From: Circulation@Vigo-Examiner.com <Circulation@Vigo-Examiner.com>
To: Circulation@vader.thnet.com <Circulation@vader.thnet.com>
Date: Thursday, September 24, 1998 6:03 AM
Subject: Now a Way to Expose Infiltrators
> Now a Way to Expose Infiltrators
>
>by WILLIAM MICHAEL KEMP
>
>For those who do not know or know of me, I will ask that you recall the
>summer of 1995, when the ATF was undergoing congressional scrutiny for
>their activities at Waco, and a major national news story concerning the
>ATF's extracurricular activities broke-- the Good O'Boy Roundup, where an
>annual weekend-long picnic of law enforcement agents was revealed to be
>extremely racist. The banner which often hung over the entrance to the
>gathering read "NIGGER CHECK POINT-- ANY NIGGERS IN THAT CAR?"
>The banner
>further offered 17 cents a pound for "field dressed and boned nigger meat."
>That news story was brought to light by the Gadsden Minute Men, a citizens'
>militia group which I founded.
>
>What did the ATF do in order to prepare for the raid on the Branch
>Davidians in Waco? They sent in a snitch.
>
>How did the Freemen land in jail? Snitches were sent in for that purpose by
>the Feral Bureau of Incineration.
>
>What originally got Randy Weaver in trouble? A snitch, sent to entrap him.
>What got Bob Starr busted? Snitches. What got John Pitner busted?
>Snitches.
>What got the Viper Team busted? Snitches. What got Ray Looker and the
>West
>Virginia Mountain Militia busted? Snitches. The Missouri 20? A trusted
>insider who was actively working against their interests.
>
>Need I continue?
>
>When the militia/constitutionalist movement awakened and gained
>momentum in
>the wake of Ruby Ridge and Waco, great strides were made in establishing
>networks of like-minded people in various groups around the country. Before
>very long, however, it became apparent that the various law enforcement
>entities, from local to federal, were not going to leave us unmolested,
>particularly not when our intent was to make government accountable for
>their unlawful and unconstitutional actions.
>
>>From the very first, their methods should have been apparent. After all,
>Randy Weaver was a crystalline example. ATF wanted Randy Weaver to be a
>snitch for them. He wouldn't, and we know the rest of the story. What Randy
>Weaver needed-- in fact, what we all need-- is a way to find the people in
>our associations who don't belong-- who are present under false pretenses--
>who are acting for the interests of unlawful government, rather than in the
>interests of the sovereign people. Most of these people can be described
>simply as snitches, or informers, or informants.
>
>Who has infiltrated us?
>
>These folks, by and large, are not sworn, authorized agents of government.
>Occasionally, actual members of law enforcement are used, but this is
>relatively rare. A few are wannabe cops, but the majority are snitches, and
>they are, typically, criminals. They are acting at the orders of law
>enforcement. They are doing what the ATF wanted Randy Weaver to do--
>living
>a lie. Randy Weaver wouldn't become a snitch, so they declared him to be a
>criminal, and attempted to run him through their snitch manufacturing
>machine, sometimes referred to as the Criminal Justice System-- which is
>aptly named. Randy was not a criminal, and decided not to participate. Most
>people faced with this choice would not have the moral integrity to resist.
>
>Most informers are not so directly targeted-- most are convicted of one of
>the myriad of things which now constitute "criminal behavior," and are
>offered the alternative of being a snitch or going to jail. Rather than
>suffer whatever consequences they face, they are encouraged by various law
>enforcement agencies to spy upon their fellow men, and function to report
>on private associations, and encite, entrap, provoke, and disrupt at any
>and every opportunity. If they fail to generate criminal activity (and in
>this day and age, when simple possession of inanimate objects has been
>declared criminal) they will plant evidence, or otherwise cause legal
>problems for their targets-- US.
>
>Failing all the above, they resort to creating dissension and division, and
>do everything they can to spread mistrust and suspicion. We should all be
>witness to the effectiveness of the effort of the snitches and their
>masters, the lawless "law enforcement" community.
>
>Why have we been vulnerable to informers?
>
>We are severely hampered in our dealings with this gutter trash. Since we
>are, by and large, honest and straightforward people, we have accepted
>folks on face value. This honesty has been taken advantage of; our honesty
>has been taken as naivete. We have been easy pickings for the immoral and
>unscrupulous methods employed against us. We do not have the resources
>to
>do full background checks, which would largely be useless anyway,
>resembling hens petitioning the wolf for relief from the fox. Government
>holds the records, and their snitches will be protected. Further, one must
>deal with a government employee to obtain any records, and trusting any
>results from such a source is a rather chancy affair.
>
>Polygraphs (classic "lie detectors") are expensive to own, difficult to
>operate, and difficult to interpret.
>
>So we find ourselves in our present circumstance. We can look around and
>see many of our brethren imprisoned or financially ruined, or both. But we
>don't even have to look that far. The level of mistrust is incredibly high;
>it would be called paranoia, save for the fact that it is absolutely
>justified. The prosecutions and financial ruin of so many of us attest to
>that fact.
>
>Various leaders from various places are routinely suspected and accused of
>"being a fed." Even internally, trust by members of their leadership is
>low, and no leader can feel secure from infiltrators in any of the various
>groups. And, rest assured, there is at least one infiltrator in EVERY group
>of any size, in every group with public exposure.
>
>We have attempted to operate publicly, for it is in the public interest
>that we act. We are not criminals, and wish only to be RID of criminality,
>most particularly OFFICIAL criminality. But, as the result of the lies and
>false colors of informers, we are fighting a losing battle and are on the
>verge of complete failure.
>
>A Solution-- voice stress analysis
>
>With this in mind, I offer a solution. The technique of "voice stress
>analysis," or "psychological stress analysis," goes back thirty years. It
>is founded on the premise that lying produces stress (from fear of
>discovery if not for moral reasons) and this stress is manifested in the
>voice. Properly applied and interpreted, this analysis, while not
>foolproof, has a fine track record. It is in regular use by various and
>sundry government entities around the nation, from the local cop-shop on
>up. I suggest that you visit the web site http://diogenesgroup.com to see
>this illustrated. This company makes a commercial product based on a 166
>megahertz Pentium laptop to do real-time analysis. Of course, this product
>is only available to law enforcement and other government entities.
>
>Even in sparsely populated Alabama, the method is in common usage. The
>local newspaper, The Gadsden Times (which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
>The New York Times) has run feature articles discussing the use of voice
>stress analysis by various law enforcement agencies, with much crowing by
>those agencies attesting to its effectiveness.
>
>A former CIA intelligence officer, George O'Toole, has conducted an
>extensive investigation into the assassination of President John Kennedy
>using voice stress analysis (which he refers to as "psychological stress
>analysis"). He has concluded that the accused assassin, Lee Harvey
>Oswald,
>did not commit and was not involved in the killing, other than being a
>"patsy."
>
>The House Select Committee on Assassinations Chief Counsel, Richard
>Sprague, in 1976, stated his intent to use voice stress analysis on all
>testimony.
>
>Voice stress analysis-- equipment
>
>This method has been subject to criticism, largely as a result of poor
>equipment, improper application, and poor analysis of the results.
>
>The day of poor equipment is behind us. High quality tape recorders are
>everywhere, from hideout miniature recorders with remote microphones to be
>clipped to a collar to desk-top boom boxes. A video camera, switched on but
>with the lens cap in place makes a fine audio tape recorder, and while
>those present may initially react to the presence of a camera, will soon
>discount its presence since "the lens cap is on."
>
>I have personally used this method twice, both times successfully: once on
>a District Attorney who said some things to a couple of folks privately
>(that a particular prosecution was "insane") that he would have never said,
>and would have denied, in public. The first he heard of the recording was
>when it was mentioned in court. He pitched a hissy fit, at which point I
>told him "Welcome to the NFL, kid. Sue me. Deny it. Drag it into the
>newspapers. Prosecute me. The law specifically allows me to tape any
>conversation that I'm a party to, and you people lie for a living."
>
>The other occasion was in public with several freedom fighters in
>conversation with an ATF supervisor. He spoke some words in an
>unmistakably
>hostile tone that gave every appearance of a threat. I was immediately
>asked "did you get that?" The ATF boy did a double take at the video
>camera, and was devastated when he realized that he had been caught so
>easily. It was hilarious seeing this snitch-master trapped by such a simple
>device, and going away blustering with his feelings hurt. I ALMOST felt
>sorry for him (snicker).
>
>Almost every person viewing this document has equipment perfectly capable
>of performing the necessary evaluations. A moderately fast computer, such
>as those equipped with a Pentium processor and a 16 bit sound card, are
>excellent tools. Software/freeware is readily available, and will perform
>analysis in near real time. Thus, the first hurdle is past. We have the
>tools.
>
>Voice Stress Analysis-- its proper application
>
>The next problem is improper application. We can't expect to analyze a bull
>session with a bunch of guys drinking beer and swapping tall tales.
>Further, we can't properly analyze a "casual" lie. By this I mean that it
>is not always possible to make up lies just to test the analysis. I cannot
>tell the tape recorder that my name is General Douglas MacArthur and I live
>in New Guinea and expect proper results.
>
>I have performed experiments on friends who volunteered to "beat the
>machine." They told lies concerning the color of their socks and underwear
>and showed no signs of stress (lying) whatsoever.
>
>There is no consequence to these lies, no hazard if the lie is discovered,
>no feeling of moral compunction to create stress. Meaningless lies
>generated strictly for the purpose of testing are therefore not a proper
>application. Using voice stress analysis in such situations will likely
>produce no valid results whatsoever and is likely the source of much of the
>criticism of the method.
>
>However, in other circumstances, voice stress analysis is extremely
>effective. One is the candid recording, recorded by one party to a
>conversation. The second party to the conversation does not know that the
>recording is being made, and thus exhibits no "stage fright" or other
>external and artificial manifestations of stress. An example of this is the
>above-mentioned interview with the District Attorney.
>
>Another successful method approximates the classic polygraph method. An
>individual poses questions to a second party. The expected answers should
>not necessarily be yes or no, but neither should they be lengthy. Answers
>of a few words, up to a couple of sentences, are fine. It is useful if the
>person doing the analysis intentionally poses a question to get a "true"
>answer as a calibration.
>
>The most difficult speech to analyze is a rambling monologue by an
>individual who knows that the recording is being made and that a subsequent
>analysis will be done. I have performed analysis on two informers who
>admitted to being informers, and claimed to be "switching sides." One was
>recorded clandestinely in a telephone conversation, and was clearly
>demonstrated to be lying.
>
>Another was recorded knowingly, and the first analysis was done on a
>rambling monolog. It was absolutely unreadable. Statements of known truths
>showed severe stress, making it impossible to separate lies from simple
>personal guilt over the activities, as his mind reacted to the things being
>stated, and about to be stated. The next attempt was the recording of his
>reading a statement. It was also so full of stress as to make the analysis
>almost impossible. The third attempt was done in the manner of a classic
>polygraph examiner, with the examiner asking questions and the subject
>responding with short answers. This proved to be much more satisfactory,
>and resulted in finally discovering the truth.
>
>Voice Stress Analysis-- difficulty of interpretation
>
>The inherent weakness of voice stress analysis lies in the fact that
>emotional topics can also create vocal stress. Subjects to which the
>speaker is sensitive (an unfaithful spouse, an embarrassing situation,
>guilt over past actions) often generate stress in the voice. This is a
>normal human reaction and does not necessarily indicate deception. Such
>things can greatly confuse the issue and MUST be taken into account when
>performing voice stress analysis.
>
>In a rambling and unstructured monologue, the speaker's mind is racing to
>select words and topics, and every time the mind touches a "hot button"
>there will be a blip of stress in the voice. Every moment of indecision
>will show a stress bump. Therefore, this is a situation to be avoided for
>serious analysis.
>
>Experience with the technique allows the operator to sort out occasional
>stress over sensitive topics, emotional issues, and such. The final
>analysis takes these matters into account and looks for the clear pattern,
>the stress on several words in a row on the same topic, which indicates
>deception.
>
>I have gained many hours of experience in analyzing stress in voices. I
>have analyzed friends, politicians, candid recordings, staged interviews.
>From this experience comes my confidence in the method, and my ability to
>properly use it. I must state again that proper interpretation of the
>results is the most important ingredient. One must not assume that an
>indicated absence of stress is indicative of the truth, for some people's
>natural level of stress is quite low, and the escalation upon telling a lie
>can escape detection. Likewise, one must not assume that an indicated
>presence of stress indicates a lie. VARIATIONS in the level of stress is
>the critical criterion.
>
>Voice Stress Analysis-- can proper training defeat it? I have mentioned
>that most of the infiltration is done by informers rather than trained
>professional agents. It is entirely likely that intensive training can
>enable a person to lie without stress in the voice. However, I seriously
>doubt that this degree of sophistication can be successfully acquired by
>the average snitch and, as mentioned, there are simply not enough trained
>agents. And even in a trained individual, I seriously doubt that such
>training can extend to every word spoken in all situations. In short, even
>the trained agent will be vulnerable to the hideout tape recorder making a
>candid recording.
>
>Voice Stress Analysis-- the plan
>
>I envision the leadership councils of the various groups voluntarily,
>eagerly submitting to voice stress analysis. I envision that the leaders of
>the various citizens' organizations shall affirm their loyalty for voice
>stress analysis for the benefit of their membership. I envision that the
>members of various citizens' groups shall voluntarily and eagerly require
>that all members affirm their loyalty publicly and submit the recorded
>results for voice stress analysis. I envision a gathering at Knob Creek
>where, by mutual consent, attendance is dependent upon passing such an
>analysis, conducted by an independent contractor (who has himself passed
>such a screening). I envision a very simple, non-intrusive,
>very-much-to-the-point standardized set of questions. An example might be:
>
>What is your name? My name is Mike Kemp
>
>What group or association do you represent? The Gadsden Minute Men of
>Gadsden, Alabama, and myself.
>
>Which is the higher authority-- the Bill of Rights, or the Supreme Court?
>The Bill of Rights.
>
>Declare your intentions for attending this meeting. I hereby affirm that my
>reason for attending this meeting is to exercise my individual right to
>insure that all government will adhere to the literal written words of the
>Constitution, and to therefore protect all my rights for my posterity.
>
>Repeat this pledge-- I am not acting for any entity other than those which
>I mentioned. I have truthfully stated my beliefs and associations.
>
>The individual conducting the voice stress analysis, particularly with
>questions and answers as described above, is not required to know anything
>about the subject of the analysis-- not the name, age, race, financial
>condition, or anything else outside the recorded questions and responses.
>The person conducting the analysis must be knowledgeable and skilled in its
>application, but does not need to know any personal information about the
>subject of analysis.
>
>A Proposal
>
>Government entities at all levels are using this technology against us.
>Since it so directly views the emotional condition of the subject, it can,
>and is, being used to analyze US to obtain psychological profiles. It is a
>very powerful tool, very reminiscent of George Orwell's 1984. I do not
>propose to use this technology, and my skills applying it, to intrude into
>the minds of we, the people. I DO propose to provide some defense against
>the swarms of infiltrators being sent to eat out our substance. Any of you
>reading this may use the technology. However, most of you do not have the
>experience to properly apply it, and obtain the best results. I have
>dedicated much time and precious resources to obtain my skill in its use,
>proper application, and analysis of the results.
>
>I propose to provide a service. I can provide this service on an absolutely
>anonymous basis. I will analyze tape recordings sent to me anonymously,
>and
>post replies to anonymous e-mail addresses or to "snail mail" addresses, as
>requested. I will analyze computer sound files (known as "wave," or *.wav,
>files) sent to me from anonymous e-mail accounts (such as those provided by
>hotmail and juno among others) and reply to same. I can receive these
>messages encrypted with pgp, and my public keys for that purpose are
>provided below. I primarily use pgp version 2.6.2, but am capable of
>version 5.0 and 5.53 as well, though I view them as less secure.
>
>I do not propose to provide this as a free service. I have invested
>hundreds of hours to acquire my skill at this technology and have invested
>scarce resources to obtain the computer hardware necessary to quickly and
>accurately perform a high volume of analysis.
>
>However. I do not expect you to believe that what I say is true. I
>therefore offer to perform a one-time free analysis for anyone who is
>interested. Send a recording to me stating something which you know to be
>true, or know to be false, or one of each. It should not be trivial. That
>is, don't tell me that you are John Henry from Alaska, or that you are
>wearing purple socks, and expect a proper analysis. A proper statement for
>analysis would be "I believe in that the Bill of Rights requires government
>to respect my individual rights. I believe that the ATF acted properly at
>Waco and I believe that their representatives have told the truth about
>those events." The best way to make a tape for analysis is for one person
>to act as a questioner and another answering, with a short set of questions
>which are known beforehand by both the questioner and the respondent.
>
>The statements do not need to be exactly as stated above. In fact, I would
>prefer that the statements NOT be so easily analyzed. I would prefer
>statements which I COULD NOT KNOW OR REASONABLY EXPECT to be
>true or false
>but which are not about trivial subjects. YOU will know the truth and will
>know whether or not I am capable of determining the difference. As I have
>stated, I have no need or desire to know who you are, or whose voice is
>present on the recording.
>
>Tapes may be snail-mailed to me at P.O. Box 873, Attalla, Alabama,
>p.z.35954. Wave files, 1 megabyte maximum, please, may be emailed to me
>at
>minutemn@internetpro.net. The pgp keys below allow them to be encrypted
>for
>security purposes.
>
>I would also refer the reader to
>http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/2110/E_KempSnitch.html, where Claire
>Wolfe has posted a piece on the subject of my use of Voice Stress Analysis.
>
>The Recordings Themselves
>
>I would expect a recording, whether on cassette or in a computer sound
>file, of up to thirty seconds or so duration, making a statement similar to
>the examples mentioned above. If you know how to make computer sound
>files,
>I would prefer that they be in "wave file" format with the following
>characteristics: 16 bit, mono, sampled at 11025 bits per second. Cassettes
>in mono are fine. I will be happy to instruct you individually on the
>proper method of making wave files, which are really quite simple to make
>using a standard tape recorder and a patch cord available from Radio Shack
>for a few federal reserve notes.
>
>When I have satisfied your doubts, I will perform analyses for you on a
>confidential basis. For a nominal sum, I will perform an in-depth analysis
>and inform you and only you (unless otherwise instructed) of the results.
>If I am unable to clearly determine whether the speaker is being deceptive,
>I will inform you of that fact without charge. I will destroy the
>recordings and analysis so that no record remains, or return them to you
>without retaining copies. I shall personally require all individuals with
>whom I associate to pass the "snitch test" herein described. For those who
>do not wish to use this service that I offer, I strongly encourage you to
>become proficient in the techniques of voice stress analysis (which is not
>a simple nor easy task) and rid yourselves of the snitches which are
>ruining our attempt to require accountability and lawful behavior by our
>governments. Personally, I'm tired of it. It's time to fish or cut bait.
>Or, more appropriately, to BE cut bait.
>
>William Michael Kemp
>
>listed below are keys for pgp versions 2.6.2 and version 5.0
>
>-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2
>
>mQENAzVbLlIAAAEH/2AyrZW3VzEgkL/L0sNDd0P/k/HX5pir0tAW7AuPeKR
>UDvCZ
>vIZgDmpiPZ3U/4Qz8eb8Yyyjt9CINc6wEthAm7n3iMclXbKYd9jkwTWSsTUjxFj
>h
>qzO2Deehgg+9DIZveB4aqtoAqrCi+TcQOAlvGdetUdHv0jE3zYWe/NWC6RAMr
>mkX
>fmr1/Y5LmmPVo/sIe78Tg0I0m90pm/QDlkYuJoLv8Tfj+ECtdRSpML+5Olk69N
>mo
>ANctyWRoDrN/isSVy1INggPpR62V+6UOXJF3vrA75z1Q587jVPvS68LvpCbac
>6mJ
>l8DpLEdsoxNCFSl/kOHopFBqoME4bGOup6cPsIkABRG0JEZlZGh1bnRlciA8
>bWlu
>dXRlbW5AaW50ZXJuZXRwcm8ubmV0Pg==
>=3dmj
>-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
>
>-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy
>5.0i
>
>mQGiBDVV1iERBADfOscLRXD9hxrsPcMUv8MipXDRhCJFbYcMQ9v66G5AJ
>YOq0d1A
>GX/CfnjeEb1UQvjL/IPsEkF/c0eWNXCpFoDXEMnrt1l6DYeAjDQ7PUGGGFvfed
>ir
>bFdrB1PWB978jJb5AY48n1hw72KDTWxXqcmL6Kaaf6xsOGxuFg4TkiSznQC
>g/2Kh
>fU0app1tN9aYVLAc6xiirxkD/jddCC7nTgBHAzeoXAexK9W6mjW4ah3fuCkwK
>3R/
>OEgHl7QjpAfsqaMTGWd+8afwCJt8fmmq1/vTzJbT0nqIcBoOJAV39nZABO44Z
>1iM
>+0s7JTqotax7fpbquVav4ddMqsr1R6/UyZtWYXQThPXq+2j8EpYKDMiWGLdp+
>f6Z
>DzsABACrpYSFmUBWmyZ4nWC3pAZ5h2O2UPQ1biFfKXl3KTA9BdhVzLfb9
>ZsR0m8q
>c4XPskus8bGhlGklP91hVcCiRGd7jcgbZD50AskY6sOP8wFYU+d27chyiHayg
>LmN
>6OIcNI4ZyCKStiLMq7dr0NA5NwUED2hPoV+HCkhNACc5olpqP7QvV2lsbGlh
>bSBN
>aWNoYWVsIEtlbXAgPG1pbnV0ZW1uQGludGVybmV0cHJvLm5ldD6JAEsEE
>BECAAsF
>AjVV1iEECwMBAgAKCRARJDfBEWDn08W0AKDkWRlCFh8Efjj5cvC6lJOsIy/
>GpwCg
>rt1GPaWY33jW05h3xMTQMyXQXK65Ag0ENVXWIhAIAPZCV7cIfwgXcqK61ql
>C8wXo
>+VMROU+28W65Szgg2gGnVqMU6Y9AVfPQB8bLQ6mUrfdMZIZJ+AyDvWXpF9Sh01D4
>9Vlf3HZSTz09jdvOmeFXklnN/biudE/F/Ha8g8VHMGHOfMlm/xX5u/2RXscBqtNb
>no2gpXI61Brwv0YAWCvl9Ij9WE5J280gtJ3kkQc2azNsOA1FHQ98iLMcfFstjvbz
>ySPAQ/ClWxiNjrtVjLhdONM0/XwXV0OjHRhs3jMhLLUq/zzhsSlAGBGNfISnCnLW
>hsQDGcgHKXrKlQzZlp+r0ApQmwJG0wg9ZqRdQZ+cfL2JSyIZJrqrol7DVekyCzsA
>AgIIAMxeFFCOuEP5RgqJTmX52eSpuQDgd8WvhExkuePBvi5JqFxkKpVgv6X2s/ZX
>JNe9Vmmp/lX/mD/XsLmxG5wx0Yfl4JpMPHwcPSfHgpq90/ui1dz2M/IRAWY7dQ+m
>ns9DcOd1qysUbOqIP6VSUqtF3I2EE62is1l3siGoA8KpKUEsO7P0e0tinTl106lo
>pA18vSM82KLFb512up4Vt4RNY/hy+xUmSVxOCWm5zhyfrvpCH2MyBNqzYIolUwiv
>CbxK4jaEod5XOX3DKMlRYM19meOcjNgfrRvOLj0Kw4hULMGfzOLJvnZVZuPRsWvH
>Uq8W3gU/N2XGwWPUbC4qwVpq1giJAD8DBRg1VdYiESQ3wRFg59MRAuxtAKDtkaJ9
>g+ym1LaIU4TiFy6EPea67ACgim+MmERRUKWf5EXCD7+Nsf1dIlk=
>=jcab
>-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>http://www.Vigo-Examiner.com
>
> TEXT VERSION
>
>
>
>
>Enjoy a 90 day free trial subscription to the email edition of The Vigo
Examiner.
>You will receive up to three of our top stories, editorial or letters each
day.
>Send your subscription request to Editor@Vigo-Examiner.com.
>
>