The vast majority of these emails are trivial at best and some are worth reading.
Anyway ... a week ago or so, a person emailed me one of the more interesting sort of 'heads up' emails I've received.The fellow who emailed explained that he had found my site (jbhfile.com) upon doing some cursory searches related to psychology ... he then went on to explain that, like myself, he also had a background in computing and the late 80's hacking scene (HoWL BBS was a hack board).
The reason he was emailing me was to let me know that when he performed a google search on 'Howl BBS,' he found among the resulting links a particular URL which led to a child pornography website; this site, as indicated by it's URL, seemed to cater to those seeking "preporn" content, as in "pre-teen porn," a popular descriptor for certain types of pornographic content which caters to those wanting to see children in sexually explicit circumstances.
Anyway ... the ramifications of this fellows email are several ... and I'll discuss those possibilities after first listing the actual email received on 12/2/07.
Here is the text of the email; I've changed a few characters in the provided link to make it inoperative as a hyperlink:
...
Hello Joel,
I came across your blog after doing a google search looking for information on psychology and happened to see the term "Gangstalking"and looked at that specifically. Read one of your pages and began to read your whole site, mostly I admit because I also was involved in the BBS/Hacking/Phreaking scene in the 80's, ran a couple of BBS's in Seattle and was friends/acquaintances with a couple "hackers" from Texas. I also had a friend from the hacking community from the 80's had some interesting incidences with some government peeps but I blew it off as paranoid fantasies.
Anyway, I wanted to just let you know, when I did a search of your "Howl BBS" on Google I found this at the last site listed:
http://y0urpreporn.c0m/articles/bbs_child_top_dark_collections.html
Thought you might want to know about this. Not cool. When it loaded the first time it displayed some fairly disturbing images. Needless to say, I have not downloaded any of the content that is on there. Sorry to hear about your situation.
xxxx/xxxx (name removed)
...
So according to this fellow, when he entered "Howl BBS" into google, among those results returned, there just so happened to be a link to a child porn website.
Pretty intriguing, eh?
I thought so too.
Anyway ... here's a link to the google results when searching on "Howl BBS": RESULTS
I would suggest NOT clicking on any of the resulting links ...
It seems upon a current inspection of those links provided via the google search, there's now another item listed mentioning "lolita" and "preteen bbs" (these being new additions to the results since checking a couple weeks ago); again, these are typical and often occurring terms used to describe child pornography.
Why are these things interesting?
This is of particular interest (and possible connection to the operations against myself) because supposed inclinations towards pedophilia (or sexual deviance in general) on my part have been the NUMBER ONE tool used in the various and past neighborhood rumor campaigns which have been utilized to disastrous effect in my past home locations.
Without a doubt, and according to testimony from trusted and long term friends of mine (even ex-girlfriends), at a certain point around the 2002 time frame ... those agencies (local and federal) who are running the ongoing investigation of myself, did in fact take it upon themselves to seed communities with the claim that I was a consumer of child pornography ...
I mean, at a certain point ... I was followed around everywhere ... to coffee houses, clubs ... around my house and neighborhood ... it was classic gangstalking and, at the time anyway, it worked very well to unsettle me.
But overall, the point was/is, ... sex sells ... and if your goal is to separate a subject from any social and professional opportunities, then pound for pound ... there's nothing better or more effective than whipping up a community frenzy around sexual predation and child porn.
It's better than C-4 in terms of resulting fallout and uproar ... :-)
Anyway ... back to the guys email and what it could mean.
So How to Take the Guy's Email?
There's several different takes on why the fellow emailed me, some benign and some very very possibly malignant (to use disease terms). Which interpretation to treat as fact/truth is anybodies guess ...
I, for one, am happy to have received the information; I found it quite interesting.
But then again, had I chosen to click on any of the provided links, then the very real-world possibilities afforded by law could have been very surprising.
But here I go jumping the gun ...
Anyway ... the most likely and desirable explanation is that this really was, simply, a fellow personally concerned with what he found via Google search and he just wanted me to know.
The more dangerous/malignant explanation is that it could have been a bait operation to entice me to simply click one time on the provided links.
US and European Law Regarding Child Pornography
My own circumstances not withstanding ... the problem of child pornographic content on the internet truly has become a troubling thing.
It's all over the news every night and, despite my own experiences, I have to believe that the vast majority of cases are true; I mean, not everyone who is being hauled in by the feds for child pornography charges are being set up; I'd wager most are authentic. Otherwise ... you'd see a whole hell of a lot more sites like jbhfile.com on the internet.
Under current US and European law, the mere act of simply clicking ONE TIME on a site related to the distribution and display of child pornographic content is, legally enough reason for authorities to serve with a warrant.
Just consider this commentary from an article discussing the case involving Pete Townsend (of The Who fame):
...
"Even so much as clicking on a Web site featuring child pornography could result in a jail sentence of up to five years in the United Kingdom.
And if you host a Web site or forward an e-mail containing images of children -- who are or seem to be under the age of 16 -- being abused, you could face imprisonment of up to 10 years.
If you receive and view an unsolicited e-mail -- or spam -- of offensive material and immediately delete it, then that counts as a reasonable explanation, according to Peter Robbins, chief executive of Web campaigners, Internet Watch Foundation (IWF)."
Full article: HERE!
...
Point being, United States law is no less lenient.
This being a a perfect sort of event to get the ball rolling towards the realization of the investigations very much publicly discussed objectives regarding my personal future.
Anyway ...
Needless to say ... I did NOT click on any of the links ...
-------------------------------------------------------
this post is intended to be supplemental to the facts made public in my main website, http://www.jbhfile.com/; it probably will not make much sense to you if you have not already made yourself aware of the legal and personal efforts discussed in that site. please see http://www.jbhfile.com/ for a necessary introduction into why this blog exists. or, if you just like reading weird stuff, then don't. and, enjoy.
-------------------------------------------------------
jbh.
-------------------------------------------------------
