Talk:Cathy O'Brien

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination:
  • Keep, 29 April 2007, AFD
  • No consensus, 17 February 2007, AFD

Contents

[edit] Unsigned comment

I will write and tell you that Cathy's story is true. I have experienced similar abuse by military personal. I lived within 3 miles of Cathy in the year she was "recruited". She was used as a sex slave and courrier. I was used for intel/recon purposes. The U.S. government has condemded other governments for the use of children for various military and sexual operations. They have done it on a much bigger scale and still are mass programing the population. The Columbine shooting and other shootings were the results of government programing of the school years before Eric and Dilion attended and had continued. Columbine had the largest suicide and attempted suicide rate in the country. They also had sheriffs that were sexual preditors, not only to students, but to females in their custody, and brutally beating men on a regular basis. Eric and Dillon knew they were not going to get justice, so they did their own justice as best as they could, in their own minds. (Comment added on 19:59, 15 October 2007 by ISP address 71.214.48.77 0.

Monarch mind control is real. I met a monarch slave. It was crazy. I wouldn't believe in it if that hadn't happened. People have to do something about it. It wouldn't be that hard. I mean, people are being tortured and going through a living hell, and this is being done by the leaders of our country while everyone just sits around watching T.V and being and thinking like animals. Nobody cares about anything. Everyone is dumb and selfish and cares about nothing but pleasure and are too lazy to know anything about whats going on in the country or the world. Its insane! North America is dieing before our eyes, I don't just mean about the monarch slaves but about the gross, sinful state of it thats also been set up by the Illuminati, and they don't even notice it! I don't understand how a whole country can be so stupid. It's just waiting for the relief that the antichrist will give them from the pain caused by their chaos rather than the peace that God could give us if America would just be a Godly nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.89.42 (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Didn't read

too long didn't read

[edit] more ext. links

[edit] how to include?

quote from the above link, 10:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC):

One of the most brutal of all of Cathy's abusers was Dick Cheney (White House Chief of Staff to Ford, member of the CFR and later Secretary of Defence to Reagan ? despite having no military background). He would regularly organise an event known as 'A Most Dangerous Game'. This involved releasing Monarch slaves into the woods and then hunting them down with dogs and guns for sport as a means of further traumatising victims as well as for his own perversity.

How can we include this accusation into the article in a NPOV fashion? — Xiutwel (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I found that section of the book highly amusing, however, I think republishing that libel could result in wikipedia possibly being sued. Geedubber 11:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
They never got sued over that elsewhere afaik. If you believe the opposite is true, show your sources. They say a lot about certain people in their work (Bill Clinton, Dick Cheney, George Bush, Ronald Reagan) yet they've not been sued -- again AFAIK. Being sued does not mean you are wrong, btw. Wikipedia is simply serving a weak view of history because its users such as you do not have the balls to stand up, "fearing a lawsuit", based on no arguments whatsoever except an editor finding something "amusing" and "insane". I find you guys amazing and insane. Does that mean I should delete what you said here? Doh.

[edit] Is this true?

Did this really happen to her? Has anyone ever cast doubt on her story? --WikiCats 12:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, it is pretty ... insane... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7850559484065398098&q=o%27brien the poor man is insane...

--Fjafjan

Why is it insane? Why is she not linked to from the mkultra article? Her book is not linked to. Nothing. The article uses words such as "allege". Is your argument entirely based upon calling someone or their information "insane"?

It doesn't really matter whether or not it is true, there's plenty of wikipedia pages about fiction, hoaxes and unfounded allegations. perfectblue 11:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have this book, and it is clearly an enormous crock of confabulated garbage by a deeply disturbed woman. This is in the same genre as "Lauren Stratford"'s book Satan's Underground (see Wikipedia entry on Laurel_Rose_Willson. Lippard 02:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

People are so brainwashed. Some of you aren't even thinking about believing this. Trauma based mind control would definitely be effective. No chance of beating this thing when no one believes its true eh?

[edit] the best argument

The best argument against nonsense is to let the exponent express it. Attempts at counter-argument are not necessary, and deletion is counter-productive.

However, it should not be used as a linkfarm, and i have removed a few. DGG 00:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:St. Francis of Assisi, Muskegon

Cathy O'brien claims that some of the sexual abuse took place at St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church in Muskegon, Michigan. There is not nor ever was a St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church in Muskegon. She refers to the Jesuits as monks which they are not. She also talks about secret Jesuit hand signals and never bothers to explain. Does anybody know what a secret Jesuit hand signal is?

I suspect she is thinking of the hand signals used by some orders of monastics during periods of silence, such as meals. DGG 06:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

After reading the above qualm (reasonable I think, under the circumstances) I emailed Mark and Cathy on 5-30-07. Today, 6-9-07, I received this answer:

"Thanks for bringing this to our attention. How interesting that of all the positive things to focus on, this discrepancy is what Wikipedia has. This has been corrected, as St Francis of Assisi was a program theme for me instead due to exposure to animals. We've had several typos and mistakes, while all the info is 100% or we would not be free to still be whistle blowing! When we first started publishing TRANCE, we had words changed enroute to the publisher whereby one edition is even "dedicated" to Lt Col Michael Aquino! While all these difficulties have been ironed out, it is bizarre to see where they resurface. Thanks for bringing this one to our attention. And yes, it is St Francis deSales that is in Muskegon....Peace, Cathy"

I apparently failed to point out to them that it was a discussion page, not an article. I will do so now.

ProudPrimate 11:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dick Cheney

The author's specific allegations concerning Dick Cheney do not belong in the article. This article should not be usedd as a means of skirting WP:BLP. — ERcheck (talk) 03:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gardell?

Some more details please, like where did Gardell say this? perfectblue 12:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of sources

The sources listed attempting to confer notability on this person list neither quotations from the books nor page numbers for finding such information. I got the first book out at the library and found no indication that she was mentioned. I have a feeling that this may be a gaming of the system here which is a big no-no. Please do not add the sources back unless you can cite chapter and verse with quotes how this person is mentioned in these books. Thank you. --ScienceApologist 12:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on finding a public library open during the early hours of Sunday morning which just happened to have this exact tome in it, then getting back to your home in time to tell me about it. I am calling you out on this one, expect me to mention this the next time that you assert that you have any credibility within my earshot.
perfectblue 13:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] chapter and Verse

I protest in the strongest terms about having to do this, but I am doing it non-the-less to prove once and for all that I am honestly citing sources, and because past experience has shown that you simply won't let up when you believe that you "are exposing a believer".

Thomas Cyberculture Counterconspiracy, please turn to page 34, the third paragraph under the heading "Alien Sex Majic" where the narrator discusses a disagreement that he had with another individual concerning O'Brien's relevance to Project Monarch. ..Cannon believes that Obrien and her partner, Mark Phillips, are frauds who use details about a real mind-control program called Operation Monarch to embellish a dog-and-pony show..

Versluis The New Inquisitions: heretic-hunting and the intellectual origins of modern totalitarianism, Page 173 then there is the experiences of Cathy O'Brien, mind control slave to the United States Government for more than 25 years in her astonishing book Trance Formation of America written with Mark Phillips. She was sexually abused as a child and as an adult by a stream of famous people named in her book. Among them Bill Clinton (FYI, the author is discussing "Conspiracy websites", this isn't Versluis' view. Versluis is discussing the alledged conspiracy and people whom believe it to be true. Versluis is highly skeptical and considers it garbage as you will see if you read on.

De Young, The Day Care Ritual Abuse Moral Panic, Page 235, Michigan native Cathy O'Brien who described how she was brainwashed by a secret government mind control project into having sex with then First Lady Hilary Clinton, former President Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Gerald Ford, the latter of whom, a fellow Michigainina, she referred to as "the Neighborhood porn King". De Young is critical and not a believer, she is discussing this as part of the "abuse panic".

Toropov The Complete Idiot's Guide to Urban Legends, Page 221, The story, which surfaces in an intriguing volume entitled Trance Formation of America (Cathy O'Brien, Reality Marketing Incorporated, 1995), is also considered in detail and discussed as if it were Gospel truth on several strange websites .......

one of the places others fear to tread is the books sweeping contention that its author was subjected to "the mind control operation known as operation monarch" and "was used as a sex slave to pander to the bizarre sexual desires of big name politicians". the roster of politicos supposedly involved in this....... Toropov is discussing her in the context of CIA brainwashing and sex abuse myths. Toropov is approaching this from a skeptical perspective.

Barkun A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America Page 76 The limitations of evidence concerning CIA activities during the cold war have encouraged the extension of mind control litrature into areas for which there is no substantiation. The most sensational of these tales revolves around Project Monarch, a supposed CIA program known only through the revelations of a purported victim, Cathy O'Brien. Under hypnosis preformed by her deprogrammer husband Mark Phillips, O'Brien allegedly recovered memories of her training as a sex slave and drugs courier for the CIA, during which time, she reports, she was sexually abused by a who's who of American public life. Source is discussing mind control conspiracies and propensity for Americans to believe them or to generate urban myths about them. Source takes the skeptical perspective. perfectblue 14:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing this valuable source of information. I only had the first book avaialable at the collect library this morning, but it does mention Obrien on page 34. Why it's not indexed is a mystery to me. The next thing to look at is if these citations are correctly placed in the article. It seems to me that many according to your quotes. This thoroughly demolishes my first bit of research on the subject. I think that this person may be a notable lunatic. --ScienceApologist 15:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

To all whom it may concern: please refrain from nominating this article —and any other article which is about a person who's opinions may clash with your cosy view on reality— for deletion. Wikipedia is an invaluable source of information for me. Please stop deleting this free, high-quality information. Devote your energy to writing articles on the achievements of our beloved leaders Tony Blair and George W. Bush — they need that right now ! — Xiutwel (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Xiutwel , wikipedia editors are free to nominate any article they want for deletion. They must, however, give their reasons for such a nomination and a discussion ensues. This article was nominated for deletion on April 29, 2007.
You may view the complete discussion at the link below:
A variety of issues were explored and after some very hard work by perfectblue, the consensus was to keep it. It was nominated because an editor felt she was not a noteworthy topic. perfectblue was able to demonstrate that there are numerous reliable sources referring to Cathy O'Brien and that her allegations of Mind control have become part of the paranoid subculture of conspiracies. While it is true that there seem to be a very few editors working overtime to nominate paranormal articles and articles about non-mainstream beliefs for deletion, I feel that there are just as many if not more wikipedians who work to see that a full discussion of these nominations for deletion take place. That's the best we can do. LiPollis 19:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Evidence?

I recently saw the cathy o brien / mark phillips conference held in the late 90's on DVD. I was not convinced at all. I think they are false. They had to keep reassuring the audience by saying this was not made up and they didn't read from cards, yet the whole time they spoke they frequently referred to their notes (script) to know what to say in the story. They did this a lot!

She showed no emotion when talking about really traumatic heartbreaking subjects, particularly regarding her daughter. Always totally unanimated, no anger, no rage, no tears, nothing. I saw a dvd with brice tay and ted gunderson and got the same impression; just bad actors reading from scripts.

Both dvds consisted of them talking and reading from scripts but no actual evidence was ever produced. So yeah I don't even know if it's worth doing an article on this? I think it's a waste of time. Without confirmable facts to back up their claims, what is there to write about in an encyclopedia? I'm very suspicious of the whole thing.

It's a bit like, I could come out and say I was sexually abused by sevenheaded aliens, then concoct a whole story out of it, write a book, doing a speaking tour, then you guys on wikepedia pick it up and do an article on it. But how can you disprove / prove what I'm saying when you can only take my word for it? What's the point? --Cantsi Wontsi (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Creatatron

Creatatron has recently added a large quantity of material, much of which talks about "demonic entities" -- this is clearly nonsense, and should be reverted. I'm not reverting it to give Creatatron a chance to explain where this material came from, i.e. where you can find sources from this... nneonneo (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

To add to what I just wrote: I have reverted it per the notice at the top of the talk page. None of it is sourced, and material involving the Illuminati and demons in a non-fictional setting is clearly nonsensical. nneonneo (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)