Who’s afraid of the big bad hoax?

Yesterday the Hoaxtead Research account was blocked on Twitter.

That’s not all that unusual: it’s happened several times over the past few weeks, mostly right after we’ve made a particularly hard-to-refute point.

The most recent HR-blocker was Jim McMenamin, a true believer who nearly chucked it all over back in September, but then had a change of heart and charged back into the fray. He’s been playing a bit fast and loose with the truth lately, as we mentioned the other day, and a few Hoaxtead mythbusters were on his case about it: McMenamin-Lucy-Twitter-2016-01-09(‘Mr A’ and ‘Mr S’ are a reference to Mr Angry and Mr Sad, mentioned in that recent Hoaxtead Research post.)

McMenamin-2 2016-01-09(Jim is referring to Christine Ann Sands’ video recording from inside the church last spring, in which she alleges to have ‘witnessed’ babies being slaughtered.)

Right after this exchange, Jim blocked both Lucy and El Coyote, along with anyone else who might threaten his version of the ‘truth’. Dare we suppose that our pointed questions might have threatened his close-held belief in the hoax, to the point where he felt he had to shut them down completely?

Interestingly, another participant in that conversation kept the doors open:

ElCoyote-Twitter convo 2016-01-09This person, @manatrue, states she ‘just wanted to forget the emotions’ she wasted on this case. It turns out she’d been a believer at the beginning, but ‘the penny dropped’ and she and a group she was involved with were forced to the painful realisation that they’d been duped.

This raises an important point for many of those who still believe: letting go of their belief at this point, after some of them have devoted nearly a year to promoting it, will be an emotionally painful choice.

One reason is linked to something called the ‘fallacy of sunk costs’. It’s defined on the website Logically Fallacious as “Reasoning that further investment is warranted on the fact that the resources already invested will be lost otherwise, not taking into consideration the overall losses involved in the further investment”.

More simply put, it’s the human tendency to continue to make bad investments, based on the fear that otherwise one will lose what has already been invested.

This is true, of course. The energy, time, and emotions that many True Believers have already invested will never be returned to them. But ultimately, it’s irrelevant: once it’s clear that the hoax has no future, the fact that so much has already been invested is a really bad reason to cling to it.

What happens to True Believers once they reach the point where they can no longer believe?

We’ve heard so many stories: some become enraged at having been duped, and dedicate themselves to exposing the fraud. Others walk away in disappointment, and try to forget the whole thing. Some feel shame and humiliation at having been taken in. Most feel a sense of loss.

McMenamin-Twitter-4-2016-01-09So when Jim blocked us, was it really because he thought we’d ‘muddy the waters’? Or was it because he was afraid he might be ‘dragged under’ and forced to confront the truth if he continued to engage with us?


43 thoughts on “Who’s afraid of the big bad hoax?

  1. The ‘fallacy of sunk costs’ – what a fascinating angle and well explained. And it makes perfect sense. I suspect that deep down, the majority of the hoax-supporters now realise this whole thing was a scam but are too scared/proud/embarrassed to admit it. But the evidence is that so many of them have voted with their feet by simply walking away (in some cases very subtly/casually, in the hope that no one will notice). Examples off the top of my head? Charlotte Ward, Justyna Rzeska, Dave Conaghan, Leigh Ravenscroft, Mark Haining, Saskia Whitfield…Or to put it into perspective, the fact that only one person has turned up at the church to protest since the bandwagon rolled out of town in April speaks volumes.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I recognise this phenomena as it examples 2 compulsive gamblers I know who have lost everything.

      But it also is similar to a community organization I belonged to that collapsed 7 years ago now when one sole sociopath decided the way to take it over was to accuse the 85 year old president of theft. So many jumped on the bandwagon despite the association’s lawyer saying this could destroy the club and indeed, it eventually did when it finally collapsed in a welter of legal and other debts.

      Now former members come to me expressing their regret in continuing to back the creep who began the campaign even while he was continually exposed as telling lies.

      Hampstead is very similar and a handful of sociopaths are using none too bright folk to perpetuate a campaign that has failed at every turn it has taken,

      Rather than admit they were taken in by lies and hoaxes they invent excuses like so & so is a disinformation agent or the cult is all powerful etc etc.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, I think you’ve nailed it, Sam. It’s about a small group of people who know exactly what they’re doing (though I notice Belinda is no longer involved, having assessed the odds and backed out when she could), and a much larger group of people who are willing to accept uncritically anything they’re told.


  2. Wow, so it sounds like the whole Hampstead Research group had a simultaneous awakening to the truth of this sordid affair. Hats off to them all. It’s easier for some to admit to being wrong than for others. Ultimately I don’t think there is any loss in such realisation, it is something that will instill appropriate caution in the validity of reports in the future. The real damage is in the area of the victims, ie the named people in this hoax. Perhaps the 12 can make attempts to make some type of amends. I imagine just seeing Beehive’s tweet will be helpful to some.

    Liked by 1 person

    • We’ve heard from many who’ve undergone the shift from belief to disbelief. It does seem to help them to know they’re not alone–that many others have done the same. I know it sounds like a trivial issue, but a hoax is, by its nature, an abuse of trust.


  3. There definitely are less and less believers out there it would seem. Does Jim really believe this hoax or is he just too stubborn to admit he was wrong. A really interesting post El Coyote that explains why some won’t walk away.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Abe really never thought it through, did he. Story of his life. And Ella, having no emotions herself, was unable to pick up on this void in the concoction.

    The police, however, are trained in such matters, they actively watch the emotional response, and would have noticed this absence instantly, in both the children and their mother. It would be interesting to know what the standard police response is, when, say, someone alleges rape, or the sexual abuse of their child, and it becomes apparent it is a malicious allegation.

    I wonder if the police did not take matters further at the pre-fact finding time of this case. It may be that they needed the outcome of the judgement. went further. This extract hints at such an approach:

    (Appeal hearing judgement)

    iv. 51. Earlier attempts at securing Mr C’s participation in the
    proceedings because of the likelihood that the local authority
    would seek findings against him were wholly unsuccessful. A
    series of communications from the local authority’s solicitor went

    Liked by 2 people

  5. HWMNBN blog is like a slow motion car crash, I just can’t avert my eyes:

    A snip from his latest piece of insanity.

    “At the very beginning of my invetigation into Franklin Credit and my family- I got inundated with with electronic microwave weapons. ”

    I guess it’s our fault that he is getting them again. I have to say, having microwave ovens thrown at you is enough to ruin anyone’s day.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I see what you mean, Anonymous. Worrying, very worrying.

      Not sure about the capitalisation of all those words in your titles, e.g the A in ‘As’, HWSNBN. And did you drop the ‘d’ in ‘and’ deliberately, so as to fit the characters into the three lines? Just wondering.

      PS HWSNBN: This is about the level of attack you can expect from this site. No need for the hat. Honestly. Get help. You are embarrassing yourself.

      tinfoil hat

      Liked by 1 person

      • HWSNBN: How far can microwaves travel? From Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_transmission

        A disadvantage is that microwaves are limited to line of sight propagation; they cannot pass around hills or mountains as lower frequency radio waves can.

        OMG! So from the UK they would have to be reflected from a point above. A reflector in the sky. Even a satellite? This would involve multi-national collaboration? Wow, NWO!!!!

        I present the above as my incontrovertible proof that HWSNBN is working with Abraham Christie supporting him in digging ever further into his twisted rabbit hole. HWSNBN is conferring world wide powers upon the Hampstead Case. This develops the theory of State Sponsored Trauma Based Mind Control to a fully developed New World Order conspiracy. Well done, HWSNBN.


        All jokes aside, do you have medical cover in the US? Perhaps another visit to that clinic would be helpful as it seems you are suffering from some kind of troubling mental state. If at any point in the future you are on the road to recovery I am sure EC will be willing to take down certain posts that may not be conducive to your mental health.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Has Ed Opperman seen the tin foil stuff? Maybe he can counsel his friend. Unless he agrees with him. Would he? Surely not!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Weird this should come up. A friend of mine had the same symptoms over years. It eventually drove him to quite deep depression. Every few weeks he would get tinnitus like symptoms but also some deafness. He went for numerous checks and even MRI to see if the problem maybe from the temporal lobes, rather than the ear.

        Nothing could be found. However, he found someone on a forum who suggested it maybe dander from his pets. Various animal dander, and especially birds (heard in this video) can cause allergic reactions. Strangely, the reaction can effect just the ears. My friend bought an air purifier and the attacks dropped from every other week to every few months. When his pets eventually died the attacks stopped completely. No doctor ever suggested it could be pet dander.

        When HWSNBN states that people would need to go to some effort to find this video, I think he really means he went to some effort to hide this video…for obvious reasons, lol.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Neelu has a little device she got from Ebay that measures radiation emissions and she discovered microwave ovens emit none !

        I have a theory though and the Troofers should take note : Chem trails only get those who go outside but all microwave ovens are part of the New World Order MKultra (etc etc) plot and this is how they control the population via their ovens Think about it next time you heat up leftovers.

        Liked by 1 person

    • And he says that because the hospital had had other tinfoil-hat-wearing paranoiacs claiming they were being targeted by microwaves, this was an admission that they believed him! How does that work, Dave?

      Liked by 1 person

  6. I see the ahem journalist Angela Power Disney has received zero from her GOFUNDME begging page since 8th December.


    Liked by 1 person

  7. I just came across this from one of the EC tweet links. It looks like it could have been written for Sabine! The petitions Sabine started for the Hampstead Case automatically generated emails to the court/judge.

    For advisers: don’t blog that you want every member of the public to email a judge in a case you’re advising on to influence them, and then talk about your representing the litigant when you’re not a solicitor (*head*thunk*desk*). Think through consequences, risks and rewards of proposed strategies and remember it’s for the litigant to decide on which course of action to pursue. If you go to court as a McKenzie Friend, at least have read the President’s Guidance and ideally the Legal Services Act.

    More gold here: http://thecustodyminefield.com/spotting-bad-advice-and-advisers/

    Liked by 1 person

      • amazing..I was involved in a court case where the opponents said after we won they were going to visit, write, email & phone the judge. Not only did the judge’s clerk tell them he would not be passing on any of their communications to the judge he warned them to seek legal advice as they may be deemed to be threatening or attempting to influence the judge and could get charged.

        You would be surprised how ignorant many can be about how the law works- especially the pontificating conspiriturd troofers.


Comments are closed.