UPDATED: More Lies: Ford's Stanford Bio Page Altered - Criminal Record Altered - She May Have Used Self-Hyponosis - Entire Story is A Lie
By: Dr. Jake Baker - TapWires News Service
Both before and during her testimony for the Senate Judiciary Committee last Thursday, Christine Ford identified herself as a “Research Psychologist” at Stanford School of Medicine. We assumed that was true because “Dr” Ford’s page at Stanford confirmed it … right?
Well it turns out that there may be a small problem. According to thegatewaypundit.com, “a search through the Department of Consumer Affairs license Bureau for Dr. Christine Ford, produced no results for her or any deviations of her name.”
But riding to her rescue last week the leftist shills at NPR, which our tax dollars keep on the air, tried to explain just why it is that Ford is not listed in that directory. They maintain that the Doctor designation is only for individuals who hold a doctor’s degree in dental surgery, medicine, optometry, osteopathic medicine, podiatric medicine or veterinary medicine. Is it just me or does it seem the more we hear of this story the more parts of this fanciful tale have to be somehow “explained.”
While this is a smart move by NPR, one wonders about both the accuracy of their report and the credibility of Christine Blasey Ford, in light of the fact that to date no state records show that Ford is a licensed psychologist.
So how credible is this witness and how flimsy are these accusations? There are so many discrepancies developing. We just found out that she is not showing up as a Dr. of Psychiatry in California records and then we discover that her bio at Stanford’s website was mysteriously altered earlier this month. Why?
It seems that the description of “Dr.” Ford may have been slightly less than accurate. The Stanford bio page used to look like this - Christine Blasey Ford is given title of Research Psychologist.
But according to https://web.archive.org/web/20180101000000*/https:/profiles.stanford.edu/christine-blasey which is now inexplicably showing no results for the search, the Ford page was “revised” seven times this month before her testimony before the senate Judiciary Committee. The Stanford bio page has since removed her title as “research psychologist.”
Here is the current rendition of the page:
Seems Stanford is doing a little CYA on their website. Not surprising.
Now add to this the other “little” problems she has had:
Ford testified that she has a fear of flying which is why Grassley and the Committee made very public statements that they were willing to travel to California to take this testimony in private. She claims she knew nothing of this offer. Either she is lying, or her attorney(s) kept her in the dark because they or she or both wanted public testimony. I do not believe there was ever any consideration that she would not testify publicly. They needed to humiliate and accuse Judge Kavanaugh very publicly. But as you might have guessed there are problems with this pretense that she knew nothing of the Committees offer as well.
It was front page news across the country, on every news program that the Committee had offered to meet with her in private if she wanted. They would come to her. But she didn't know anything about this offer? Right!
Then there is the "fear of flying" part of the story. Her social media pages indicate that she flies all over the world for diving and surfing. Odd for someone who has a fear of flying. She had just flown to Massachusetts for a family reunion. Ok, maybe that is important to her. But on the day of the polygraph the polygrapher had to meet her at the hotel because she was staying near the airport because she was flying to New Hampshire. But the trip is only a few hours by car. If she had a fear of flying why didn't she drive. It was probably quicker than flying for that short trip. But this traumatized person with a fear of flying decided to fly not drive.
Moving on. All three of her witnesses, the ones she swore were at the alleged assault, say that she is mistaken or lied because they never attended such a party, at the described residence, nor did they have any knowledge of such an event. That is the information provided in sworn affidavits by both Patrick Smyth, and Mark Judge – it never happened. So that leaves only her life-long friend Leland Keyser.
But her lifelong friend Leland Ingham Keyser says not only that she has never been at a party with Judge Brett Kavanaugh, she doesn’t even know him.
So, either Fords memory is dangerously degraded and must be discounted all together and this charade ended because she is desperately in need of professional help, or she is lying and just another Democrat willing to do anything to keep the Supreme Court from returning to the constitution by killing the Kavanaugh nomination. Remember she was a part of the anti-Trump, anti-Conservative "women's march." She is very - very political. Remember also that she dawned a pink P*ssy brain" hat for the event and proudly made a sign signaling her support for "nasty women."
Perhaps one reason her memory is degraded is that her memory recall may have been triggered by hypnosis. That is the speculation of some and the subject of an article at TheGatewayPundit.com titled If Christine Ford’s ‘Memories’ Were Recovered Through Hypnosis They Are Not Admissible in Court – Would Be Thrown Out. TGP also did a followup piece on Christine Ford's article HUGE! Christine Ford Published 2008 Article on Self-Hypnosis Used to Retrieve and “Create Artificial Situations”.
Is it possible that her memories were retrieved or "created" by hypnosis. Apparently Ford thinks it is possible. This from TGP:
One of Christine Blasey Ford’s research articles in 2008 included a study on self-hypnosis.
The practice of self-hypnosis is used to retrieve important memories and “create artificial situations.”
BREAKING: This is HUGE (waiting for permission to h/t): One of Christine Ford Blasey's research articles in 2008 included a study in which participants were TAUGHT SELF-HYPNOSIS & noted hypnosis is used to retrieve important memories "AND CREATE ARTIFICAL SITUATIONS." pic.twitter.com/11n1JVnArM— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) October 1, 2018
Dr. Elizibeth Loftus is an American cognitive psychologist and expert on human memory. She has conducted extensive research on the malleability of human memory. Loftus is best known for her ground-breaking work on the misinformation effect and eyewitness memory, and the creation and nature of false memories, including recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse. Here is what Dr. Loftus had to say on "false memories."
The first paradigm, which she calls the “misinformation” paradigm involves testing research subjects on a specific event and seeing how accurate their memory for that event is afterward. The second paradigm, focusing on implanting false memories, involves bringing subjects in and asking suggestive questions and seeing whether that influences recall of past events. As she concludes in describing her research, “we’ve done hundreds of experiments involving thousands of subjects showing that it’s relatively easy to change people’s memory of the details of an event that they’ve actually experienced.”
Despite the ethical limitations imposed on laboratory studies of artificially created memories, research showed that creating false memories of a relatively benign childhood experience, i.e., becoming lost in a shopping mall as a young child was easily induced. In other studies, even much more extreme example of false memories (eg., spilling punch on the bride’s parents at a family wedding or nearly drowning as a child) could be induced in as many as a quarter of the subjects tested. Even in subjects who failed to develop a complete false memory, partial recall could be induced in nearly half of all research subjects.
The only other possibly explanation for her storying falling apart so dramatically is that all of her witnesses have conspired against her, including her life-long friend. Does that seem plausible to anyone?
It has also been reported that her "criminal" record was altered on July 7 2018. Since it has been altered we don't know what it said but we do know that it was changed. Perhaps the questions the FBI should be asking is what was changed, why were they changed, who did the change, and who signed off on the change.
Charges are from The first case of June 14, 1985 is listed under case type "misdemeanor." But the second is shown on Monday June 17, 1985. That record is listed under the case type "criminal." So what is being covered up as of July 7, 2018
Then there is the matter of the polygraph. In testimony Ford told the Judiciary Committee that it was a long arduous process. She sat there hooked up to the machine for what seemed like hours. But in the polygraph test results released to the Committee there are only two questions.
Why would it take hours for the polygrapher to ask two questions? Obviously, it would not. So where are the rest of the questions she was asked over this long period of time. Did she fail several times and have to stay there until she finally “passed” the test?
Second the nature of the questions makes it clear that they did not ask her about the attack, they asked her about the letter she had just written. That letter contradicted her story. It also contradicted the letter she sent to Feinstein and her sworn testimony. All she said was that she wrote the letter and it is generally true. But there is no point by point questioning. Why?
This is a sham.
Dr. Ford's polygraph letter contradicts letter she sent to Feinstein. Polygraph letter says "4 boys and a couple of girls" were at party. Letter to Feinstein says "me and four others." No way to reconcile the two—irrespective of whether she's counting herself in polygraph letter. pic.twitter.com/aWJ10vTDna— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) September 26, 2018
Unfortunately for Ford, even these glaring inconsistencies are not the only problems. Her testimony is vague, changing and uncertain. At one point she says that there were four boys, then four boys and a girl, then her testimony included two other boys and a girl. The notes from her therapist indicate 4 boys at the party, now according to her testimony, there are only three.
Then there is the letter. The letter she submitted to Feinstein to lay out this shattering event is written on a 6th grade level, yet she is a published “Dr. of Psychology.” Spelling errors, tense switches in mid-sentence, grammatical and other structural problems indicate that she did not write this letter but that it was written by someone else or is perhaps a forgery all together.
She cannot tell us where the event took place, she can’t give us a date when this event happened, she can’t even pin it down to an exact year.
Ford cannot tell us how she got to the party. She cannot tell us how she got home. It would have been impossible for her to call someone on her cell phone to come get her. Cell phones weren’t in common use yet according to PCWorld in an article entitled: A History of Cell Phones.
In 1973 Motorola introduced a “portable” cell phone which was more than a foot long and weighed 2 pounds. That phone was not commercially available until 1983 and cost about $4000 which would be the equivalent of about $12,000 in today’s currency. She didn’t call for a ride from a nonexistent cell phone nor did she call from the house phone because she testified that she left all of her friends behind when she allegedly fled the house.
And if she had just been sexually assaulted and bolted from the house, wouldn’t her friend Leland have noticed she was gone and gone after her or at least asked what happened. After all, they were friends and shared intimate secrets according to both Ford and Keyser.
Ford lived miles from the area where she alleges she was attacked … miles away … no way home, no phone, no friends available – they were at the party. But it gets worse. Much worse!
She testified that because of her traumatic experience she has been claustrophobic and thus insisted that her family home have a second front door. She claims that it was over this issue that she and her husband went to counselling in 2012. That is when the alleged “assault” supposedly came to light. But the therapist’s notes say nothing of Kavanaugh. But that is a minor problem compared to this. It is all a lie.
According to the city of Palo Alto the remodeling of which she speaks in 2012 actually happened four years earlier in 2008.
BREAKING: Palo Alto bldg permit records raise questions about Ford's testimony she completed an “extensive remodel” of home in 2012 & that this was seminal event that led her down path to coming out against Kavanaugh b/c she needed to add an escape door. Permit was issued in 2008— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) September 28, 2018
This bit of stage-craft was obviously not the event that triggered her decision to come against Brett Kavanaugh. Public records expose Ford and her story … It is a lie!
Now a bit more stagecraft for which Democrats are famous. She said she remembers the “uproarious” laughter and people talking down stairs. She uses the phrase “uproarious laughter” time and time again. It is a phrase built for effect. That’s why the repeated use.
Ford contradicts herself again, saying that she could hear conversations down stairs but later says she could not hear conversations down stairs because she was in the bathroom. That is a contradiction worth noting because it points to a contrived detail.
None of this makes sense. According to her there could not have been conversations, plural, down stairs because there were only five people present, herself, Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, Patrick Smyth and Leland Keyser. At most there could have been one conversation because there were only two people left down there remember according to Ford, Kavanaugh and Judge were busy assaulting her and laughing uproariously upstairs.
Further, does it strike anyone as odd that neither Smyth or Keyser noticed three people of the five were suddenly missing? But in reality does any of this matter? All of the witness have denied that they were ever at such a house or party.
Next, if there were only five people at the party and it was not the house of any of those purportedly in attendance, which is part of the Ford testimony, how did they get into the house? The owner was not there, in her sworn testimony which as I said contradicts her earlier stories, there was no one else there but those she listed. No owner, none of the owner’s children just the five of them. Was it common in 1982 to break into a house, eat, drink beer, get drunk, use the pool in the upscale neighborhoods she describes near the clubhouse she mentions?
This is absurd and devious. With no date, no location, no year, no certainty of anything, how does Judge Kavanaugh defend himself against these vague and seemingly absurd charges? He can’t and that is why this carefully crafted lie … is nothing more than a fabrication of Democrats who have evolved into a confluence of evil and stunning and crafty cunning.
This is in short, the most vile, treacherous event in the history of American politics. The Democrats, their media and entertainment allies are desperately evil. In all probability, many millions of Americans will embrace this political melanoma as a healing cure for the nation. It is in fact a cancer that if left untreated will destroy the soul and devour the spirit of America.
We are already suffering a poisonous rot that has left us politically moribund in a demented new world order. If this disease is left untreated and Democrats are not punished socially, politically, and legally for their monstrous behavior, it will lead to a further and devastating schism in our culture, destroy our body politic and lead to chaos, anarchy, violence and a collapse of our entire system. But then if that was the goal all along …Brett Kavnaugh, Christine Blasey Ford, Supreme Court, Testimony, Chuck Grassley, Politics, Melanoma, Cancer, Lies, Senate Judiciary Comittee