IA IA - Johnny Gosch, 12, Des Moines, 5 Sept 1982 - What if no ring / No conspiracy?
- Thread starter docwho3
- Start date
- Status
Reannan
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2006
- Messages
- 3,901
- Reaction score
- 371
Ok...this case would make an excellent movie. I just can't decide what kind. It is first and foremost a horror story, no matter how you cut it, slice it, or dice it. It is a mystery, and now....a sci-fi movie. The problem I keep coming back to, is WHY are there three boys tied up on a bed in what appears to me to be distress. These boys do NOT look posed. They look......scared.....and tired. It sickens me to no end to believe that those pictures were real. If NG is lying, the question that keeps screaming in my mind is, WHY? What does she possibly have to gain by this seemingly insane behavior? I don't necessarily buy into, nor do I discredit the conspiracy stuff yet....not enough evidence either way, in my opinion. Let's say for an instance (and just for arguments) that you are a TRUE conspiracy theorist. Ever dealt with one of those? I have. You KNOW that the government, especially those evil Republicans are up to no good, aka the Skull and Bones Society. Of course, you would know about the Johnny Gosch story. Let's say that you plan to "hook-up" with this story at some time in the future. We all know it would not be hard to sign-up on any message board as more than one person......get where I am going? You probably all think I am crazy at this point, but I am not. I just know that the truth is stranger than fiction, and people who get sucked into conspiracies can go to great extremes to verify their perception of reality. The only person who has nothing to gain, and everything to loose from this current PJH and NG conspiracy is Noreen. Let's face it, we are in the midst ourselves of cooking up another conspiracy. That between PJF and NG. For what purpose? Unless they are stupid, they could not possibly think that they would not get busted on it. We, and probably thousands of others who are too shy to post are picking apart every nuance of their stories. All I know is that there is a boy missing, and there are disturbing pictures being circulated. PJH would be right at home having fabricated an NG persona and then inserting herself into the Johnny Gosch story. Think that is absurd???? Can I just say John Mark Karr? In fact, look at the timing of the whole picture thing. Did the John Mark Karr thing give PJH the idea of sending NG the pictures? Noreen, the "Desperate Yet Doggedly Determined to Find Answers Mother", could easily have been duped into thinking this sincere sounding woman was just that....sincere. I am still on the fence because I haven't seen evidence that is compelling from any one.
Dr. Doogie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2005
- Messages
- 2,451
- Reaction score
- 156
I do find myself wondering how some of them are reacting to this info. I think it would be helpful to see how the "true believers" are processing this latest developement and actually miss their input here (at least, some of them - LOL!) It is nice that we are spending our time examining the facts of the case instead of insulting each other.Pablo said:
concreatly, yes it must be established if Patricia has a missng son for the rest of the situation surrounding her to matter. However, I think it matters a great deal if Noreen Gosch is being untruthful in her presentation of information. As if the internet logs indicate, and the mutual friends are correct that it has to be infurred that these two women had contactact in the past and PJH was well aware of the Johnny gosch conspiracy. I think the liklihood of one of the other boys being the son of a women who who aware of the Johnny Gosch conspiracy wrote about it online at a site that Noreen posted as well on the same day can not be considered mere coincidence. IF NG Is not being truthful about this relationship then one has to question her entire theory. If the situation is such that its not safe for her to release information than she should not be releasing it at all, but to release it with false backing is unnacceptable and puts a thick cloud of doubt all over NG.Pablo said:
mjak
I may have been misunderstood,
It seemed to me to deteriorate with these discussions of how Noreen and this Patricia are crazy or conspiring.
It seems that if she is missing a son, thats what matters.
I guess I haven't decided for myself, whether or not that's the case, because there seems to be no record.
It seemed to me to deteriorate with these discussions of how Noreen and this Patricia are crazy or conspiring.
It seems that if she is missing a son, thats what matters.
I guess I haven't decided for myself, whether or not that's the case, because there seems to be no record.
I do not think either Noreen or Patricia are crazy or conspiring. I do not know these women to make a judgment like that. The only thing I am judging is the cirumstances of the latest development into the search for Johnny. I do think Noreen is not being truthful , and that is very detremental to having belief in her theory. Her reasons for being untruthful are not known to me. What is known to me is not being truthful will not help find out what happened to her son. Since I now think there is good reason to have doubt in Noreen's theory, I want to look at other avenues. I really think Johnny's father needs to be reserarched further. Truthfully, finding Johnny is all that should matter and it is a bit unsetteling to see Noreen so worked up about the public's acceptance or lack of acceptance about her theory. It really should not matter to her.Pablo said:
mjak
Roy Harrold
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2006
- Messages
- 312
- Reaction score
- 10
Reannan said: "The only person who has nothing to gain, and everything to loose from this current PJH and NG conspiracy is Noreen. Let's face it, we are in the midst ourselves of cooking up another conspiracy. That between PJF and NG. For what purpose? Unless they are stupid, they could not possibly think that they would not get busted on it."
No, it doesn't matter. According to the internal logic of conspiracy theories, anyone who is publicly critical or skeptical of them is by definition either a disinformation agent of the conspiracy or a brainwashed stooge under the influence of conspiracy-controlled media.
Actually, having legitimate law enforcement debunk the photos was probably the best thing that could have happened from the point of view of true believers - that simply confirms their pre-existing belief that "official" police agencies are all controlled by the conspiracy.
We are talking here (the Patriot movement) about people who believe the US government blew up that building in Oklahoma and then the FBI framed Timothy McVeigh for the crime...that's Ms Gosch's primary target audience.
No, it doesn't matter. According to the internal logic of conspiracy theories, anyone who is publicly critical or skeptical of them is by definition either a disinformation agent of the conspiracy or a brainwashed stooge under the influence of conspiracy-controlled media.
Actually, having legitimate law enforcement debunk the photos was probably the best thing that could have happened from the point of view of true believers - that simply confirms their pre-existing belief that "official" police agencies are all controlled by the conspiracy.
We are talking here (the Patriot movement) about people who believe the US government blew up that building in Oklahoma and then the FBI framed Timothy McVeigh for the crime...that's Ms Gosch's primary target audience.
This case would make a movie with lots of twists in it.Reannan said:
This post edited to correct for stupidity in lack of attention to detail on my part:
However, the facts are noreen evidently misidentified her son on the pics. What she had to gain or lose in bringing in this other lady may be our own interpretation but the evidence (just the facts maam) seems pretty clear that she did misidentify. And I also differ on another point: Seeing that 2 people may, according to the indirect linkage found online, have some sort of collusion going is not the same thing at all as claiming a conspiracy of worldwide proportions that has allegedly corrupted all levels of power in our nation, an alleged conspiracy of FBI and CIA and Police and posters online and the media etc. And we aren't presenting false pictures to "prove" our claims either, (although I and possibly some others recently failed to thoroughly check out a posting bit of evidence on line) so I think it is not correct or righteous to compare people recognizing that the evidence points towards two people possibly acting in concert in one tiny part of a case with the wild conspiracy circus show we have seen perpetrated upon the public with false pictures backed up by what appears to be falsely orchestrated claims.
I will worry about the other lady's alleged missing kid when it is established that she A. Had a kid and B. That he was, and still is, actually missing and C. That he was ever reported as being missing to L.E.
I am unsure why we continue to beat the dead horse of noreens conspiracy theory here in the "no ring and no conspiracy got johnny" thread. That horse had a broken leg and died before crossing the finish line but its post mortem could be carried out on the thread of what happened to johnny2 which has a wider scope than this "no ring and no conspiracy got johnny" thread does.
My question is more in keeping with the thread topic: If "no ring and no conspiracy got johnny" then what did happen? I look at any case of a missing child with the parents on the suspect list unless or until they can be ruled out by evidence. Do you have any evidence that noreen did not take part in her sons disappearance? Do you have evidence that she was elsewhere when johnny disappeared? What do you (or anyone) actually know, as in having evidence, that clears either parent? What do you, or any of us, know (that did not come from noreen, her website, or her book)? The news reports I have seen were pretty sparse on information. Does anyone know what johnny's brother and/or sister have to say about the case?
In the meantime Johnny is either long dead or he is alive as an adult now and is happy to remain in hiding for reasons known only to him.
Guys, Gunderson, Gosch, Gannon and Holms did not all post with each other, within a 24 hour period on the above message board. If you go in and look at the posts, it is cut and pasted. I think someone did it and the "name" of the poster references the material within the post. Thats all.kcksum said:
At any rate we can debate that issue but as already stated, the important issue vis-a-vis Holms is her son. Did/does he exist and was he kidnapped.
Insguru said:
exactly, did he exist and was he ever reported missing. I asked Noreen that very question. The only answer I could get from her was that Holms phone number was on the website, and if had any questions I should call her. Noreen said there was more to the story than she could divulge. So, that tells me that Noreen did not necissarily know for sure that the woman who claims to be the mother of the boy in the picture is actually the mother of a missing child. Noreen would have immediatly directed me to a record or photo of him on the center for missing and exploited children website if one existed. It is Noreens lack of checking the background of this woman that calls her credability into action.
Just as I told her. She wants me to believe that trained investigators out of florida have it all wrong, and that a man coming forward to say "hey that's me in the photo, some one traded me firecrakers to take the picture"are lying.
Yet, she wants me to believe that a woman who never reported her son missing, and who is knee deep in conspiracy theory discussions (including those about Johnny) suddenly came forward after three years of examing this case to say hey that's my teenage son who I never reported missing tied up next to the most famouse missing boy in all of history. Now, who sounds more credible?
The most we can get from Noreen is, " hey you'll have to ask her" and please don't forget about the poor victims. That , in my opinion, is an answer full of holes and evasiveness.
I in no way want to project that I believe this is a conspiracy. My point was to prove that Noreen should have done a bckground check on this loony toon before posting on her missing sons foundation site that she was indeed the mother of one of the boys in the picture. I in no way want to suggest that this was intentional, it may have just been a huge lack of sound judgement on Noreens part.....or she could have known Holms before hand and would do anything to try and bolster her claim that the picture is indeed of her son. Either way we don't know. I just wanted to ask Noreen myself, and never got any answers. As far as emailing this holms woman. Naaaaaa, I doubt she would tell me the truth if I paid her. She will probably tell me she assumed aliens abducted her son and that's why she never reported him missing. Someone else is more than welcomed to though.:crazy:
Looking at the IP addresses of those posts which I was able to see listed (and not having verified those) it does appear that more than one of the posts came from the same IP address. Thanks for bringing up the paste possibility.Insguru said:
I will go edit my posts that are editable and correct them where possible.
Ok, I can accept that paste possibility as probable in light of the IP addys listed but I still see the collusion linkage as possible through tim white as also referenced in other posts so although we may not have quite the smoking gun type of linkage, the collusion may still be linked.
Still we are also left with pics that were debunked by lawful investigators and noreen misidentifying her son as being on one or more of the pics. We are also left with the disturbing possible indirect linkage via tim white to a lady that she now uses to validate her already debunked pics. And we are left with a wildeyed alien conspiracy lady who thinks her son was kidnapped "April 1, 1985" by some "Bush connection to the Boeing Black Ops project Green River killing" thing and I have not yet found one website listing her son as missing.
http://pub18.bravenet.com/forum/1501039859/show/904600
I would suggest people read the rest of the message for themselves.
To sum up: I agree the smoking gun posts were probably not actually the posts they appeared to be. (Smacking self now for not noticing the IP addys sooner.) Thank you for pointing this out. But we are still left with a lot of noreens stuff that has proven incorrect and things which to me serve to further cast dark shadows on her credibility.
so, am I to infer that she believes her son was taken by a black ops group who abducted children and sold them into sexual slavery for the Bush administration under the guise of the green river killings? Wow, this lady is so out there. So that would be why she never reported him missing? Becuase she knew Bush had him abducted....huh?docwho3 said:
docwho, great sleuthing. Are the posts with Noreens name and the one with PJH's name from the same IP address? There is no need to edit your early posts or talk negativly about yourself for not sleuthing this IP info earlier. As when I posted the forum entries originally, I did not know exctly what they meant except they appeared suspicious to me. I hoped people would look further into them and either validate them or debunk them. That is exactly what we are all here to do. Sleuthing is not a lateral road. We need to bring evidence, discuss it, explore it, challenge it and see where it takes us. By editing posts to fit the progression your rewriting history which later on could prove valuable. Never aplogize for challenging and learning as we go forward in trying to find out what Happened to Johnny . What you are apologizing for is exactly what we are all here to do SLEUTH!!! I still believe these Women are running in the same circles and I find that a coincidence that I can not buy into.docwho3 said:
mjak
Insguru said:
Yes, I see the cut and paste. However the format of this thread clearly is the standard format used in a form where individuals are posting. Its not a typical forum for a listing of cut and paste articles by various people. From the persons name to the times and the dash it appears to me as if these people are posting.
I find that intresting. Even if Holms did not post there with Noreen, this does demonstarte that Holms was very well aware of the Johnny Gosch conspiracy way before her son alledgedly showed up in a photo smack in the middle of the conspiracy. Thanks for the good sleuthing.
mjak
cappuccina
Former Member
....the more I read about what these women are into, the more mental illness I see... They are in an almost "folie a deux: situation....
For a definition of "folie a deux", see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folie_à_deux
Here's a standard dictionary definition of the term:
fo·lie à deux (fô-lē' ä d', fŏl'ē
n.
A condition in which symptoms of a mental disorder, such as the same delusional beliefs or ideas, occur simultaneously in two individuals who share a close relationship or association.
[French : folie, madness + à, between + deux, two.]
This is all very sad...
For a definition of "folie a deux", see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folie_à_deux
Here's a standard dictionary definition of the term:
fo·lie à deux (fô-lē' ä d', fŏl'ē
n.
A condition in which symptoms of a mental disorder, such as the same delusional beliefs or ideas, occur simultaneously in two individuals who share a close relationship or association.
[French : folie, madness + à, between + deux, two.]
This is all very sad...
cappuccina
Former Member
...this is written by Patricia Johnson-Holmes, and almost qualifies to be a "word salad", the definition of which is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad_(mental_health)
The material written by PJH is at:
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...tricia+johnson-holms&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
Also, I cannot find any evidence that her son was kidnapped or is missing - ANYWHERE. As adamant as she is about everything else, you'd think this would be all over her websites....but...
("Twilight Zone" theme playing softly in the background... )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad_(mental_health)
The material written by PJH is at:
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...tricia+johnson-holms&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
Also, I cannot find any evidence that her son was kidnapped or is missing - ANYWHERE. As adamant as she is about everything else, you'd think this would be all over her websites....but...
("Twilight Zone" theme playing softly in the background...
)cappuccina said:...this is written by Patricia Johnson-Holmes, and almost qualifies to be a "word salad", the definition of which is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad_%28mental_health%29
The material written by PJH is at:
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:-Ku3eb-9hnAJ:www.apfn.net/Messageboard/08-22-06/discussion.cgi.70.html+%22patricia+johnson-holms&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
Also, I cannot find any evidence that her son was kidnapped or is missing - ANYWHERE. As adamant as she is about everything else, you'd think this would be all over her websites....but...
("Twilight Zone" theme playing softly in the background...
Oh my goodness, word salad is the first thing that came to my mind as well!!!!!
Dr. Doogie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2005
- Messages
- 2,451
- Reaction score
- 156
cappuccinaThe material written by PJH is at: [url="http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:-Ku3eb-9hnAJ:www.apfn.net/Messageboard/08-22-06/discussion.cgi.70.html+%22patricia+johnson-holms&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1" said:
Good grief! Now Polly Klass was murdered by the "conspiracy"...
Concerning the "cut and paste" posts of the forum, here is a hypothesis:
Gunderson, Noreen and Gannon are obviously big players in the Gosch/Franklin scenario - Holm is not (at least until now). Yet, all four appear in the thread back-to-back. I suspect that Holm created the thread and posted using the other's names in order to be member of the celebrities of the conspiracy theory. This may represent the first attempt to insert herself into the case, with the misidentification of the middle boy being the second.
It seems like now Patricia is going to be talking for noreen, considering she keeps passing the buck to her on the issue. I want to see any proof that David Johnson was ever kidnapped or even existed for that matter. How dare they drag Polly Klass into their nonsense. Her father is a true advocate for children, not those 2. In the past Noreen was, but not anymore.
Mark Franzeo
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 22
- Reaction score
- 2
In my profession in Marketing I work with pictures all day including altering them to look better to be made from color to b/w etc. I would like to share with you my observations of the 3 photos presented on the www.johnnygosch.com home page. The one with the 3 children in it looks more like a picture taken in the later 70's than the mid 80's because keep in mind, if the middle child was identified to be that other mother's child that picture would have to be taken in 1985 or later. The style of clothing, hair styles and the overall aging of that picture suggest late 1970's not mid 80's. Now onto the pictures featuring just the one boy. If you look closely at them there are some differences. Notice the bed sheets. In one they are plain white. In the other they have a brown floral print. On the boy himself. Notice the hair. The hair is totally different. The bandannas used as a gag are different in the pictures as well. The one with the brown floral sheets is a pink paisley design. The one with the white sheets is plain white. The child in the picture with the brown sheets also appears to be taller than the one with the white sheets. Picture quality. If you compare the picture quality, the one with the brown floral sheets is clearer and the color is more crisp than the one with the white sheets. Now notice how the pictures are cropped. The one with the white sheets had a white boarder. That means that picture was probably a Polaroid. Especially when you consider the quality and overall look of the picture. If you kidnaped a child and were to take pictures of him like that for whatever reason, I doubt you would use 35mm film and later go get it developed somewhere. Unless you have the equipment to do that yourself which I doubt a lot of people have. One would think that a Polaroid would be the safer way to go. No need for developing, reasonable equipment price and the cameras and film are and were readily available. My opinion is that these two pictures were taken at different times with totally different equipment. The one with the white sheets looks like it was taken by a amateur and rather quickly. The one with the brown floral sheets has a look to it like someone used a high powered flash and took lighting into account. Also, in my opinion, that picture looks like it was taken considerably later than the one with the white sheets. In my opinion, the picture I would put the most stock in as actually being Johnny and put the most effort in investigating is the one with the white sheets. The hair style, quality, aging and lighting in that one look way more like a picture taken in 1982. Also, the boy featured in that pic looks a lot more like Johnny to me. Especially the hair. I cannot think of any boy that age or anyone for that matter wearing their hair in that style for over 15 years. I would like to find out more about this picture and it's origins. Also, I was wondering does anyone know is the actual photos are in anyone Possession? Were the computer printouts or actual photos? If the one with the white sheets is actually a Polaroid, then there are chances that is the actual photo and not a copy. You can do testing on that photo and a lot of Polaroid film has date stamps on it (ie when it was manufactured etc.) If we could date the film it would definitely help rule in or rule out this photo as possible evidence. I would like to hear anyone elses thoughts on my observations. Especially people who work around photos all the time ( photographers, developers, etc.) Thank you for your time and I hope we find Johnny. May it be alive or dead. Because regardless what kind of closure this ends up bringing, at least it will bring closure.
- Status