It’s been difficult to explain to my grandson why we don’t visit his great grandmother, my mother. “She’s forgotten who I am and she’s afraid of me. She thinks I’m going to hurt her.” The same thing happened to my father. He thought another girl was his daughter and he was certain that I was the enemy. That worked out very well for the the other girl, who ended up with two fathers and I with none. That 10 million dollar inheritance was just icing on the cake for her.
Like everything else that I write, I don’t expect to win praise and applause for this. I expect a backlash and I expect ad hominem attacks calling me crazy. That is part of the scenario of giving someone drugs to erase their memory, while at the same time surrounding them, screening them off from old friends and family, and filling the victims head with the new fictional scenario. I also expect that there will be a few people out there who have lived with this kind of attack on their family, and it is for those few that I write this.
I’ve mentioned before that my research is very much dependent on intuitional information that leads me to find real evidence. You might call this tuning in to the restless spirits who want to right the wrongs done to their last wills and testaments, and to bring justice to those who robbed them of their family happiness for the last twenty years of their lives.
A restless spirit is the central character in the inheritance fraud themed movie, “The Ghost in the Invisible Bikini” in which the character Vicky, played by Nancy Sinatra, is replaced by imposters who get her inheritance. Her last line in the movie is “But I’m Vicky, I’m Vicky, I’m Vicky…and nobody cares”. This movie was made in the 1960’s, and the issue of Vicky’s identity in the movie was never actually resolved. If a resolution was filmed, it was edited out, and we don’t see Vicky again.
One of the huge questions that was asked by Cameron, is what about Dale? Dale was the man who was married to April, allegedly. Having just received a bunch of photos from a family member who was once married to April’s mother, I can now answer that. A 1970’s photo of Dale and “April”, solves that mystery.
The person in the photo is not April. Though she has a resemblance, I wouldn’t mistake her for April if I had just seen this girl on the street. Her mouth is completely different. When she smiles, her gums show, and her eye-color is more brown than gray-green like April’s. There were other photos that I just received from this very nice relative. Some of the photos are April, and others aren’t. In one photo, an attractive woman with more body fat than April is shown with someone named ‘Cheryl’ that I have spoken to by telephone in the past. April told me Cheryl had been a false friend that her mother had warned her about. The same woman with a large face and huge mouth is shown with a baby, that is supposed to be April and Cameron, but it isn’t. Another photo of Cheryl and Cameron on a porch that is supposed to be April, but isn’t. None of these people are April, but her own family thinks it is.
This new group of photos below is definitely April. You can see how happy she is here. This is how she described to me her time with Cameron, how much she loved him and all the things they did together.
Thus the mystery unravels.
But there is one person that stays on my mind, even though I’ve never met her, and know nothing about her. It’s the missing wife of Durst. If she has relatives or friends somewhere looking for her, they might want to pay attention, because there’s a possibility that many missing people are still alive and are suffering from drug induced amnesia, perhaps living in New Orleans under new identities, lost and confused. I’ve already spotted a few of them. It’s not simple amnesia that we are dealing with, but a situation that involves ‘handlers’ so that the amnesia is maintained, while the person’s wealth is hi-jacked. Many of these people end up being a huge cost to the taxpayer. I saw emergency room bills of $35,000 from Ochsner’s Hospital, and not just one, every time April ended up there.
I knew all along that some type of brainwashing was involved in the case of my own father after he remarried and hired Jones-Walker’s Maurice Hebert aka Rain Maker. The same thing happened to my mother after she spent some time in a rehabilitation facility for help with alcohol. She had never been a drinker while we were growing up, and she had always been very nice. That changed. She grew suspicious of me and very critical. The same was done to my boyfriend after a short time in jail for some petty nonsense. I read in an unsent letter written to me while he was in jail, that a nurse was trying to make him take a pill and they were asking him many questions about me, the person writing this and his known girlfriend. After he came out, he was hostile towards me and very confused. When April was forced to check into the same rehab facility that my mother had been in, I warned her not to take any pills. She reported to me that she pretended to take the pill while in Acadiana Rehab, but another patient begged her for it. She gave it to the other patient, and then observed that patient reaction. April reported to me that the patient who took the pill went into a sex-crazed mode and had sex in the bathroom with another patient.
As for my family, the ones who weren’t already dead, they all simply claimed that they barely knew me, and if I acted familiar with them they considered me to be out of line. They ridiculed me and treated me with disrespect, exactly the way April was being treated. They joined in with my enemies and after that there was no reason for me to even be around them anymore. This of course had a huge effect on my children while they were growing up, not sure who to believe about anything. It put us in isolation because people tend to defend whoever has the money. None of our old friends stepped in to investigate, although it was clear something was wrong. Why is that? Because to investigate would be to learn about something that is not supposed to exist, and if you believe it exists, it’s supposed to mean you are crazy. No one wants to go there.
Here’s an article that explains a lot. It’s about a Jewish neuro-ethicist and law school professor named Adam Kolber who, since before 2011 has been working to convince people that memory “dampening” drugs should be commercially available. He wants to convince American society that these are wonderful drugs and his commentator troll puts in her two-cents about how great it is that she doesn’t have to remember the ‘bullying in middle-school’. Notice that Hasbara talking point thrown in, to prepare us for the invasion of America-haters from third world nations, and the millions of them that will be inserted into American schools.
Let’s read what our Jewish friend in Brooklyn had to say about Memory Erasure in 2011.
“Now neuroethicist and Brooklyn Law School professor Adam Kolber says the “hand-wringing” over memory-altering drugs has to stop. We need to develop these drugs and make them available as soon as possible, without overly burdensome legal restrictions on them. Here’s why.
Kolber begins an essay in today’s issue of Nature with an assertion that sounds like it could be straight from the movie Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, where consumer-grade memory-erasing treatments are commercially available:
The fears about pharmaceutical memory manipulation are overblown. Thoughtful regulation may some day be appropriate, but excessive hand-wringing now over the ethics of tampering with memory could stall research into preventing post-traumatic stress in millions of people. Delay could also hinder people who are already debilitated by harrowing memories from being offered the best hope yet of reclaiming their lives.
He goes on to acknowledge that there are good reasons to be concerned about memory-erasing drugs. Ethicists have pointed out that people’s identities may be changed, and soldiers might feel less concern about killing if they knew they could take a drug and forget it afterwards. Kolber also cites a recent case where an anesthesiologist gave a woman a memory-erasing sedative to prevent her from remembering the tactless way she received her cancer diagnosis over an intercom during a biopsy procedure.
Still, he says, the arguments against developing the drugs are “not persuasive” for two reasons. First, there is a tremendous amount of evidence that memory-dampening drugs can help people recover from trauma by easing the pain of their memories. Many people feel they have “lost themselves” to trauma, so losing those memories might actually make their identities whole again. And second, there are already-existing laws on the books that would make it illegal to administer these drugs without consent.
We talked to Kolber to find out how he imagines these drugs would be used and regulated in the future.
He told io9 that his main concern is preventing the prohibition of these drugs because “many of the most egregious uses of such drugs are already prohibited by existing law.” In other words, erasing the memories of your victims – whether those are rape victims or embezzlement victims – is already illegal. But in cases where we’re not talking about criminal uses of the drugs, how would they be administered? How would a doctor decide whether a memory could be erased or needed to be preserved for the good of others — say, for testimony in a trial?
Kolber wrote via email:
I imagine that, in the first instance, doctors would decide when a patient is a good candidate for a memory-dampening drug. But it is difficult to say how all of this would work until we know precisely what aspects of memory are affected by a drug and how it may affect third-parties. Some drugs, like certain radiation treatments, can have effects on third parties, and we generally permit physicians to explain the dangers to patients. I think it is too early to say, though, whether we would need more aggressive oversight of prescriptions for memory-dampening drugs.
And then there’s the question of how we might regulate what counts as a memory that’s a candidate for erasure. Would we leave this in the hands of doctors and patients to decide, or create a legal framework to regulate it?
Kolbert explained:
I think we will all have different opinions about precisely when memory dampening is appropriate. But I think it’s important that people have some freedom to decide, provided they are well-informed about the pros and cons of their decisions. That doesn’t mean there should be no restrictions. But we shouldn’t legislate one narrow view about the propriety of memory manipulation . . .
Memory-dampening drugs could be used as performance enhancers. Ordinarily, we have very little control over our memories, and memory-dampening drugs could give us a power that we might not otherwise have. As with all kinds of enhancement, though, we should focus on the effects of the enhancement in particular contexts. The mere fact that a substance enhances performance is ethically neutral.
Elizabeth Loftus and colleagues did a study of people’s willingness to use memory-dampening drugs. Subjects were asked their opinions in hypothetical scenarios. She found that people were hesitant to use them. If that’s true, risks of overuse may be lower with memory-dampening drugs than some others.
Kolber describes memories that we might to erase as traumatic and having “no redeeming value.” In other words, these are memories are horrific, and whose loss won’t harm others (as they might if the person needed to remember them to testify in a trial). He mentions that the memories of rescue workers in a massive disaster might qualify as this type of memory, and clarified:
I didn’t mean that that the memories of rescue workers never have redeeming value. I meant that they may have no redeeming value. Suppose, for example, that a rescue worker is haunted by traumatic memories. He has already provided experts and family members with as much information as possible and now he would like to be rid of those memories. I don’t think people should suffer for the sake of suffering.
It seems that memory manipulation could be beneficial after all. However, the closer we get to making these drugs commercially available, the more we need to come up with solutions to the question of who gets to decide when the drugs are administered, and what counts as consent to having your memories erased. Will we start to see a pharmaceutical clause in every non-disclosure agreement?
The comments were all carefully controlled to read along the lines of this sample, whose name Cimorene means ‘to remember’ in Sikhi. She’s trying to make the claim that ‘memory dampening’ and ‘memory erasing’are completely different. She doth protest too much, and rather alerts us to the fact that one is just a politically correct euphamism for the other.
Reply 58 replies
- Annalee Newitz’s Discussions
- Cimorene Annalee Newitz
He doesn’t actually say “memory erasing drugs,” does he? He keeps referring to “memory-dampening drugs,” which are an entirely different thing. I have painful memories that have faded over time, and thus become less painful. Like, when I was in high school, the memories of being bullied in middle school were much more vivid; now that I’m Old, they’re still painful, but they don’t inspire the kind of rage that they did when I was 15 or 16 and that shit was fresh in my mind. But I still remember them.
http://io9.gizmodo.com/5831588/why-we-need-memory-altering-drugs
These are other photos that were sent to me and are supposed to be April but are not. The black and white photo was actually in April’s possession, and it simply doesn’t look like her to me and it never did. If someone didn’t TELL me that this was April, I would never consider it to be her. The woman on the porch with Cameron looks like Cheryl, and April must have been taking the photo.
Sumo Sacerdote 