Martha Neyman - New Age COINTELPRO Dupe

[domi]

Does anyone find it odd how she continually writes "i do not imagin things" or "i am not imagining things"?

Seems like some form of projection (NLP?).

One thing (among many) I find disturbing in this lady's emails is the strange use of smileys. Reminds me of Mareiki's posts.

Dominique.

 

[domi]

not wishing to hijack this thread but briefly, I think the program you are talking about sounds like 'Eliza':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA

This was back in 1968 so who knows just how far such technology may have come since then. Automated forum trolls? not a pleasant prospect.

Considering that information warfare is real, the internet is a medium for change, I would say it is very likely that this sort of technology is (and has been) in action.

Dominique.

 

[Laura]

Don C posted this on the other thread:

Martha Neyman wrote:

From: Martha Neyman
Date sent: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 13:49:11 +0200

Dearest Laura,

This is Martha...

I am sure we can solve the following problem in a friendly way. You are a very wise woman and only needs half a word to understand !

Don C. Comments
Ego baiting - try to flatter and put the victim to sleep. This fits in with her hypnotic projection of herself as "friendly", a "nice person", "kind", "dearest". It is amazing how so many people are infected with this psychologically twisted reasoning and actual application of it as part of their being. And how blind they are to their own infection. Each example shows more and more how absurd it all is, how transparent it all is, and at the same time how deeply the disease penetrates every nook and cranny of the world's psychological health (of humanity's psychological health).

Reading all "your" information,

Don C. Comments
All your information?? I think not. Is this a little white lie or is it another psychological ploy, projecting her goodness of intent with phrases like "I'm really a nice person", "I'm am very diligent and reasonable", "I took the time to really look at this situation from all angles.".... Pfff.

I saw to my surprise, that you use "MY FIND" of the hidden (jumping Horse) Horse on your home-page! The hidden Horse in the shadow, being the Knight in chess, is MY EXCLUSIVE Find and you only found it by reading MY BOOK: "The Horse of God"!!!

Don C. Comments
"my surprise" - hardly. Just another psychological ploy.
"MY FIND" "MY BOOK" "MY EXCLUSIVE"

And then we see another projected lie. "you only found it by reading MY BOOK:"

She is apparently making a statement of fact to the world, that this is what happened? Create your own reality? It is readily apparent from the 1998 email that the observation was made by Laura and others AND then, Laura came upon her (CD) book where Martha makes this similar observation in her book.

Martha knows that. It is a fact. Even if Martha did not keep the emails from 1998, the email exists and documents the facts. There was no misrepresentation, there was no plagiarism, there was no defamation. It is a fact - people observe and see things, others may see the same or similar things. How can one own an observation? How can one own the right to discuss an observation?

NO other author or writer described this Horse (without my permission) I was and am the only one and first who found it. I cannot remember I gave you permission to USE THIS EXCLUSIVE. I repeat, without my permission. Oh yes, I describes it in my book "The Horse of God", this however does NOT mean YOU may use and without mentioning my name..!

Don C. Comments
This is just a totally bizarre paragraph with little coherence. I do not exclude the possibility that the coherence is a problem of native language, but it seems to me that this is not the problem.

NO other author or writer described this Horse (without my permission)
No one has a right to discuss this observation - martha owns it.

I was and am the only one and first who found it.
Apparently not. The 1998 email correspondence does show others had similar observations and then came upon Martha's works after those observations were made and already discussed. This is also just a bizarre claim. I don't understand. Does this mean she (Martha) is claiming that no one can discuss this idea, this observation, without asking first for her express permission? This is just bizarre.

I cannot remember I gave you permission to USE THIS EXCLUSIVE.
Weird! In all the documented emails from 1998, not once does Martha mention that Laura does not have permission to discuss this observation. In fact it is kind of weird, as Martha is discussing with Laura about these very things back in 1998. Laura does not have permission, but in 1998 (nearly 8 years ago) Martha was 'discussing with Laura' this very subject. Does anyone see an irony in this, how totally twisted and bizarre this is?

USE THIS EXCLUSIVE. I repeat, without my permission.
Just totally bizarre!

Oh yes, I describes it in my book "The Horse of God", this however does NOT mean YOU may use and without mentioning my name..!
"Does NOT mean YOU" - (I am a nice person, I am friendly, I am reasonable)

Reading all "your" information,
If she read all the information, would she not have seen that she (Martha) is mentioned, her book is mentioned, and Martha's synchronous similar observation is mentioned? Remember, Martha says, - paraphrase "She read all Your material". She read it all. And then she lies and says that you did not mention her name - "this however does NOT mean YOU may use and without mentioning my name..!"

I am nice, I am reasonable, I am a good person!!!

For using MY find, I demand US $ 10.000, - a year, starting from the time you used it and put it on YOUR home page without MY permission. Thus, let us start with 1998..! This means 8 years... This is a very friendly price for plagiarism..! And that is what it is.

Don C. Comments
MY find, I demand, without MY permission, very friendly price

This is a very friendly price for plagiarism..!
"I am a nice person." "I am a friendly person". "I am a reasonable person".
What a psychological twisting of reality.
And that is what it is.
No it is not plagiarism. It is totally unfounded and blatant harassment, stalking, and extortion on the part of Matha Neyman.

But let us settle things in a friendly way... I am a very friendly person, but do not like to be "stalked" with unkindness and mentioning my name without permission. As I wrote you yesterday and repeating your own words, YOU LEARNED by the small mistakes by others..! All these writers were at the base of "YOUR KNOWLEDGE"... And I am glad and feel proud that I was one of these and of any help for you, otherwise you never could have written YOUR book and That would have been a real pity..!!!

Don C. Comments
in a friendly way
"I am a nice person." "I am a friendly person". "I am a reasonable person".

I am a very friendly person
"I am a nice person." "I am a friendly person". "I am a reasonable person".

but do not like to be "stalked" with unkindness
Does anyone like to be stalked in any way? And where now did the idea of being stalked come from? Where "now" is she getting the idea and projecting herself as a victim of being stalked? And being stalked by who? Wow. I hate to say this but it sounds like Vinnie has a new pal. The Modus Operandi is almost identical to the Franky Extortion of the Sessions copyright. Who claims that Laura and QFG are stalking them/him? This appears to be a slip up in exposing what is going on here.

I am glad and feel proud that I was one of these and of any help for you
Once again trying to appeal to vanity. "I was proud to be a part of your search and quest for knowledge and I was proud that I was one of the one's who helped you and look how you mistreat me ..... I am such a victim"

otherwise you never could have written YOUR book
Oh, what a cute little smiley. And oh yes, if Laura had never had that one single thought about the shadow in the Poussin Painting, Laura would never have written a book. Now Martha claims ownership of Laura's works? If it wasn't for Martha, Laura never would have written her book? By the way, what book? Which of the books would never have been written if it was not for Martha's great contribution?

That would have been a real pity..!!!
"I am a nice person." "I am a friendly person". "I am a reasonable person".
Sarcastic arrogance, and belittlement by Martha.
"I am a nice person." "I am a friendly person". "I am a reasonable person".

My very reasonable proposal is:

Don C. Comments
My very reasonable proposal
"I am a nice person." "I am a friendly person". "I am a reasonable person".

This is not a proposal. Once again the ponerological madness shows through. What Martha is doing is making unreasonable "demands", trying to manipulate and extort.

Martha's definition of this is "reasonable proposal".

1) You change the "sound" of the text on your home-page immediately..!

You change the "sound" of the text on your home-page immediately..!
What is "sound"? How ambiguous is that?

immediately..!
"I am a nice person." "I am a friendly person". "I am a reasonable person".
My very reasonable proposal
How twisted can a mind get? How blind can a mind be to its own disease? I know that is just a rhetorical remark.

2) If you do not like to do this, you remove the text completely + the find of MY JUMPING HORSE..!

Don C. Comments
If you do not like to do this
What a joke!
If you do not want to do this, then I demand this...
"I am a nice person." "I am a friendly person". "I am a reasonable person".

3) If you like to use MY JUMPING HORSE, you ask permission AND you mention MY NAME under this image, as a "found made by Martha Neyman" + my e-mail address AND Home Page.

Don C. Comments
MY JUMPING HORSE, you ask permission, you mention MY NAME under this image
What a crock of baloney. You can't post a picture of a painting without her name underneath it and telling the world she was the first one in history to have noticed the shadow looks like maybe a horsehead. Well I want credit too. In the early 90's I noticed that if you cut the picture in half and make a head to head reflection of the image, that it looks like a map of North America coming out of the image pointing to somewhere along the coast of NewFoundland. I want you to put my name there under that picture that I own that original observation and you do not have permission to post an image of the Poussin painting on your web page without mention of my EXCLUSIVE ownership of that thought. Further I want from you 10,000 dollars US per year from 1992 forward because you did not do this.

So HA, Martha, my claim predates yours. In fact Martha, I claim that you are not allowed to mention this painting in your work, in your 1998 CD without my express permission, because of my EXCLUSIVE observation in 1992.

This whole thing is psychopathic from the get go.

4) You no longer can say on your home-page, that I was one of those who were mislead and trapped or used by others, as I wrote two other books... YOU never read, so at this very moment you speak "WITHOUT KNOWING" and that is what for I highly blame you...

Don C. Comments
You no longer can say on your home-page
that is what for I highly blame you...
"I am a nice person." "I am a friendly person". "I am a reasonable person".

Is this what the real issue is? Laura examined the work of another and did not agree with the conclusion of the said other and so now the said other uses extortion because they do not like their observations and conclusions to be questioned by anyone else in the world?

But Martha says in this email -

wave13b.htm
From: Martha Neyman
Subject: Re: The Horse
Date sent: Wed, 25 Nov 1998
Of course I will answer the questions you have and I do not see this as a criticism of the work I did, because I feel, what I did was good and not done before by anyone... Even not by the writers of the Tomb of God... The book they wrote, has at first sight a "certain" resemblance with my work, but it is totally different and the "Horse of God" is not a rail-way, that is for sure..!

Now which is it? I do not think you are criticizing. I do not like the way you criticize me.???

Laura does not have the right to the opinion or hypothesis (based on evidence she has gathered) that Martha's ideas or conclusions are just another trap that many throughout the ages have fallen for.

And Martha's logic -
You no longer can say on your home-page, that I was one of those who were mislead and trapped or used by others, as I wrote two other books... YOU never read, so at this very moment you speak "WITHOUT KNOWING" and that is what for I highly blame you...

Where is the logic in this? This would require Laura to continue to read every work by every author she has ever read, forever, to make sure that any comment or observation she makes, that ever comes out of her lips or onto paper is current with every word typed or spoken by every author in the world. What kind of nonsense is that? How is that reasonable? How does this make Martha a reasonable person? Does it not point to exactly the opposite, that Martha is not able to reason, that Martha is not reason-able?

So Martha blames Laura for not reading her (Martha's) other books, because of course if Laura had read them, Laura's hypothesis that Rennes-le-Chateau is a complete red herring would be entirely changed and Laura would never write that she (Laura) does not agree with Martha.

What a bunch of nonsense, manipulation, twisting of the mind.

Also how ironic is it that Martha is concerned that someone thinks she may have been misled in her thinking and it appears right here and now that she herself is being misled by someone behind the scenes putting her up to this or manipulating her mind.

I demand a reply to my questions and very serious and "kind" proposal, if not I am afraid I have to charge you for disgrace my good name and using MY FIND, the Jumping Horse, without permission..! I do not like to mention in this stage, I contact my lawyer, as I am sure we can settle this in a friendly way..!

Don C. Comments
I demand
"I am a nice person." "I am a friendly person". "I am a reasonable person".
serious and "kind" proposal
"I am a nice person." "I am a friendly person". "I am a reasonable person". "I am a kind person".

"kind" proposal
Demands of extortion!

if not I am afraid I have to charge you for disgrace my good name and using MY FIND, the Jumping Horse, without permission..!
Martha is going to file suit for Libel? Is this what she means? Because you have smeared her good name? What a joke. A person trying to extort money from you is going to sue you for smearing their "good name"! Martha is showing herself publicly here to be committing a criminal act of coercion and extortion and saying she has a "good name". How ironic is that? If that doesn't beat all. How can the world get any more messed up?

I am sure we can settle this in a friendly way..!
"I am a nice person." "I am a friendly person". "I am a reasonable person". "I am a kind person".

Besides: Consider, that I am in my right and that my first book: The Horse of God" officially is published in Germany. My finds (a/o this the "Jumping Horse") are protected by IBSN and it is forbidden to use them without permission.!!!

Don C. Comments
I do not know who is filling here head with such nonsense. If commenting on something that is in common domain is against the law, we are really in a crazy world.

If I go through a museum and look at a picture and notice that a mountain in a specific painting has a shadow that looks like purple wheat blowing in the wind and write that in a review that is published, do I own that exclusively and no one else is allowed to make that observation or to say those words in public without my express written consent and without attribution to me because I was the first to ever notice that the shadow of the mountains looks like purple wheat blowing in the wind.

That is truly amazing. Who is putting her up to this nonsense?

If you do NOT react to this letter, I ask my Publisher to undertake further action..! As well as my lawyer..! I would feel very sorry to put it in this way as I have nothing against you.

Don C. Comments
I would feel very sorry to put it in this way as I have nothing against you.
"I am a nice person." "I am a friendly person". "I am a reasonable person". "I am a kind person".

Kind regards, Martha.

Don C. Comments
Kind regards
"I am a nice person." "I am a friendly person". "I am a reasonable person". "I am a kind person".

It doesn't get much richer than this. This whole thing has an amazing similarity to the Frank copyright extortion. The assertions, the psychopathic reasoning, even the sound of the scripting behind the scenes. I wonder who also had an interest in 'Rennes-le-Chateau'? Who also did not like their work about 'Rennes-le-Chateau' being criticized as a red herring? As we find out later in Martha's current correspondence it is an American Friend who first sent her an email and pointed out how horribly Laura was treating Martha, how Laura was plagiarizing Martha, how Laura was defaming Martha? Who also has an interest in 'Rennes-le-Chateau' and makes these similar claims of defaming, plagiarism, stalking, by Laura? Who could that be?

Name: Martha Neyman

Don C. Further Comments
From the latter email exchange we find more of the same.

I never would put down a "colleague" for the eyes of others..!

What disturbed and very surprised me, is the hateful undertone in the article Laura wrote...

I never put her dawn... The only thing I did 8 years ago, was differ from opinion with her... That was it... It seems she could not accept that I have another opinion, but this is no reason for a poisoned pen is it..?

I ask her for a second time...

To change the "TUNE" in the Internet letter, that is ALL..!

Don C. Further Comments
What tune? Where? Where is there any tune or tone from Laura that is defamatory in anyway to Martha? Where?

And this is great that is ALL..! The statement that is ALL..! is directly connected to To change the "TUNE" in the Internet letter.

This is all she has ever asked for? How in the world can she say this? What planet is she from. She accuses someone of defamation, she accuses someone of plaigarism, she attempts to extort 80,000 dollars from someone and now she lies and says all she ever wanted was To change the "TUNE" in the Internet letter.

How are people able to lie like this so blatantly? Is her memory that deranged, that selective, that she does not remember that just in the last 48 hours she accused Laura of plaigarism, defamation, and tried to extort money from her?

In another email Martha says, "I did nor said anything wrong..!"

Martha you just accused someone of defamation, plaigarism, and tried to criminally extort 80,000 dollars from them and you have the nerve to say, "I did nor said anything wrong..!".

This is just absolutely looney tunes. How can people be so messed up. Where is this woman's Conscience?

She certainly may bring my name in the open, as well as mentioning that we differ from opinion, but from now on in a more friendly way..!

Don C. Further Comments
Where? Where is there any place where Martha perceives this occurs? Where?

I am friendly, I always was nad still am... I never put her down nor showed any hatred...

Don C. Further Comments
This whole current email exchange initiated by Martha is defamatory and hateful of Laura. How ironic.

1) I ask you once again friendly, to change the article into a more friendly way of "a difference from opinion"..!

2) If special "this cut" of the jumping horse must be used, I very would appreciate that my name is mentioned... for instance: "described in the book "The Horse of God" by Martha Neyman". A "Dutch" lady, living in Belgium.

I do not see this as unreasonable..!

Don C. Further Comments
Oh, now I understand, all Martha wants is a friendly re-write of some words that she fails to identify specifically over and over.

That is funny, because she started out trying to extort 80,000 dollars from Laura, but now she claims all she has ever asked for is a re-phrasing of some un-specified words in a web page.

I do not see this as unreasonable..!
"I am a nice person." "I am a friendly person". "I am a reasonable person". "I am a kind person".

Thank you for your attention,

May the good spirit may win and that we end in friendship.

Kind regards, Martha.

Don C. Further Comments
"good spirit", "friendship", ??? manipulation, talking out both sides of the mouth. Martha basically accuses someone of plagiarism, tries to extort 80,000 dollars from them and has the gall to use such words as -
I am a nice person." "I am a friendly person". "I am a reasonable person". "I am a kind person".
Martha basically accuses someone of plagiarism, tries to extort 80,000 dollars from them and has the gall to use such words as - "good spirit" and friendship. What world does she live in?

Does Martha really think that people are stupid enough to think that her use of the words - I am a nice person." "I am a friendly person". "I am a reasonable person". "I am a kind person". "good spirit" and friendship - Does she think that makes her accusations of plagiarism, defamation and her own acts of attempted extortion go away? How can she even use these words when she defames a person, attempts to extort money from, and then says she is just a nice person and it is her that is being wronged. How twisted can a mind get?

Don C. Further Comments
The later emails are just as insane, but my commentary is becoming too lengthy. The same insanity prevails - I am a good person, my American Friend's (read Vinnie Gang or similar psychopathic deviants) tell me that you make me look bad and are not treating me fairly, I am a good person, I am a nice person, All I want is for you to change your tune, I never accused you of plaigarism, I never accused you of defamation, I never tried to extort money from you, I am a good person, I demand 80,000 dollars from you, I am a good person, I never started this, Laura started this, I am a good person.......

Totally insane.

One thing is apparent, Vinnie will make you famous one way or another. For every person he hypnotizes and infects and that person shows up and exposes that infection and disease on this board or anywhere on the Internet, for each example of his breading and propagation of this psychological infection, more and more people start to see what is going on, why the world is so messed up. More and more people see example after example of the psychological infection that they are dealing with everyday in all degrees around every corner.

 

[Windmill knight]

Wow. If this lady was activated by the email of her American 'friend', then he obviously had been working on her for a long time, probably by telling her how much an admirer he is, and how wonderful her books are, until she was hypnotized enough to go on attack. Still, I find it a bit hard to believe that this email from her 'friend' is the only reason. How can she be so naive and manipulable? Either she is 'putty', like Laura said, or there's something else.

I am assuming that since she is Belgian she writes her books in French or Flemish, because her English is not very good, consisting all of short incomplete phrases, with little structure, full of '...' and '..!'

...On a second thought, even a French or Flemish speaking WRITER would try to avoid that annoying style in ANY language! Or so it seems to me.

The whole thing about "give me 80,000..! kind regards... I'm not threatening you..!" is hilarious in a painful kind of way.

 

[dhess31]

Something smells fishy to me. This lady is an author? With her use of language and grammar she must have the world's best copyeditor unless, like a previous poster mentioned, she went off the deep-end.

If not, this is yet another good example of Patholoigcal behavior.

But I don't know. Reading that, she really DOES seem like an activated robot.

My six-year-old can reason better than that.

Don

 

[domi]

I am assuming that since she is Belgian she writes her books in French or Flemish, because her English is not very good, consisting all of short incomplete phrases, with little structure, full of '...' and '..!'

Belgian? I don't think so.

She calls herself the following:

A "Dutch" lady, living in Belgium.

IMO she is Dutch based on:
1) last name: very uncommon in Belgium
2) the way she writes her broken english has Dutch undertones (at least to me)
3) she looks the part

Added:
4) Her website mentions she was born in Apeldoorn (Netherlands).

It would be interesting to know if she chose to live in Belgium to escape the Dutch wealth tax or not (which would shed more light on her motivations).

...On a second thought, even a French or Flemish speaking WRITER would try to avoid that annoying style in ANY language! Or so it seems to me.

The whole thing about "give me 80,000..! kind regards... I'm not threatening you..!" is hilarious in a painful kind of way.

Quite disturbing. It is interesting that she asking for USD and not euros.

 

[Windmill knight]

I am assuming that since she is Belgian she writes her books in French or Flemish, because her English is not very good, consisting all of short incomplete phrases, with little structure, full of '...' and '..!'

Belgian? I don't think so.

She calls herself the following:

A "Dutch" lady, living in Belgium.

My mistake. I thought she said she was Belgian.

 

[PopHistorian]

My two cents: she's simply displaying extreme, out-and-out STS behavior, seeking not to share, but to profit, and profit grossly. On top of that, she's not just seeking to maybe get lucky and profit grossly by making a claim, but she's doing it aggressively, thus the legal threats. She exhibits no defensesiveness here, just offense, very one-sided, no depth to her argument. Clearly there's no affinity felt by her for being interested in the same topic -- no wish to share information in hopes of getting closer to the truth, only competitive, STS behavior.

The oddness and creepiness suggests "activation," but that could be language limitations, so maybe it's just activation of greed by release of the DaVinci Code movie, book, and the flurry of media coverage and TV documentaries about the subject (assuming there's as much in Europe as in the US). If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say she'll go away. Hope I'm right.

 

[Joe]

I don't know why, but when I looked at her picture, I thought she reminded me of someone, but I couldn't think who. Then, after I read her messages, it came to me...

 

[henry]

My six-year-old can reason better than that.

Don

The deliterious effect upon her reasoning of having bought into the Rennes le Château lie is clear. Primed by her "American friend", it even could be evidence of the influence of the psychopath's special knowledge discussed by Lobaczewski.

Laura told her at the start that she had seen the horse herself prior to reading Neyman's work. Other's have mentioned that it is common to study works of art from every angle.

Sounds like she has what Mouravieff would term a crystalisation in her Personality, one that prevents her from thinking objectively.

Not easy to crack, that!

 

[anart]

No, it is not easy to crack such a crystallization - not at all - but when a crystallization is topped by brown furry skin cover and a brown hat, then, I'm afraid, all hope is lost.