She is officially off her rocker.

[Mikado14]

...will the rocker ever stop?

Here are some things Linda is posting. For ease of rebuttal, I will insert into the quote in a different colour

http://www.cosmic-token.com/forum/viewt ... a46#p35429

Re: Raymond Lavas, What he actually knew
Postby Linda Brown » Mon Aug 10, 2015 4:44 pm

Next week might be good Rose...weds , same place?. Kisses from Julio.Always welcome.

I suspect everything that comes in my direction now ...( spending a lot of time with Smith.. the attitude is rubbing off... he trusts no one... and he is only happier when I get more and more suspicious of what is happening around me. Others can call it paranoia if they want to... I call it hypersensitive awareness....which is long overdue for me.

http://www.publiceye.org/rightwoo/rwooz9-49.html

"Uhrhammer says it was relatively easy for him to disprove many of Riconosciuto's claims. "There were other instances in which it was obvious that Riconosciuto had obtained small morsels of information, then embellished and expanded those morsels into seven-course feasts of conspiratorial derring-do that he fed back through the conspiracy network. The thought of going into print with a story based on such a story makes me shudder," wrote Uhrhammer.

Looking at the quote above, which is from the link posted (She can post a link on a quote but cannot do so from this site...what does that say about her psyche?), almost sounds a bit like Linda herself. She takes small tidbits of a fact and then embellishes those little factoids into very large stories. One sentence grows to a thousand. This would also apply to the person supplying information to Paul Schatzkin who we know as Morgan.

Smith's not trusting anyone is nothing more than paranoia and if he is rubbing off on you than you are becoming paranoid. I have explained his paranoia in the past and will not reiterate other than to say it goes with being a druggie, which he has admitted to myself and Plad.


Any reporter who checked the court file prior to Riconosciuto's trial could have found documents that offered a psychiatric explanation for [his] conspiracy tales. Psychiatrists who examined him in 1972, prior to his first drug conviction, portrayed him as a mentally unstable person who had trouble discerning between fact and fiction....I have been dismayed and appalled by some articles in which Riconosciuto is quoted as a primary source, if not sole source, in support of some conspiracy theory, but without any warning to the reader that his credibility is suspect or nonexistant. [/color

]I notice here of course that it has been brought up that Michael R has been " tested" and found to be " mentally unstable".
So its only right that we take all of that into consideration. I don't know the man. I am not going to take anything at face value. And I don't know the agenda of the people who are making that statement about him.

As the person from the link above stated, there were documents from the trial that showed that Mike R was examined in 1972 and that he was "portrayed as a mentally unstable person who had trouble discerning between fact and fiction...". Why do I find it not surprising that Linda would not take at face value what someone reported from documents in a court case? Perhaps because it doesn't fit with her agenda. If it substantiated something she was attempting to prove, she would chisel it in stone.

Of course as you have noticed on the HUT.... some are claiming that all of their statements are based in proven fact... yet they have a main thread that is called " She is officially off her rocker". I would like to know what " official " they used to come to that conclusion? I don't remember ever being sent to a mental specialist.....and certainly not having to undergo a overnight "hold"......

Here we go again. First, there are always citations or links for anyone to verify the source of information posted on the Hut, Linda fails to do that especially when quoting from this site. Second, there has never been any counter claim to the Due-Diligence from Morgan/twigsnapper/Linda (all the same person) therefore to comment that it is misdirection without providing any counter information only serves to substantiate the Due-Diligence. Thirdly, I just love the way she manipulates her words, "main thread". No Linda, it is a thread in a main topic, again, convolution of the facts (truth).

You want to know what "official"? Sarcasm Linda....sarcasm....and the fact you cannot read. You stated that it was "obvious" that I and the Bolland's had been working together for a very long time. Where are your "official" facts to prove that statement? You further stated that the flannel shirt (which it was not, it was a quilted lined jacket) was bugged. Where is your "official" proof? You then stated that it was left in a Texas airport. Where is your "official" proof? Actually, it was left in the Philadelphia Airport. You were told that. Ask Dave since you are "spending a lot of time" with him. He'll tell you. It wasn't until we were in the Dallas airport that he told me he forgot it. By the way, did he offer to replace it? It cost $80.

.The same person who is saying openly that I am( using my married name by the way).... That Linda Leach is a " psychotic and a sociopath..( read almost anywhere on the ttownsendbrown.com Forum) ..etc etc etc.... is the same person who was held overnight by the police because his own family thought he might be a danger to himself or others.

I frankly can understand his upset, considering what was going on in his life at the time...( can I use the expression.... Bless his Little Heart?) but it smells of an agenda driven action for him to attack me in this consistant way

Did I say "psychotic and a sociopath"? Don't think so, it was "psycho/sociopath". Another display of how you get things wrong.....AND YOU EXPECT INDIVIDUALS TO ACCEPT ALL YOU SAY IN REGARD TO YOUR FATHER? You can't even get current events or events in the past 9 years correct.

You have your facts wrong about me being held by the police, another twisted truth. I was going through a divorce and the ex used my daughter and my Mother to effectuate harassment. It didn't work and it was used against her in court. Again, proof, at least to me since it is about me, that you will take a .....how did Uhrhammer say it?....oh yes...you take a morsel of truth and turn it into a seven course meal.

As to "attacking" you. What you see as an attack are rebuttals. Twisted truths...again. Twisted interpretations of the facts....again. You seem to forget whom "attacked" whom first. You started started in August of '11 which prompted your removal as admin from this site. You stated that Kim was a drug user and her posts were drug induced. And the lies haven't stopped since.

So when you find those agendas working hard in your own backyard and affecting your own life.... you see them quickly in other areas. As Rose said.... what is " planted material" here? And toward what purpose?.

Given all of that background information and knowing all along that EVERYONE has an agenda here....( and these are HUGE agendas at work here).... all I am going to do is simply collect information until I can make a better decision.

And " having no time" is a good response Rose. I might decide to use that too.


Linda TTBC August 2015

Agenda. I hate that word. I believe it comes from the Latin - "things that must be done". To me, an agenda is something that is a list of things to do, in a specific order as in a meeting or a classroom. What is the reality, in this instance, is that it is really being used to describe a goal. From my experience, an agenda is set of points to be discussed or addressed. Like the application of the word with political which usually has a negative aspect to it.

An agenda usually has specific points. Plan is a better word for it allows for deviation but then what does it matter?

So what agendas are in your backyard, Linda? I would say that in time, and it is happening, some of the chickens are coming home to roost.

But here is another item you need to be corrected on....again.

http://www.cosmic-token.com/forum/viewt ... 434#p35434

Re: Raymond Lavas, What he actually knew
Postby Linda Brown » Mon Aug 10, 2015 11:38 pm

<snip>

So the question now is.....Is the writer on this liberal Political thread the same man who met with Mikado at Allenwood?

<snip>

Linda TTBC August 2015

From a post above:

"Raymond and I met the weekend of March 10 - 11th, 2007. He asked me if I would visit Mike periodically and if I could send him some money each month ($25) for the Facility stores. I said I could do that. He went to visit Mike on Saturday and he wanted me to meet him on Sunday. He told Mike the plan he had in mind in that I would be the mule to carry messages back and forth between Raymond and Mike. Since I was Italian, as Mike, I would be a relative. Mike was not too keen on the idea and was not too happy about Raymond making the plan as such. I did not meet with Mike on Sunday but Raymond went and visited with him one last time."

The pertinent part is in red.

You can't even read and comprehend. You prove all that is claimed for you cannot even report correctly what is written, you twist it but in this case, you outright lie even when the truth was printed....and you did get this post by using perhaps an SMTPRC program or onion routing. So, who is using the black market program or Tor? Not anyone on the Hut but it appears, and the proof is my logs, that someone is using it from the Token.

How can someone claim and say the things about not coming to this site along with all the derogatory expletives but yet utilizes black market programs to view here? Isn't that a diametrically opposed point of character?

...oh yes...."psycho/sociopathic".

Mikado

[wags]

I have tried to follow what has been said and I have to say that Linda does not make sense at all. I may be intellectually challenged on these subjects but logically nothing makes sense at all.

FB seems to understand how the story hangs together; maybe he can act as an interpreter?

[StarCat]

I attended an evangelical Christian service Friday night. My sister from another mother was married during the service. As part of the service, one of the members shared her testimony of her miracle. It was a very eventful story, and the woman telling it clearly believed that event had transpired as she remembered them. Maybe they did, or maybe they didn't. I wasn't a witness, so I don't know. No one else in the congregation was a witness either. I do question the veracity of some of the events, just from a medical standpoint. So, it's another example of do you believe just because someone says it happened?

Cat

[wags]

I attended an evangelical Christian service Friday night. My sister from another mother was married during the service. As part of the service, one of the members shared her testimony of her miracle. It was a very eventful story, and the woman telling it clearly believed that event had transpired as she remembered them. Maybe they did, or maybe they didn't. I wasn't a witness, so I don't know. No one else in the congregation was a witness either. I do question the veracity of some of the events, just from a medical standpoint. So, it's another example of do you believe just because someone says it happened?

Cat

You do hit the nail squarely on the head. Does one believe just because someone said so. It is the age old thing: Some have belief and that is sufficient. I like evidence or failing that consistency. I cannot find either others seem content there is. I am however lost in the snowstorm.

[Mikado14]

I have tried to follow what has been said and I have to say that Linda does not make sense at all. I may be intellectually challenged on these subjects but logically nothing makes sense at all.

FB seems to understand how the story hangs together; maybe he can act as an interpreter?

I seriously question FB's ability to understand the story which would require BOTH sides to be known. His comments and innuendo clearly show that his understanding is based solely on "word of mouth" from one Linda Leach. That is his right to believe whatever he wants but for him to act as an interpreter would require him to KNOW my side and those sides of the others such Traveler, Fred, Pladuim, Gregg and of course, meeting David Leland Smith and most especially....Andrew Bolland. All he knows is the back and forth of her claims and my rebuttals. He was NEVER present at any meetings. He NEVER met anyone face to face and other than his mentioning that he talked to Raymond on the phone and possibly Linda as well, that doesn't leave much room for understanding.

He wants to be an interpreter? Okay, have him give me his phone number and I will call him and he can ask whatever question he wants and he will get an honest answer as long as it doesn't violate any agreements I have with others (that would apply to actual work under Hut B). That would be a good beginning.

Mikado

...not holding my breath on that offer.

[Mikado14]

I attended an evangelical Christian service Friday night. My sister from another mother was married during the service. As part of the service, one of the members shared her testimony of her miracle. It was a very eventful story, and the woman telling it clearly believed that event had transpired as she remembered them. Maybe they did, or maybe they didn't. I wasn't a witness, so I don't know. No one else in the congregation was a witness either. I do question the veracity of some of the events, just from a medical standpoint. So, it's another example of do you believe just because someone says it happened?

Cat

As usual, Cat puts forth a good analogy. Reminds me when individuals ask me about my NDE. You can believe it or not, frankly, there are times I don't know whether to believe it or not.

Mikado

[wags]

My English rhetorical turn of phrase has been taken a bit to literal here; and FB's compass for that matter.

To use the same metaphor the compass, my compass does not coincide with Linda's map. It coincides with the HUT's. Where as FB's compass seems to coincide with Linda's.

Therefore as both compasses are pointing in opposite directions and in line with a respective map; One of the compasses and has been tampered with. I know why I believe my setting is correct because I calibrated it independent of the HUT's map. All very metaphorical really.

I think it was wise that TTB did not continue the poetry he is much better at prose. IMHO.

[Mikado14]

You had me a bit confused with "compass" until Kim explained that it came from the Token.

Several things. I find it curious for someone who claims that this site is such a "crap hole" (I believe she referred to this site as a cesspool. I suppose she never looked at her own site. She needs to stop, turn around and look at some of the threads she has started) full of individuals throwing out negative aspersions in the direction of one Linda Leach when the reality is, they are usually rebuttals from comments made by her.

Secondly, who is the one that initializes conversations and keeps bringing up not only the Hut but myself? She started a thread about Raymond but a good many pages involve discussion of myself and this site. Is she really that thick...or stupid...that she doesn't realize that she is the impetus of comments here? That she is the one who just can't move on? Are those that read her "disjointed words of thought" not cognizant that she is the instigator and then does an "Urkel" by claiming it was someone else and feigns ignorance?

Thirdly, for someone who finds this site so distasteful, why does someone come in here at or about the same time of day running a Tor or similar program to read what is here? And then that individual copies to Linda and she comments?

...now really....who is the obsessed individual in this scenario? Who is the one lying? Does the fact that she has someone else copy here relieve her of coming to this "cesspool"?

And one more item. According to a post made about "poetry". It was pointed out to me by Kim that there is an error as to Brown's address. He lists it as the USS Nashville and then at the University of Pennsylvania. This occurred in 1938, as to the Nashville, and then several weeks later it was reported as the University. Now, at the very latest it could be in the early part of 1939.

However, I have a government document whereas Brown listed an address from 1935 until 1940 that is in contradiction to the above. I can see the listing of the Nashville so as to receive a publication since it is a duty station at sea. If Brown was still in the Navy, why would he list an address, on dry land, at the University when on a government document it is listed elsewhere and in a completely different state?

There is a distinct lie lurking around here somewhere.

Mikado

[wags]

long ago I considered the cosmic forum a long rambling blog. Better than television very occasionally. lol

[Mikado14]

Yeah....Cat said it a while back. It is Linda's blog and let us not forget her commercialization of that blog to sell dogs.

Mikado