hadn't spoken to a person in months, making it sound like there was a break up, only to find out otherwise. Or, like mine, withholding who they are affiliated with.
I've chalked up some of the behaviors to specific people trying to figure out networks by feeding incorrect information. But certain people have taken it WAY too far on occassion and the disinformation could cause serious backlash.
I've also seen some examples of knowing people converse but the person is not on their social media account. One person told me this is quite common to keep people from knowing who is talking to who and tracing back.
The behavior is EXHAUSTING. Which is likely the point. It creates apathy.
Well, I’m about ready to go on a diatribe and then check myself out on these conversations. I want the men involved to think long and hard about how their actions appear to others in light on the occult context surrounding this case.
ReplyDeleteMichael Hoffman discusses how the occult works much like theater. The theater begins for the cult members themselves and then embroils everyone who comes in contact with it. Or in our case, the community. It is a type of alchemical psychodrama that metamorphizes us like “butterflies”. We process this information by watching the news, watching podcasts, reading blogs, reading books, interacting with one another in groups or one-on-one.
The act is a theater of death, globalized voodoo and hoodwinking, political black magic witchery and it makes me weep. . .
These men, are they enacting this psychodrama within the SOS community? Are they mirroring what is nothing more than the process of a global occult initiation?
Sure, this post might trigger some laughter from them but hear me out. Because it certainly appears like they have their own “secret script”. Guess what? Secret scripts are not meant to be kept hidden forever and eventually are unveiled. . .which happened through this blog.
Hoffman discusses the Revelation Method or how the process of criminal acts and all the conspiracies that surround them such as wars, cult-worship, horror shows, are eventually unveiled for public consumption. This unveiling process is like a clown mocking its victim which displays its power and flat-out egotistical nature. When this type of unveiling is coupled with symbolism, such as occult signs, and the targeted audience does not respond to them, it is perhaps the most efficacious means of mind-control, acting like a psyops project.
Satan loves nothing more than to ceremonially thumb his nose, to mock his audience, and loves nothing more than to ramp it up to the highest level of intensity to make the pain intolerable. Satan also is driven by CONSENT. Striking that these men keep saying, “Consenting Adults”. Let me get back to watching Kevin Spacey’s movie, jerk offs. I’ll turn on “House of Cards” next. . .
The global media machine, the NYPD, and the criminal justice system and the killers involved in the SOS crimes committed horrendous acts without public knowledge or the victim’s consent. But you know what? It is another thing when these acts are committed WITH OUR CONSENT. These men fully realize that silence is their supposed legally binding consent. They have actively tried to silence their victims. The victim’s silence and the victim’s lack of action would mean they consented to how these men treated the women involved.
I’m sure these men were actively bragging how they got away with this behavior to one another, because it gives them their next thrill when making a new conquest.
They successfully accomplished sexually harassing women and intimidating them. They have somewhat gotten away and are scapegoating currenting. We now are learning the truth but are these men being metaphorically prosecuted by the community. These men are continuing to openly mock the community, disorient the victims and the community, and demoralize the victims and the community with their gaslighting.
Guess what, assholes: occult prestige and the potency of the SOS conspiracy was just heightened.
Are they just misogynistic assholes who can’t stand when a woman researcher is more competent then them is something more going on?
Muchos gracias for continuing to enable the community’s enslavement. Now kindly see yourselves out the door.
LOVE Michael Hoffman!
DeleteAnonymous lady, it is SO VERY exhausting!
ReplyDeleteBut check it out: it may have seemed like we were here going back and forth on a lot of points that don’t matter — for anyone thinking this way, you are wrong. The extended discussion has helped quite a few people connect the dots. It’s helped people understand in greater depth. I’ve received many reactions in DM. This is meaningful. Anonymous lady, you’ve contributed so much. Your willingness to share has been key to this outing, and I assure you: it hit the mark!
Riffing on what you said about the person saying they didn’t talk to so-and-so for months, those were his exact words recently. When I wrote to ask if he would like to shut his friend up, he said: “I haven’t spoken to anyone in months. And I just happened to be talking to [wingman] when….”
The last time I heard this lie, he said he hadn’t talked to the holy figure in over a year. Yeah.
Sometimes I still feel sorry for unnamed #1. It’s a feeling that creeps up for a few seconds, then vanishes. Feeling sorry doesn’t have the staying power it used to have.
Unnamed #1: I get why you’re confused. I kept my mouth shut. I didn’t react. Years went by. Who has time for this besides YOU??
You took it a step too far. Your wingman started writing checks that the facts of the matter can’t cash. — And what did you do? You kept talking shit. You’re still trying to manipulate people to stay silent.
I’m not sure if you noticed: my name is out there, but yours isn’t.
— Parker
ReplyDeleteI wonder if Unnamed #1 is still friends with A.B.? That’s one of the people he had “intel” on and was going to share with a certain YouTuber.
ReplyDeleteWell, I'm back. I guess I can't help myself despite the toxic nature of the discussions. I'm going in for another healing cleanse.
ReplyDeleteSo, obviously we are doing more here with our posts, spreading a tale that our men do not have access to immunity and are not invincible despite failing to pull down the proverbial curtain and give names publicly. As Hoffman writes, "silence and lack of meaniful action constitutes consent in the face of [these occult] types of crimes".
When putting these mens' actions into the context of their occult-like scripting, including all their misinformation and disinformation, all their out-and-out gaslighting makes 100% sense. It is a generator with multiple parts, reveling Adams "Dynamo and the Virgin". Mediating chaos.
Just riffing.
So many lies. So many coverups. So many instances that were so bold and arrogant by these men that they blatantly and openly made fun of us, mocked us, to all of our faces while leaving a trail of breadcrumbs in plain view.
Know that all thier maddening behavior and suspicious accounts that left us previously hoodwinked and disoriented hopefully will now lose their power on the SOS online community. We clearly see their scripting and realize their acts are nothing but a gigantic display of theater. The curtain has been pulled back and the Great Oz has been revealed and their stagecraft will cease to hold its power.
These men are NOT untouchable. They ARE NOT omnipotent. They are and will be held accountable for their actions.
@loveMichaelHoffman
ReplyDeleteAlthough I quoted him, I think he take some conspiracy theories too far. And some of his views are objectionable. But I think his views on how the occult machine works are fairly perceptive. I'll leave it there.
Parker, here. I often forget to sign off at the end. :)
ReplyDelete@AlthoughIQuotedHim: we seem to be in perfect agreement. I have a couple of Hoffman’s books, even though I don’t agree on his SoS theories. He’s right on many things. Good reference!
As for our outing of Unnamed #1 and his pals, there sure is a lot of talking going on behind the scenes. I’m aware, now, of who the unknown lady is. Unknown lady: we were never friends, but you’re not my enemy. There appears to have been some triangulation involved. I’m not sure where we are on our theories of the case, but that has no place here in this outing. You are welcome among us.
This next piece is directed at Unnamed #1’s friends….
Did you ever notice how Unnamed #1 focuses on particular conversations, as a means to “twist” himself out of any wrong doing? Let me give you an example:
It is true that I contacted Unnamed #1 and said to him that he is NOT one of us until he puts his ass on the line and tells what he knows. I did that because Unnamed #1 was all over Dana’s comment section (videos and community posts) beating his chest about how he knows this and that, and always did know this and that — and that it’s about time someone started talking about it. My thoughts: Unnamed #1, why aren’t *YOU* talking about it?? — Especially right now, when it matters most.
Unnamed #1 told me he would say whatever I wanted him to say (first of all, there’s the screenshot TRAP). I said no. I told him if he can’t figure it out, that’s on him. But what was I even talking about?
I was talking about how Unnamed #1 is/was friends with a fella that has the initials MG. Sure, Unnamed #1 will try to play this down, but in my estimation, when you appear on someone’s program (more than once), and you correspond with that person… and let’s say that later on you even apologize to that person about what was said in a not-so-public venue…. I’m just pointing out the obvious: I have never heard Unnamed #1 say a discouraging word about MG. Ever. UNLESS it was behind closed doors. I asked Unamed #1 why he has never, for example, highlighted the lie about the O’Haras — a prominent lie that was told by MG. Unnamed #1 disussed this at length behind closed doors.
How this can be twisted in such a way that turns me into a liar when it comes to the topic of manipulation and inappropriate behavior is beyond me, but HEY — you guys (Unnamed #1s pals) are the ones that have chosen to stand by this trouser snake.
Unnamed #1 would tell me, when we did speak, that he was fearful and that they know where he lives. This is a drawback we all face when we get close to people in the community. There are people in this community that know where I live, too — including Unnamed #1. The others (like Unnamed #1) have known for years, so if my identity and address should all of the sudden be made public, that will be suspicious.
Unnamed #1: actions taken on your part will be met with equal or greater action. You learned this lesson a long time ago, but for some reason you forgot to HEED IT.
— Parker
I probably shouldn't keep talking, but there continues to be some behavioral overlap. Maybe?
DeleteWhen I first started talking to my unnamed man and following the harassment, likely because I feel like I gave him some sound marital counseling and wasn't horribly judgmental (for awhile at least) on the sexual advances, this person referred to me as one of his best friends.
This was also a bit overboard for me because we'd been in contact maybe for a month.
I need to spend considerable personal time with a person, including face-to-face, before I label a person as a bestie. I don't know. It seemed ingratiating and needy.
Did I ever consider this person a friend? I don't know, frankly. I guess no. Enemy? When mild threats are made and games are played, it certainly doesn't create alliances.
Friends behave much better.
I don't know what my specific man has or hasn't said to MG. I don't believe he has been on his show. But Ive only watched a handful of MG podcasts. I find them unwatchable, unoriginal, recycled, poorly written and researched. One appeared to have been lifted directly from a published news article, verbatim.
But I know he has been in contact with him in the past, maybe 2 years ago, although this was never disclosed to me at the time. This seems to be frequent in the community in general, withholding who talks to who.
I did know mine had serious problems with MG, on the surface at least. I found some comments made concerning.
I know he also has people who he is in contact with that have either had or have direct contact with MG. But considering MG was podcasting with people in the community before, not sure how to interpret it.
My source, who I believe has supplied me with some questionable information, is still in contact with one person on team MG. This person hasn't spoken too poorly about MG for the most part, but others have told me he does to them.
This person has said a few things about the MG team that made me raise my eyebrows. This information was volunteered to me. I did not ask for it.
I was also told by the source that he did feel mildly threatened by one of the men I'm talking about. I don't believe addresses were mentioned, though.
I'll need to go through my text history and transcribed notes which are deep in order to see if I can provide anything else that might be helpful without providing too much at this point.
As for people saying, I'll say whatever you want me to say, I always felt this was happening to my source without going into too much detail. He told me one story related to a three party conversation and then said if one of the people in the conversation found out he'd made the comments, he'd have to backtrack and just say there was a misunderstanding. No misunderstanding, believe me. I verified elsewhere and a shoddy exuse was made for the man in question.
My source backtracked.
As a researcher, I don't think everything should be placed out there in a public forum when questions still remain unanswered. It hinders research. So I can't speak for the interaction on Dana's podcast comments and won't. I don't watch her podcast for various reasons.
I certainly do believe based on journalistic and legal ethics that names of suspects, associates, affliations, witnesses should not be released for public consumption without using substitute names for safety and privacy concerns. This is Journalism 101 which is why Maury Terry didn’t release names. Why law enforcement doesnt reveal certain specfics in a case when it is still open. And, he likely didn't want to be litigated.
Sure, law enforcement didn't do their jobs. Things need to come to light. But not the way it has been handled, including how documents have been distributed to anyone and everyone. And then people scratch their heads and wonder why David Berkowitz reverted to the lone shooter. . .
@IProbablyShouldn'tKeepTalking: you'd have to go back about 3 years to find Unnamed #1's MG appearances, except you can't because MG is in the habit of destroying the evidence of things he said/did in the past. We'll have to leave that there, for now. I'm not singling out anyone that had past dealings with MG. It's what they did after they made the break. Someone else made a clean break and has been vocal about the problems with MG's research and overall MO.
DeleteIn case it matters to anyone, I always did use my real identity until a violent criminal with an active warrant showed up on my doorstep. I am actively engaged in investigating a category of people that resort to violence. I've been into that for several years, and it matches the age of my moniker. If anyone doesn't like that, it's a personal problem. (— And not directed at you @IProbablyShouldn'tKeepTalking).
There are LOTS of misunderstandings and backtracking in the orbit of Unnamed #1. Business as usual.
— Parker
@Parker
DeleteI've heard MG is in the habit of destroying previous documents that make make him look bad. Which is why I personally save everything when I first notice a problem.
Some people need to come to the understanding of how far we have technologically advanced in order to capture digital forensic evidence. This includes Ring doorbells which easily record conversations and images (mind you some of my conversations with people are outside and placed on speaker phone near mine when I feel it is needed), emails, texts, the ability to record on a computer with MS Office now, apps to record for phones, and, if you want to go retro, using a cheap methods to record.
Don't make a podcast if you haven't done your research. And certainly don't take it down in order to deny things we're said, because it can blow up in your face.
With my unnamed man, I had a conversation outside where he repeatedly badgered me to know details about my friendship status with a specific individual. I paced back and forth to keep my Rung device active.
He wanted the know if the person considered me a friend to which I repeatedly replied it is hard to call someone a friend when you haven't known the person for a long time, the person lives in another state, you've never hung out with the person, etc. I thought this would also give him a hint that I did not qualify him (my unnamed man) as a friend despite him labeling me as one if his besties.
I eventually said maybe the person considers me as a friend, but mildly. . .because he would not let up. Let's just say it was whispered back and sent up more red flags.
OMG that sounds SOOOOOO like Unnamed #1 !!!
DeleteIt would be a common occurrence to have a full-on meltdown over one particular person that I am friends with.
@Parker
DeleteI do not think we have the same guy. But I certainly think they are wired the same and likely are in contact with one another.
OK. In that case, I can confirm 5 + possibly 1 more belong to Unnamed #1. You've provided really good information, and there is plenty of time for this to continue to take shape.
DeleteFor clarification... 4 other women besides me said his name. I didn't say his name to anyone until they said it to me first. That makes 5 of us. This includes the woman whose friend contacted me. The woman’s friend said his name in her very first note. I have not spoken to the woman, but she passed a receipt to me through her friend. Also, when I said 2 women won't speak at all, I meant they don't want to go into detail. However, they said his name. I have spoken to them, they are adamant, and they are therefore counted among the 5 of us. Who’s not included is an undecided woman — she doesn’t think the situation went far enough. However, she said his name.
ReplyDeleteAlso not included is the woman I addressed yesterday as “unknown lady.” I don’t know her testimony, except that she said his name.
Anonymous lady, who has posted here regularly from the beginning is not included in my count.
I have no need to "cook the books." I’m a person that likes details that stand up to scrutiny. I didn't know anyone at all would come forward when this started.
p.s. Unnamed #1 has my address because I mailed him a Bible. End of story.
— Parker
@Parker
DeleteBased on the initials you provided and the age range of yours, as well as this person previously being on a podcast with MG, I have major concerns about who it might be.
My unnamed man tried to put me into contact with a person of a similar description. But I got bad vibes and passed.
He said he was in contact with this person previously, I had overlapping research interests, but this person had stopped communicating with him.
Specifically a ghosting over the period of about a month. He wanted me to reach out to this person to see if I could get him back on board with communication due to our similarities in research and theories. My thoughts are if you piss off a person, fix it yourself. Don't manipulate the situation by enticing the other person with a woman with a similar mindset, you know? Sent up red flags. And very codependent.
I'm not your mom, helping you to network and set up playmates.
Any other details you can give me to isolate who this guy is? Like any specific interests or hobbies?
@BasedOnTheInitials — Parker, here. I haven't actually mentioned initials, but the ones provided match so far. I gave an age (late 50s). There is a distinct hobby. Let's call it a talent. Thinking about how your unnamed man tried to put you in touch with people... allow me to RIFF off of what you said, there... Unnamed #1 began networking upon our arrival in the groups. A handful of ppl have told me recently that they thought Unnamed #1 and I were extremely close. That was true in the beginning. It wasn't long, though, before Unnamed #1 distanced from me — outwardly, at least — due to the ideas I put forth in these groups.
Delete"We" always thought MG had a mole in these groups, but I have since learned that MG had direct access all along. How? Aside from that, as it concerns Unnamed #1, I have specific examples that suggest Unnamed #1 was sharing private conversations with MG. — And why wouldn't he? Unnamed #1 shared other ppl's conversations with me on the reg. I can't believe I was special in that regard. Perhaps the community will get the chance to weigh in one very compelling example. Yeah. 'Cause I'm not here to force-feed anyone.
I digress... when I say "riff" off of what you said, I'm borrowing my late friend Doug's term. He was a guitar player. You never know when the riff is gonna be a concise thought, or a longer, trailing idea like the one I just offered. Getting back to your question, there were a whole bunch of times when Unnamed #1 would tell me to reach out to this or that person. I understand now how this bolsters Unnamed #1's rep. I never hesitated because that's kinda what I do, anyway — I talk to people. Example: I had already been chatting with the wingman via email about the wingman's project, when Unnamed #1 insisted I call him on the phone to discuss his entire testimony.
When you say "codependent"... this cannot be overstated.
If and when this goes to the fore, the detail will be alarming.
Funny you mention "leaking" to MG.
DeleteThere was something I specifically said to a handful of people. And I know with 100% certainty it got back to MG based on documentation I have on my end. Too many specifics.
I'm pretty sure I know where the leak has come from and it has been appropriately plugged. Let's just call the person I know leaked it Blabby McBlabface, my questionable source that is in contact with specific individuals on MG's current podcast team.
When I saw that got back? I laughed so hard I cried.
@Nathan
ReplyDeleteI'm trying to narrow down who this guy could be and if he is associated with mine.
Did this guy ever have a research partner with the first initial J? If so, did this researcher pretty much disappear from the community?
Yep!! On both counts.
DeleteJ whines alot about how he was wronged, but when friends confide in him how *they* were wronged by The Pervert, J blows them off and chides others for not sticking to the case.
Yo, CF, stop fishing. Thanks.
ReplyDelete