Behaviour Analysis - Tim Cumper

A & B are the two opposing streams of ambiguity.
The events as portrayed in the information I received, versus the reasons for suspicion.
The totally unsubstantiated information & events reported in my story have no bias - towards A or B - that weight is only added by predisposition - both streams naturally having a cancelling effect on each other.
An unbiased opinion, based entirely on reading my story would therefore be one of neutrality - one which would quite readily recognise that perfect ambiguity.

This was the position that strangely, I found myself to be in.
Streams A & B represented the opposite forces of emotion and caution.
Caution would instruct the ego to step aside from emotional bias - from wishful thinking - from giving the benefit of the doubt.
Emotion would instruct the ego that no matter what caution said, it desired the supreme satisfaction of allowing the dream lover, the dream scenario - to be real.
A struggle - played out entirely on the internal stage of my being - but the result was neutrality - I could see the potential for each stream being the reality, under its own set of circumstances.

It must be stated that out of the many thousands of people who have come in contact with this story since it was posted publicly online - only a tiny fraction have been responsible for generating the hostile propaganda - demonstratively proclaiming it is a hoax.
Through the exploration of social networking - it is possible to trace how these people are virtually or really connected with each other - either by family, business or social environments.

The other common denominator is that they all speak the same language, literally and metaphorically - for they all use exactly the same method of argument.
Upon analysis, it can be seen that this method is one which seeks to disturb the neutrality of my position - by reinforcing the emotional longing and entirely negating the voice of caution.
This is achieved by adding weight to one stream and denying it to the other - hovering in the soft glow of romantic terminology, the vaguely poetic - constantly reminding of the relationship that was lost, of the beautiful, sexy young Filipina, who had such a genuine love for me, and by an insistence that the pregnancy must have been real.
It is achieved by burying details in the dense clouds of cultural differences, by ignoring them completely or by not addressing any of my suspicions directly and in an unbiased way.
It is achieved by courtesy of the anonymity of the Internet, fired by contempt and incitement - fuelled by gross hypocrisy and double standards - and a conspiracy of silence - denying me the right to reply, refusing to answer emails, invitations to discussion groups, strategically blocking or banning my IP address from commenting or accessing websites.

It is starkly obvious to see how far away from neutrality these people are.

Double standards are revealed - for example, if we consider the phrase "seeing is believing."

They would have me believe that every word of every SMS message, email or webchat - every email containing figures, every jpg of a hospital bill, every letter from a lawyer or embassy - were the gospel truth - when in fact every single one of those items - produced as "proof positive" - only arrived at all due to my continual insistence.

Remember also, that these people are only readers of my story - they claim not to have any other links or inside information - and they certainly have not accrued the slightest piece of information for themselves to back up anything they say.

Seeing is believing for them - not ever remotely entertaining even a possibility that any one or all these things could be falsified, forged or faked - so - seeing is believing, for them - until it comes to the subject of the webcam transmission of Mayen showing me "her scar from the operation."

Considering the pressure that was mounting - the urgency for the real estate business to get my blog removed - certainly all the above things are highly possible.
Someone - remember - hacked and deleted my blog - one hour after I had written up about the "scar revelation" and finally made the blog public.

Believing, though, is much more accountable to perception than eyesight - and perception is conditioned by predisposition - by pre-conception in fact - and by bias & wishful thinking.

Proof of authenticity can never be established by an object in isolation - not a physical object, even less so - a virtual object - transmitted over the Internet.

Its trusted provenance needs to be known.
Its authenticity, its veracity can only be established & verified in its real context - which comes from an intimate familiarity with the actual flow of events - at a first hand level of experience - not by hear-say, rumour, generalisation or presumption - it is not proved by precedents or by their absence - but by the specific details leading to this object's arrival - none of which are available to any of the players now on the field.

Impossible to do over the Internet - but, all things therefore being equal - the Internet is not only the playing field now, but the milieu in which this whole saga unfolded.

Perhaps this is what was hinted at by "The Legal Counsel" when he wrote "This writer is a lawyer and, by the culture in his milieu, encourages those who have been wronged to air their grievances before appropriate fora . . ."
It has its own justice - perhaps - and is a struggle of medium versus message.

So - as far as all the readers of my story - and myself - are concerned, we are therefore on precisely even footing - apart from our predispositions, apart from our presumptions and our biases.

Biases energise, they realise action - and become the motivation.

The reason for my obsessive attention to detail, throughout this story - my meticulous thoroughness over dates and times etc. - is because I do not wish to cheat myself out of the truth.

I have a deep and emotional need to know that truth - that has been and always will be my motivation.
It is a need that cannot allow itself to be motivated by preconception - it is neutral - weighing every possibility equally.

What is the motivation for all those actively engaged in staining my story as a hoax?
Remember it is only a tiny minority - but it is an energetic and a determined minority.
What is their motivation?

We can safely ignore any of the "physical evidence" - the seeing is believing - because one stream of possibility suggests it is highly plausible that what we are seeing could have been artificially generated.

If there were no dilemma, no ambiguity about the truth, everything would have been entirely different.
There was, however that obvious and golden opportunity for a scam - that I had set myself up for - hence the dilemma.
It is so obvious - that it demands being considered in balance with the alternative, opposite scenario - the other stream.
How can something so obvious be so consistently and stubbornly denied?

What we cannot ignore though, are the behavioural responses - the inconsistencies, the timings - in relationship to the shifting pressures.
All these happen in a far more subliminal and unconscious way - they are perhaps harder to disguise.
The silences - the method of approach - the complete vacuum of any further details to appear in support of innocence.
The inability to use anything other than ad hominem attacks on my personality - in order to achieve their attempted aim in obliterating my story - that coupled with the exaggeration, the hyperbole utilised in trying to sustain my own inner emotional imbalance.

For a perfect example of this - just look at the video interview that Noemi Dado conducted with Mayen - soak up the overall style, see just where the accent is - and know exactly what it was they were trying to achieve.

What we cannot ignore either - is the damning evidence provided by the video revelation of the scar - secretly recorded by me at the time of transmission.

So - is it true - that seeing is believing - or not?

Ok - a big ask at this point - I know - but because of the sensitivity of the video - and the intimate nature of it - & the fact that it would readily be seized, only as an opportunity to generate more propaganda - that video will probably never see the light of day as far as public consumption is concerned.
It is required however, that a firm understanding of my neutrality is grasped - to see that I do not want or need to cheat myself out of the truth.
I have little or no fear of reprisals from bloggers, thousands of miles away - in the semi-anonymous, half deserted space of the Internet - they have done all they can do - it can only be more of the same.

What I do fear - is never knowing the truth.

I know that truth now - two years after it all began - two years of hunting, sifting, deep thinking and soul searching - a determination to not give up - to not be thwarted by anger or a false pride.
All along, that one single prayer and hope - that one single aim - of finding the truth - was before me.

What happens now - is determined by how those "hoax theorists" behave.
Do they seriously think that I am making this all up?
Do they feel obliged to keep their propaganda attempts ongoing?
What is their motivation - it is not truth - they have demonstrated they do not concern themselves with truth.
Is it commercial interest?
Is it sheer contempt?



No - I am not making anything up - the evidence revealed by the video is damning - & is consistent with all my suspicions and vindicates all the effort put into arriving at this goal - of knowing the truth.

I do not need to explain all the details again - but there is no possible explanation to them being on the video - other than it being conclusive evidence of an attempted scam. Finally - we can see which stream is real.

First we have the delay and suspicious circumstances regarding the transmission time.

Second - we have marks across the scar which match exactly the corrugations of the waistband of her knickers - we can see the line being smudged by her thumb.

Third - if the avowed intent was to prove once and for all that Mayen had a genuine scar on her stomach - why was no thought given to standing still - and allowing a perfectly clear, close up picture to convince me? It was pure serendipity that gave us the clear close ups at those critical moments.

Fourth - how can anyone explain the appearance of the remains of a previous attempt at a scar, drawn on to Mayen's stomach - which was obviously hastily, but not thoroughly wiped off, before the second attempt was drawn on, in a different position?

It is those revelations which add weight - beyond any ambiguity - they can polarise with only one stream - they are the only thing which speak for themselves without requiring any predisposition or bias - they are self-evident.

A small, fragile detail, lasting only a split-second - but a detail of enormous significance.

A significance which gains its potency, not from the detail itself, but by the sheer coincidence of it appearing ambiguously genuine - in the wake of all the other anomalous happenings.

A video, in itself, can neither prove something to be genuine nor ingenuine - it is merely a token.

Its significance is derived from the merest hint, that its true provenance may be different.

Brains on! - Consider the implications.

* Why show a fake scar? - Because there was no real scar.

* Therefore there was NO OPERATION, NO ECTOPIC PREGNANCY.

* The whole thing was A LIE - an extortionate lie.

* Therefore when Mr Francis M Jalbuena, of Tierra Maria Estates - communicated with me - telling me that he had paid a deposit - he was CORROBORATING this lie.

* The hospital, who fielded my telephone calls on DAY 1 - were also a part of this EXTORTIONATE LIE.

* Mayen's co-workers, who acted as go-betweens while Mayen was supposed to be in hospital - also CORROBORATED THIS LIE.

* The doctors, whose names I have been given - are either accomplices - or perhaps their names have been used without their knowledge.
Which is it?
If they remain forever silent - what can we presume?

* Whoever wrote the letter, allegedly from the lawyer Efren C Carag - corroborated this extortionate lie on behalf of the hospital.
Does this lawyer know that his name was being used?

* Someone managed to embroil the British Embassy in Manila, getting them to corroborate the EXTORTIONATE LIE.

* Someone came up with this whole scheme - involving Noemi Dado and her orchestrated SEO campaign - pronouncing my story as a hoax.

* Is this the work of a single girl, who tried to scam me out of some money?

Of course it isn't.

I've been thinking a great deal about the whole dynamic of "proof" & "evidence" - especially in relation to the Internet - my conclusion is that there really is no such possibility.

Isolated items, offered or revealed as such, are meaningless on their own - detached from the provenance, the circumstances, the history surrounding their presentation.

All we can possibly see or receive are "tokens" - which are supposed to be representational, significant of an accompanying genuine provenance or circumstance - but in themselves, they are no more than tokens.

Entirely unprovable - entirely useless - without an intimate knowledge of the true provenance.

Whereas that true provenance is whole and complete, the tokens offered are miniscule. They rely totally on a presumption that the circumstances surrounding their origin are legitimate.

However, the authenticity of these tokens is not intrinsic to themselves, but only on the provenance or circumstance that they imply a representation of.

For example - a genuine hospital bill, produced using a hospital accounting system - is a legitimate bill only if the events it pertains to were themselves genuine.

In itself - it as genuine in appearance as any other bill produced on that system.

A photograph - is a genuine photograph, but might be depending on the association of photography with "seeing is believing", to force the presumption that it also represents a genuine, and not a staged, event.

Tokens like these can usurp the authority of the genuine - to assist the fake.

All these tokens do - is try to reach our understanding - they try to coax the understanding and common sense into creating an imagined provenance - in the reverse of the normal chain of events, where the provenance creates the token.

The presumption is that the token will trigger an imagination of a provenance, and become convincing that therefore the provenance must be genuine.

However - our understanding and common sense is not necessarily ever switched off - it is aware all the time.

Our understanding and common sense is not so easily fooled by patterns of behaviour.

Patterns of behaviour - the appropriateness of response - is not so easily disguised - because behaviour is always real, it is always genuine behaviour - even when it attempts to mimic appropriate behaviour - there is something about it which is not quite convincing.

Behaviour, therefore, is more likely to reveal provenance than tokens - which are notoriously ambiguous in authenticity.

Seen in this light, it is apparent that words themselves are mere tokens - tokens for events and also tokens for behaviour - excuses, reasons - yet will often reveal, even subliminally, beneath the words themselves - the current of real behaviour in which the thoughts originated.

Therefore - could it probably be safer, more secure - to ignore the absolutely ambiguous - the tokens themselves - and base detection on our understanding of behaviour?