Isaac Kappy v. Betty Washam

Though I promised to follow up the last post with a final one that would provide the context for Alberto Villoldo Parts 1-3, I find it impossible to hold off on documenting the recent goings-on with the Isaac Kappy story.  Recently, a woman named Betty Washam has thrown a bit of a wrench into the works, to put it lightly.  Betty, a self-styled You-Tube journalist, has been a Kappy critic from the get-go and her criticisms have only increased in severity with the passage of time.

When the story broke, Betty conducted a full dissection of Kappy’s Instagram page, for starters.  Understandable enough.  Some of the her criticisms at the time included comments on photos she thought of as distasteful, including (amongst others) a photo of Kappy wearing womens’ makeup (possibly in character for an acting role at the time, or possibly in jest) and another photo of him with a group of friends including Seth and Claire.  In this second photo, Claire and another member of the party are holding skulls in their hands.  Betty pointed this out to her You Tube audience with a measure of disapproval and moved on to the next photo in the Instagram lineup.  The flaw in Betty’s analysis of these photos is that she comments on their perceived distastefulness and uses them to cast doubt on personal character (in this case Kappy’s), but does not dig deeply for more accurate context.  A more thorough digging into the second photo for instance, would have revealed that Isaac and his friends were visiting “Escape Hotel” in Los Angeles, a sort of ‘escape-themed’ entertainment venue.  (You can find out more about it here if curious:  Given the context of this photo, it is not particularly noteworthy that Claire is holding a skull, as it is almost certainly one of the ‘props’ available for ‘hotel-goers’ to take photos with prior to their embarking on their “escape challenge”, as discussed on the previously linked “About” page.  It is this type of reporting that can lead others, who are not inclined to look into such details, astray.  Given the gravity of Isaac’s accusations (and Betty’s accusations against Isaac), these are details which cannot afford to be glossed over.

Lately, Betty has moved on from criticizing the tones of various Instagram photos, to accusations of a much more serious nature.  On August 26th, 2018, she recorded a livestream in excess of seven hours, during which she accused Kappy of outright Satanism and pedophilia.  This livestream (linked below) is a veritable beast to slog through, but I’ve provided a few important highlights.  Please note that much of the content has to do with the dangers of a program/application called “Keybase”, used by some members of Kappy’s group.  To be forthright, I do not at present time of writing know enough about this program to speak intelligently about it, and will therefore refrain from doing so until further and more thorough research can be done.  Meanwhile, a breakdown of the highlights:

  • Approximately 5:27:00 – Betty puts forth the accusation that Issac is a pedophile and a Satanist, and that she had a picture of him holding a Church of Satan certificate, which she now no longer has because it disappeared when one of Isaac’s people hacked her pc and gave out her phone #.

  • At 5:29:47  – Betty states that Kappy planned a 5-way split for money derived from PayPal donations to a sexual abuse victim by the name of Michael Whelan, and that she knows the identity of those 5 individuals.  (Later on she states that the 5 individuals consist of Kappy, Whalen, a sexual and ritual abuse survivor named Fiona Barnett, a former reporter by the name of Liz Crokin and Nathan Stolpman, of “Lift the Veil”).

  • At 5:31:20 – Betty states that evidence for claims listed above will be presented on her channel on Tues., 8.29.18.

  • At 5:34:36 – Betty states that Fiona Barnett did not come out as an SRA survivor until Kappy came out with his story (implying that Fiona and Kappy were working in tandem to plan story releases in order to scam the public via donation requests).  A viewer/listener points out in the comments section that indeed Fiona has been vocal for the past four years.  Betty responds that she is aware of this, directly contradicting her earlier statement.

  • At 5:37:14 – Betty states that Kappy made 80K in 40 minutes on PayPal, and THEN came out and said he didn’t want any money, because he already had it.  No evidence is provided to support this claim, though evidence is promised to be forthcoming on 8.29.18 as indicated above.  (Backdrop: Kappy initially conceived to do a fundraiser shortly after coming out with his story, but then cancelled the effort a couple of hours later after thinking better of it, as he did not want anyone to get the faulty impression that he was using an important cause to scam for money).

  •  At 5:39:00 – States that Kappy is currently friendly with Lloyd Kaufman and a man named Brian Farrow (sp?). Lloyd Kaufman is the owner of a company which produced a low budget flick called “Clown Kamp Massacres”, a film in which Kappy starred several years ago.  At the time of this writing, I am not sure who Brian Farrow is, and will have to conduct further research on this.  No supporting evidence is provided for this claim, however one may assume it will also be forthcoming on 8.29.18.

  • At 5:39:21 – A viewer by the name of Mark Salo writes in the “comments” section of the livestream that according to Forbes magazine, Kappy’s net worth is 500K.  This piece of information not only goes unchallenged by Betty,  but indeed she seems to readily accept the validity of such an unlikely and outlandish claim.  No supporting evidence for the claim was offered.


  • At 5:51:43 – A viewer asks Betty how she can be sure that earlier featured IT Specialist, “Michael”, is trustworthy.  Betty’s verbatim response: “Because there’s things he told to me that you don’t tell to anyone.  He’s never said anything for 30 years. He’s never came out…. His channel that he has is completely different and does not contradict my channel. He even wants to make my shirts with a 3-D printer so that they’re almost embroidered and they’re cheaper than I have them now. He wants to provide the money upfront to buy 1000 or however many and say hashtag ‘save the children’ on the back…. And that’s something you don’t get from anyone. And the testimony that I got from him was….actually I don’t even wanna talk about it.”  This response is in my view, highly insulting of (what I like to think of as) the average person’s intelligence.  At the same time, my emotions are divided between incredulity and a sense of pity.  While “IT Michael” might possibly be sincere in all his comments to Betty and genuinely desirous of helping her out, her listeners should be no means be asked to accept as evidence her subjective view of the situation, and of someone who is essentially a “stranger” to them – especially as he had not, at the time of the broadcast, made good on any of his promises to help her.  Any charlatan could have showered Betty with stories and promises, but until those stories and promises are revealed to be true and fulfilled via strong supporting evidence, it is all just hearsay.

  •  At 5:57:01- This, to me, is one of the lynchpins of the whole affair in terms of Betty’s renewed vitriol towards all things Isaac Kappy – especially as just a day or two prior, the two had a fairly amicable phone call and seemed resolved to put aside any perceived differences.  (Here is a link to that call, if interested in listening:  It is also a lynchpin which I am not sure I fully understand.  Betty makes reference to how her number was “doxxed” (or publicly revealed) by a member of Kappy’s “team”.  She also makes reference to receiving an email from a Kappy associate, asking her to validate her location.  When she clicked on the ip grabber, she received this response: “You are not an ‘anon’.  Anons do not click links”, followed by the word “#hooks”. Given even her telling of it, it seems as though she “doxxed”/”outed” herself by clicking the link, though of course this could certainly have not been her intention.  A question remaining in my mind is, why did the Kappy associate send her an ip grabber in the first place?  Was it simple precaution?  A ‘test’ of sorts, to measure whether or not Betty was indeed an ‘anon’?  Something else?  It seems to me it could have perhaps been a combination of both of these reasons, and more.  However, given the familiarity with Betty’s incendiary nature and animosity towards ‘Team Kappy’, was this not unnecessarily poking the hornet’s nest?  Perhaps Kappy’s associate could have handled the matter more delicately, by providing Betty with fair warning that in order for any contact to be made, she would need to forfeit her ip address.  In this way, the choice would have ultimately lay with her and she would not have been taken by surprise, if her claims are to be believed.

  •  At 6:55:56-  Betty accused Michael Whalen of raping children.  Again, promised supporting evidence as of 8.29.18.

  •  At approx. 7:02:00 – After having just spent hours talking to an IT guy named “Michael” about dangers of Keybase, she refers to him as a ‘guy’ whose name she can’t remember!  The forgetfulness is bizarre, though possibly explained by her oft referred to “brain injury”, the origins of which I know nothing of at the time of this writing.

  •  7:11:47 – Betty talks about getting high.  This in and of itself is not necessarily related to any of her other claims, though it should be obvious to most that marijuana, while perhaps an aid for certain medical ailments, does not do much for clear, logical, functional and sharp thinking or action.  How often she is under the influence, and how this might affect the accuracy of the information she is presenting and the manner in which it is presented, is something one cannot help but wonder.



My takeaway at this point is a combination of incredulity, caution and openness.  Of course, continued observation and analysis is key.  I personally believe, after having listened to and watched hours and hours of Betty’s livestream videos, that her passion for the cause (of saving abused children) is genuine.  Her weaknesses lie in:

  1. Her strong tendency to force bits and pieces of information into the framework of her own pre-conceived narrative, in such a manner as to gloss over important context – context which often changes the picture entirely
  2. Being overly concerned with breaking a story “first” (which is indicative of a ‘me-first’ mentality and distasteful considering the subject serious nature of the subject matter being covered), and
  3. Putting forth statements as fact without providing verification which can be vetted by her listeners.  She is also not always easy to follow, and one must necessarily spend hours and hours of one’s daily time watching her live streams, in order to keep current on her claims.  Not efficient at all.

Kappy, for his part, also seems to be quite genuine in his passion for the very same cause.  His weakness lies in what could be perceived by some as an inappropriately light-hearted demeanor in the face of his claims, especially on his daily periscope chats with followers, aka “famburguesas”.  It is a tight camraderie, with many fam members expressing appreciation for Kappy’s upbeat attitude and optimism in the face of unspeakable crimes against children.  Relevant, daily news headlines (such as the recent arrest of former CDC head in connection with a sexually related crime) are discussed and celebrated by the group.  “We are breaking the matrix!” “It’s all coming out!” are cheers often heard amongst the group.  One might argue that it’s a more productive and effective approach as compared to sitting around in helpless misery.  Detractors would say that Kappy has become a bit of a celebrity himself, which intended or not, overshadows the real issue, namely the sexual abuse of children.  Kappy has gone frequently out of his way to remind his listeners that it’s “not about me”.

What it may come down to for many at the end of the day when deciding who and what to believe in this whole sordid affair, may very simply be a matter of personality.  Betty appeals to a certain type of audience while Kappy appeals to another.  It is tragically unfortunate because the truth and verifiable information DO matter, and so-called cults of personality can serve to cloud an accurate sense of both of these on the part of the viewer/follower/listener.  Would-be leaders of any cause, and those covering their stories, would do well to remember this and be honest enough with themselves to adjust accordingly.

Alberto Villoldo – New Age Fraud? Misinformer? Something else? (aka, an exercise in critical thinking – PART 3)

The few who may be reading this three part series may by now be asking themselves, “What’s the point?”  If that is the case, rest assured of a couple of things: 1) This final installment is, as far as I’m concerned, the most compelling of the three in terms of understanding how a seemingly benign (or, to some, ridiculous) narrative leads up to subtle, yet potentially quite effective mind manipulation.  2) The post following this one is to be a denouement, which will attempt not only to convey the personal back story related to Parts 1-3 but also how Alberto Villoldo, an anonymous acupuncturist and an author by the name of Johanna Michaelsen figure into the equation, amongst other things.

So, picking up where I left off in Part 2:

42) Statement: “In the Chamber of Wounds, we simply want to observe. The Chamber of Wounds, for the shaman, is the least important of all chambers….whereas in the West, we are addicted to exploring, excavating…” Observations/Questions: To phrase this in such a way as Villoldo does, implants a subtly negative implication to the listener – namely, that the acts of ‘exploration’ and discovery are overrated….problematic, even.  He does not state this outright, however choice words such as ‘least important’ and ‘addicted’ carry negative connotations.  The listener – if not consciously aware of how the connotation of these particular words serves to support his overarching message – is being led, albeit in a gently subconscious manner, to begin to consider discarding his or her tendency or capacity to explore, or put another way -to analyze.  Definitions of the words ‘explore’ and ‘analyze’ may prove useful here (paying particular attention to the last bullet points for each):

  1. travel in or through (an unfamiliar country or area) in order to learn about or familiarize oneself with it.
    “the best way to explore Iceland’s northwest”
    synonyms: travel over/in/through, tour, range over; More

    • search for resources such as mineral deposits.
      “the company explored for oil”
    • inquire into or discuss (a subject or issue) in detail.
      “he sets out to explore fundamental questions”
  1. examine methodically and in detail the constitution or structure of (something, especially information), typically for purposes of explanation and interpretation.
    “we need to analyze our results more clearly”
    synonyms: examineinspectsurveystudyscrutinize, look over; More

    • discover or reveal (something) through detailed examination.
      “I intend to analyze the sexism in such texts”
    1. travel in or through (an unfamiliar country or area) in order to learn about or familiarize oneself with it.
      “the best way to explore Iceland’s northwest”
      synonyms: travel over/in/through, tour, range over; More

      • search for resources such as mineral deposits.
        “the company explored for oil”
      • inquire into or discuss (a subject or issue) in detail.
        “he sets out to explore fundamental questions”


    Inquiry and detailed analysis (aka: exploration) are the means by which one stands to arrive at the most logical and truthful conclusion possible in any given scenario.  Does it deserve to be paired with such a negative words as ‘least important’ and ‘addicted’?  I venture to guess that most would say ‘no’.  So, why is it?  If the implication is that ‘exploring’/’excavating’ is not so important, would Villoldo also suggest the wholesale elimination of history departments at universities, for example?  Ironically, Villoldo himself embarked on the ultimate exploration when he traveled extensively to South America to look for answers in the hopes of furthering his academic research.  Villoldo can explore; but conversely you, the listener, should consider that ‘we, in the West’, are addicted to exploration?

    43) Statement: “In the Chamber of Contracts, you’re able to witness the soul contract that your client entered into and has been the prime operating agreement.”  Observations: Foregoing the previous and standard, “Where is this information coming from? How can it be verified” line of questioning, I’ll go straight to Volloldo’s own anecdote. In this particular instance, a mother is estranged from her daughter.  The daughter calls to tell her mother she is going for a biopsy and the mother becomes so distraught that all she can do is cry.  She then goes to Villoldo for help and guidance.  Villoldo tells her that several lifetimes ago, she made a “contract” with “God” during a crisis in which she and her children were about to die (via a collapsing house).  She prayed to God, “God, please take my children before you take me, so that they know their mother is with them.”  Villoldo goes on to clarify that “what she really meant to say was, ‘God, please let my babies know that their mother is always here for them.”  Questions: Why did the house collapse in the first place?   Was that the result of some other bad contract made?  Why doesn’t Villoldo explore this line of questioning?  It seems key.  If the contract is the key operating component here, why not simply make a contract with God such that we are able to live in the same body forever, and never die or suffer pain or injury?  Why does God deal in “contracts” to begin with?  Or does God? Maybe someone or something else deals in contracts/bargains, and is being mistaken for God.  This is yet another unexplained assumption put forth which offers no means of verification for oneself.  Interestingly, “contracts”/”deals” and the “law” have oft been (even if somewhat humorously) referred to as the Devil’s domain, never God’s domain.  Also, wouldn’t an all-knowing God be able to “read” between the lines of a potentially “toxic” contract?  Clearly, it was not the mother’s intent that she continue to live out multiple lives in which her daughter dying before she does is a recurring theme.  Knowing this, it then casts God in a cruel light to allow such suffering to continue, based merely on a poorly constructed contract, the intent of which should be fully understood by God. This portrayal of God is reminiscent of the “genie in a bottle”, who grants wishes in an absurdly literal fashion, when the wisher’s “intent” is clearly different from the actual words being used.  So Villoldo’s implication then, by way of this anecdote, is that we are dealing with a God who gives no consideration to intent. Fascinating.  Even our flawed legal system considers intent when administering judgement/punishment.  Are we to believe that humans are more advanced than God in this respect?  A concerning implication indeed.  Further, Villoldo states: “As soon as we rewrote that contract, the woman stopped crying and was able to talk to her daughter again.”  Well, that may be.  But did the daughter get well?  And why was the contract not rewritten to specify that her daughter would be restored to health – eternal health for that matter?  Is it because there are limitations to what contracts can actually achieve?  What are these limitations?  Who gets to establish them?  Why does Villoldo not explore this key issue in the slightest?

    44) Anecdote #2: Villoldo talks about a client of his who was sexually assaulted at the age of 7 by her father.  Her “contract” at that age, according to Villoldo, was “If I’m a nice girl, then daddy won’t hurt me.”  Villoldo then goes on to say, “The first thing that has to go is the ‘nice girl’ part”.  He then goes on to say, “She rewrote her contract to say, ‘When I trust and respect myself, I am respected by others.”  Questions/Observations: Villoldo first posits that it is the contract itself that creates the resulting reality.  If that is the case, why didn’t the original contract she established at age 7 work?  It is a perfectly reasonable contract, by Villoldo’s own admission.  He does add the rather disparaging qualifier, “for a 7-year old”.  Did it not work because the girl failed to be “nice”?  Or some other reason? Why should her age have anything to do with it? If some other reason, what was it?  Why does the “nice girl” part have to go? Why are the two (being treated well and being nice) being presented as mutually exclusive?  Where is the logic for this?  What is the argument?  Villoldo puts forth none.  Incidentally, Villoldo himself sounded and looked rather breathless at the exact moment of this particular argument (the “nice girl has to go” argument).  Of note, and in one of my last posts, I wrote about how changes in breathing patterns can often indicate either deception or lack of full disclosure by the teller, when attempting to discern truth from lies.  Another question: What if the girl, as her 7 year old self made Villoldo’s current suggested bargain – “When I trust and respect myself, I am respected by others”.  What would have happened then?  Would she still have been sexually assaulted?  Why or why not?  Further, consider the horrors of Nazi Germany, or the heinous crimes committed at the behest of Mao Tse Tung, or Pol Pot and other deplorable individuals.  Are we to believe that millions upon millions of victims had zero trust or respect for themselves, and are therefore responsible for their own tortures?  And what of the perpetrators? Does this imply exoneration for them?  After all, if we are all responsible for ourselves, and contract making is the operative tool, then it follows that criminals and evil-doers should not be punished.  After all, it’s the fault of the victim for not constructing the proper contract.  The lack of any decency or morality implied in this inescapable conclusion is thoroughly disturbing and ought to be rigorously questioned.

    45) Statement: “These soul agreements <aka contracts> have to be renegotiated in the depths of our psyche.  They cannot be renegotiated here in our world – in the middle world – through the act of the will.  They have to be installed very deeply in our unconscious”.  Observations/Questions: Really?  But once again, why? And now we come to the very crux of it.  The message here is, one cannot truly change one’s life circumstances (aka contracts) at the very core of the matter.  Rather, we need to accept the idea that an implant needs to be “installed“.  It all sounds rather disturbingly like being programmed.  Is that what this is truly all about?  Allowing someone or something else act as a medium for the installation of contracts on behalf of our (will)powerless selves?  And why exactly would that be?  How do we know if what is being installed is truly good, morally sound and trustworthy?  Who is making and/or guiding this decision?  Can such decisions by overriden?  And by whom?  Does one need to rely on the shaman to provide the override, if it is later discovered that the implant was faulty?  Why are none of these salient points addressed by Villoldo?

    46) Statement: The Chamber of Grace houses the soul part that remains whole, untouched by trauma.”  Questions: Can a soul part be stolen from the Chamber of Grace and destroyed?”  If not, why?  If yes, what recourse does one have?  Who or what established the overarching structure of these chambers?  Can they be changed?  Why can’t trauma be done away with altogether by the architect of the belief system Villoldo wants us to buy?

    47) Statement: “The shaman is interested in shifting the soul contract so that the part that always remained in grace is able to return.  Once you reaffirm a new set of beliefs that say you will honor, respect and express the beauty and grace and creativity in you, then that soul part is more than willing to return.” Questions: How does the shaman shift the soul contract, precisely?  Does the client have a say in the mechanics of it?  Why or why not? If this cannot be done through “middle earth willpower” (see #45), then how much say can the client really have?  According to Villoldo, acts of will are insufficient for this purpose.  But isn’t the reaffirming of a new set of beliefs also a demonstration of will?  Here lies an inconsistency.


    This concludes the final installation of my three-part analysis. 

    In my next post, I will reveal the circumstances and events leading up to and responsible for the analysis.



Alberto Villoldo – New Age Fraud? Misinformer? Something else? (aka, an exercise in critical thinking – PART 2)

continued from Part 1….

23) Statement: The shaman works, during soul retrieval, at the level of spirit.  Spirit informs the soul.”  Questions: Again, what is spirit?  How is this being defined? And how exactly does spirit inform the soul?  What is the mechanism of transference? What is the detailed explanation for how this mechanism operates?

24) Statement: “Soul retrieval is not to be taken lightly, because it will touch you at the very core of your being.  When you bring back the soul part, you have to allow for certain parts of your life to die, for the new self to be born.  Otherwise, the soul part will leave again and when it leaves again, it could be very difficult to find the soul part and convince ‘her’ to come back.” Question/Observation: Assuming this is truthful, it also serves as a built-in “out” for the “healer”, to exonerate themselves from any responsibility should something go wrong or become difficult in the client’s life.  In essence, it may be a sort of “get out of jail free” card… a luxury the oft-maligned ‘Western Medicine Doctor’ does not have.  How much of the healing process does the healer take responsibility for and  how much responsibility is the client’s?  This should be made clear in a very upfront manner.  Also, in this instance, soul retrieval is portrayed as an action with drastic effects (old self dying, new self rising), akin to perhaps being dumped into a vat of ice water.  So how does the shaman mitigate such potential side effects?  And does the shaman advise the client in advance of what those possible side effects may be?  Is there full disclosure?  This is not addressed.

25) Statement: “I ask my clients if they are sure about soul retrieval.” Questions: How can anyone be sure about such a procedure, when one is virtually clueless about such phenomenon, its precise mechanics, whether or not it was subject to the scrutiny of scientific research and the results of such research, as well as the integrity of the person performing such a procedure?  When one goes to a heart surgeon, for example, one has the opportunity to do extensive research about the procedure being done, how it works, what the success rate is, what the risks are, recovery time, appropriate after care, and the credentials of the doctor. There is also legal recourse, should the doctor be found negligent in any way.  Such is not the case with soul retrievals.

26) Statement: “Soul loss does not always occur because of something that happens to you.  Soul loss sometimes runs in families.” Questions: How?  How does this work?  Is there such a thing as “soul DNA”? Evidence?  Isn’t the soul an individual unit?  To submit that it runs in families implies collective, as opposed to individual, ownership of the soul.  If it runs in families, can it run in communities? States? Countries? Worlds? Also, why would children be made to suffer for the traumas or “stories” of their parents?  Is this not terribly unjust?  It sounds similar to the idea of the “sins of the father” being visited on the sons/daughters.  Shouldn’t people (according to Villoldo anyway) be discarding this “story”?  (i.e. – the “original sin/getting kicked out of the garden due to Adam’s/Eve’s sin” story?)  For more about Villoldo’s view on this, see this article link to his organization “The Four Winds Society”:

note: An excerpt from that article states:

Those of us born into a Judeo-Christian society grow up internalizing our culture’s “original story” of being cast out of paradise and separated from our divine Creator. This bankrupt story tends to permeate our lives whether we are raised in a religious home or not, causing us a great deal of suffering. When we buy into the story, we do not recognize our own divinity, and depend on an outside force to deliver us from the curse cast upon us as punishment for the sins of our ancestors.”

The underlined portion is indeed ironic, per his following statement (#27 below), as curse removal via soul retrieval is precisely one of the services Villoldo sells. His implication that a simple change in belief system (i.e. – rejecting the “getting kicked out of the garden” story) would negate the need to depend on any outside deliverance force is a curious one.  If this is true, then he is essentially providing a recipe for reducing his own client base/income.

27) Statement: “Doing soul retrieval helps us to not pass on generational ‘curses’, so our children do not have to continue to live our lives and our grandparents’ lives. Question:  What are generational curses?  How do they work?  How are they passed on?  How do these generational curses come to be in the first place? Is soul retrieval via a shaman the only way to remove such a curse?  Why is Villoldo charging large sums of money, in some cases, to do it?  Many in the US have been enraged about the high costs of healthcare, with the majority of those believing it should be ‘free’ or affordable.  Should the services Villoldo provides, which are arguably healthcare related – at the very least falling under the mental/psychological healthcare category – be any exception?  Christians have posited that forgiveness releases believers from their sins/curses.  Forgiveness, financially speaking, is free.  Therefore, what is the financial incentive for exchanging one belief system (Judeo-Christian based) for another (Villoldo’s)?

28) Statement: “The soul parts go into the domain of the shadow, as described by Carl Jung.”  Questions: How might one verify this for him or herself? If there is no means of convincing verification, how is this belief any different from that of say, transubstantiation and why should stock be taken in it?

29) Statement: It’s impossible to go on a soul retrieval by ourselves.  We have to be assisted by another.”  Question: Why?  According to whom? Is this an indisputably proven law? Here is an article written by someone who states otherwise:  Logically speaking, and assuming it could be done – someone would have had to learn to do it first without the assistance of another, else how could the information have arisen/been discovered to begin with?

30) Statement: “The shaman has to go through their own healing journey before they practice on another.”  Question: Does the shaman’s healing journey need to be 100% complete for that shaman to be effective? Would Villoldo say that his own healing journey is 100% complete and there is nothing more to be healed?  It would seem that if this is the case, then living forever is the logical outcome.  After all, if the body is informed by the soul (according to Villoldo), and (again according to Villoldo) the soul is eternal, then would it not follow that a completely whole/retrieved soul = an eternal body?  Villoldo himself has clearly aged.  Does this imply that he is not fully healed?

31) Statement: “Soul retrieval is not a series of techniques that someone does on you.” Question: Then what is it?  Certainly there is a method or methods to accomplish retrieval?

32) Statement: “During journeying we send our luminous body into the lower world/collective unconscious.” Questions: How does one know that this is actually where one is sending his or her luminous body? What is the source of information/point of reference for this?  What is the nature of the lower world?  Collective unconscious is a term but it does not describe the nature of the thing, nor how it came to be, nor why it exists, nor if it can be trusted as a reliable source.  Perhaps there are several versions of the collective unconscious, just as there are several versions of history.  If so, which one to trust? And who or what is the keeper, editor and disseminator of the collective unconscious?  Is this thing or person a reliable and accurate source?  How does one go about determining and verifying this?

33) Statement: The luminous body organizes the physical body in the same way that a magnet organizes iron filings on a piece of glass.” Questions: Are there documented studies/experiments to support this theory?  Where can they be found? Have they been published and subject to peer review? If not, where precisely is this information coming from?  What is the source?

34) Statement: The luminous body is the soul.  This luminous body creates physical bodies, lifetime after lifetime.” Questions: Where is the evidence to support this?  Is this a belief system or a peer reviewed scientific theory?  If a belief system, why is it better than any other available belief system?  If the luminous body creates the physical body, who creates the luminous body?

35) Statement: “During the journey process we send our luminous body into the collective unconscious – into the earth, into the belly of the mother.  During journeying we send our luminous body into the unconscious, which according to indigenous traditions, is deep in the belly of the earth.”  Questions: According to which indigenous traditions?  One of them? Some of them?  All of them?  Does one quite literally travel into the core of the earth to recover soul pieces?  If this is a figurative term, what is “the belly of the earth” meant to represent in actuality? How does one verify that the unconscious is located in the belly of the earth, as opposed to anywhere else?  Is this the only place it is stored?  How is this verified?

36) Statement: “During journeying we have to be sure that we go into the ‘collective unconscious’ and not the ‘personal unconscious’.” Questions: Why?  And how does one access the personal as opposed to the collective?  Is the personal located somewhere else?  Where?  According to whom?  How is this verifiable? How can one be sure that there is not even more information/memories, stored somewhere outside of the collective unconscious? The collective unconscious seems to be limited.  For example, the implication is that it stores information about humanity only.  What about the architect/s of humanity? Where is this information stored? What about alien races? Assuming their existence, do these also have a collective unconscious?

37) Statement: “When we journey through the collective unconscious, we have to be given permission to enter.  We have to go through the gatekeeper.”Questions: Why?  Are there other ways to gain access, much like a computer code can be hacked? This question does not imply one should try to hack in, but who is to say one cannot?  Do gatekeepers ever change guard?  Who puts the gatekeeper in charge to begin with?  Why is one needed at all?

38) Statement: The gatekeeper is a luminous being, according to law, which allows you to enter in order to retrieve what you seek on your client’s behalf.”  Questions: According to whose law?  What is this law exactly? How can the law be verified?  Where can references to it be found in scholarly literature or records, other than Villoldo’s?

39) Statement: There is a saying, among indigenous people, that ‘the white man always comes empty-handed, comes to take, without permission’.” Questions/observations: Is this not simply a ‘story’ they are telling themselves, according to Villoldo’s own belief system?  Perhaps they need to change their ‘story’. After all, the cost of a typical retreat (to the homeland of  ‘indigenous peoples’) is thousands of dollars, according to Villoldo’s own website.  Very few can afford such a luxury to begin with.  One might very well be ’empty-handed’ following this type of expenditure.  Or are the words  ’empty-handed’ meant to denote something else, other than money?  Physical objects, perhaps?  Of what use could an ‘object’ be to a luminous being, who presumably does not exist in physical form?  If not an object, then what else does the luminous being require for price of entry? What does the luminous being intend to do with the ‘payment’?  How is this “currency” used? Is the price worth the entry? Even if the indigenous people think of the white man as coming empty-handed, of what use is it for Villoldo to further propagate a negative sentiment such as this one on the internet, where potentially millions of people may be negatively influenced or manipulated by such a statement?  If the ‘indigenous people’ experience a reality such that the ‘white man’ always comes to take, then by Villoldo’s own logic/belief system, aren’t the indigenous people at least in part responsible for attracting/creating this type of ‘story’ for themselves, much in the same manner that his psychiatrist friend attracted clients who were going through terrible divorces? (Villoldo makes reference to this anecdote in one of the videos.)  Why aren’t the indigenous peoples taking their share of the responsibility for such a scenario, or are they?  If these indigenous healers attracted this sort of negative circumstance/story/contract to themselves, does this in some way imply that they themselves are not fully healed?  Further, if these indigenous healers attracted no negativity to themselves, then who would be left to heal all of the negative people in our negative world?  Would people be expected to heal themselves?  But Villoldo by his own admission states that it is impossible to heal oneself without the help of an expert healer.  By that logic, healers would necessarily need to attract ‘negative, empty-handed takers’, amongst other imperfect persons, so why not have the wisdom and restraint to accept this as fact, as opposed to commenting unfavorably about it?

40) Statement: “Sometimes it might not be healthy for you to journey on someone else’s behalf.  You might be too vulnerable.”  Past Statements: – “The shaman has to go through his/her own healing journey before they practice on another.” – “The only way to heal (soul loss) is through soul recovery/retrieval”. – “After soul retrieval, the world again becomes a safe place.” Questions: If the shaman must go through a self journey before healing others, and once healed, the world is again a ‘safe place’, then why would the shaman be vulnerable/not safe in this, or any other undertaking?  If there are fears or vulnerabilities with respect to the healer journeying on someone else’s behalf, does this imply that the healer has not in fact been fully healed him or herself?  After all, healed = safe, unhealed = unsafe, according to Villoldo’s doctrine.

41) Statement: We have a four-chambered soul, as we have a four-chambered heart – a non-physical map”.  (Chamber of wounds, Chamber of contracts, Chamber of Grace,  Chamber of gifts) Question:”Where does all of this information come from? How is it verified?

Originally this was to be a two part series.  However, it will need to be extended to three due to the sheer volume of written material.  Part 3 to follow soon……





Alberto Villoldo – New Age Fraud? Misinformer? Something else? (aka, an exercise in critical thinking – PART 1)

There is a personal story behind this post but that will be revealed at a later time.   Also, I frankly am much more concerned about the developments which have occurred over the past couple of days with respect to Isaac Kappy’s revelations (the banning of a certain A. Jones, for one, from YouTube, Facebook and Apple).  The information being dispensed all over the web, and the survivors coming out with stories of their own, is nothing less than staggering.  However, it is also horrifically soul crushing and nightmarish, and the average person with an ounce of a good soul can only take so much of this evil onslaught without having to stop, regroup and try to maintain a modicum of sanity.

Speaking of soul, I invite you to watch these two videos.  Then watch them again (or in conjunction) with the list of questions, posted below, and re-examine your original reception of Villoldo’s message.   This post, at least on the surface, represents a switching of topic gears.  However to my mind it is highly relevant, being an exercise in critical analysis – or more accurately – critical questioning.  Life can be rife with many forms of pain and suffering, so it is only reasonable for many to look for relief and a sense of control.  Villoldo offers this in spades, so it behooves one to challenge these claims by asking as many questions as possible. The ones posed below are really just scratching the surface and meant to prove a point.  Many more could be asked. (Note: The first video is in fact 1of 2, but is incorrectly labelled 2 of 2). 



1. Statement: “In sacred space one comes into alignment with the organizing principles of the universe”. Question: How exactly does this happen and why?  There is no supporting evidence given to back up this rather confidently submitted statement.

2. Statement: “When you call on the 4 Directions, you are calling on archetypes/luminous beings…protectors of the planet Earth”.  Questions: How can this be verified?  How does one actually know what one is calling on and whether or not they are archetypes and/or luminous beings/protectors, or something else?  (If the answer is simply a “feeling”, or “intuition”, how to verify that either of these are in fact accurate?)

3. Statement: “The archetypes are four organizing principles of the universe: Serpent, jaguar, hummingbird and eagle”. Questions: Where is this information coming from? How can it be verified? How does one know it is absolutely true?  Why not have the four archetypes be the bull, the bear, the spider and the deer, for instance?  How exactly is the “universe” defined in terms of what it encompasses?  What are the “organizing principles of the universe”?  How is this term defined and what exactly does it mean? Also, there are potentially countless other creatures in the universe (to assume the generally understood definition of the word), unknown to us.  Why aren’t any of these animals mentioned?

4. Statement: “Sacred space provides us with a vessel, within which healing and transformation can happen”.  Questions: How and why? How does the vessel work, scientifically/practically speaking? What are the precise dynamics at work and how can this be verified?  Who or what actually provides the sacred space?  How does one verify this provider?

5. Statement: “We are not working alone.  We have to enlist the power of nature, the power of the mother that wants us to be well.”  Questions: Who is the mother?  How do we know that either or both (mother and nature) wish for us to be well?   In nature, creatures kill other creatures in order to survive.  Is this wellness?  How is wellness defined in this instance?  Is the mother ever cruel or punishing?

  • Statement: “When one is disconnected from heaven and earth, we are simply feeding our ego.”  Question: What does this mean?  How precisely is ego defined?  Merriam -Webster defines “ego” as follows:
 the self especially as contrasted with another self or the world
2a egotism 2
b self-esteem 1
3the one of the three divisions of the psyche in psychoanalytic theory that serves as the organized conscious mediator between the person and reality especially by functioning both in the perception of and adaptation to reality

Implication is that ego is negative.  However, per the definitions above, without a “self” to contrast with others or the world, we would have no sense of self-awareness at all.  How is one to function in a material world with no self awareness?  How is one to function without a “conscious mediator” between oneself and reality?  Are we meant to be relying on some “other” consciousness instead of the self’s consciousness?  If so, what or whose? And why would that alternative be preferable to operating from a level of self consciousness?  Is the implication that we are either better off functioning in a zombie-like state, or with some other “consciousness” behind the wheel, so to speak, instead?  So many statements.  So many questions.  So few answers.

6. Statement: “There are two types of sacred space that we work with.  The first one calls on the organizing principles of the physical world.  The second one calls on the ‘luminous beings’, here to help and guide us in our healing process.” Questions: Who are the ‘luminous beings’?  Do they have names or identities?  How is the knowledge of who they are and their true aim ultimately verified? How do we know they are really here to help us, as opposed to pretending to help us, and hoodwinking us into believing that they are helping us for some unknown reasons of their own.  Or maybe they are indeed helping us, but at the cost of something we would not wish to sacrifice if we had all of the information at hand and could view a greater picture.

7. Statement: “These spaces connect us to: ecosphere nature and the second space connects us to an ancient lineage of masters – both born before we were – and are of the time to come”. Questions: Where precisely, is this information coming from?  What is the source?  Who are the ancient masters?  How do we know they are really masters and not something else?  Or perhaps they are masters, but not of the sort one would want to follow.  How does one verify their history/lineage? What does “the time to come mean?”  What time period(s) specifically?  How is this information verified?

8. Statement: “Soul retrieval is an energetic and mystic practice that helps us recover parts of our essential self that has been lost as a result of pain or trauma.”  Questions: How does soul retrieval work, from a molecular point of view?  How, specifically does this happen from an “energetic” point of view?  What does “energetic” mean? How is this term defined.

9. Statement: “The soul is that part of ourselves that is infinite and eternal that contains a ‘quanta’ of energy of essential life force.  When soul loss occurs we lose part of our essence or essential self.”  Question: How does one know/verify this?  How does one know that the soul is infinite and eternal?  Are there conditions under which this might not be the case?  If one loses a soul part, where does it go?  How is its location verifiable?  Who, if anyone, is the steward of these soul parts and how is that verifiable?

10. Statement: “When we lose a soul part, our destiny is no longer available to us.  We fall into the grip of fate.  And fate is fatal”. Questions: Why is destiny no longer available to us when a soul part is lost? How is destiny being defined here? How is fate being defined here? Why is fate ‘fatal’? If fate is fatal, and one’s destiny becomes available, and one follows that destiny, it would follow by the logic of the case being made, that one can avoid death – i.e. – that one can live forever.  True?  Is this the claim Villoldo is making?  (Note: Villoldo in his earlier years, did in fact allude to this.  See attached interview from the 6:12-6:30 mark .  I also find it noteworthy that Villoldo marginalizes the “world of facts and information”, to quote him directly.   True, spirit is may be important – but why can’t the two concepts go hand in hand?  One need not be unduly elevated above the other.  Nor do they need to be mutually exclusive.

11. Statement: “During soul retrieval, this ‘quanta’ of energy that was lost is recoverable.” Questions: How? How can one verify for him or herself that it has indeed been recovered?  What does it take to recover this lost energy?  What are the precise mechanics of it? Are other souls or soul pieces or entities potentially harmed in the process?  If so, how is that corrected, assuming it is correctable?  Is one somehow beholden to the person performing the soul retrieval (assuming it is not oneself) in a manner unbeknownst or undisclosed to that person?  What are the pitfalls and/or implications of that, if any?

12.  Statement: “Trauma is not what happened to you, but rather the way you recall what happened to you.  The story…”  Question: This sounds akin to Werner Erhard’s teachings (founder of EST, back in the late 60’s, 70’s, as well as one of its later offshoots, “Landmark Forum”, marketed as a self-help program).  Why make this distinction at all though?  I doubt that a mass torturer would proclaim to any sane judge (and hope to get away with it), “But judge, I wasn’t the one who did anything wrong, these other people just recall it that way.  It’s just their story.”   If trauma is only what we recall, and we bought into this argument as a society, then it would follow that logically speaking, it would be legal to torture a child, for instance, as long as the memory of that torture could be removed from the child’s psyche.  This does not change the fact that a traumatic event took place for the child, regardless of the fact that it cannot be remembered.  This, to me, is one of the most alarming of all statements put forth by Villoldo.

13. Statement: At 5:05, Villoldo gives an example illustrating how trauma is not what happened, but rather the story we tell ourselves about what happened.  The example, in my opinion, is not a good one.  Questions: Isn’t there ever a time when the trauma in question, and one’s own recollection of it can actually be one and the same, in terms of accuracy?  In other words, the facts match the “story”.  Villoldo is silent in terms of addressing this possibility.  Why?

14. Statement: “During soul retrieval, we go back to the original source of trauma.  We are not interested in the way that it happened last.  We are interested in the way that it happened first.” Questions: Fair enough but why?  What difference does it make, if each instance of trauma is ultimately all a manifestation of the same issue? And the only way to know how it happened first (aka to go back to the original “source”), truly, is to have direct knowledge of how we were created, if we are speaking in terms of the belief in reincarnation (which Villoldo is).  Does he have this knowledge?

15. Statement: When soul loss occurs, we fall from grace.  We are no longer in the flow of life.”  Question: “How is the “flow of life” defined here? How can one verify that should one fall from grace that this is due to soul loss, versus something else – or in addition to something else? How can one truly verify such a thing?  And what is the source and trustworthiness of that verification?

16. Statement: The only way to heal soul loss is through soul recovery”.  Questions: Assuming soul recovery is a real phenomenon, and possible to do, what is the method(s) Villoldo uses? Is soul recovery the only way to heal soul loss?  Why can’t new soul parts be created to replace those lost?  Can this be done?  If not, then why?Who/what creates the soul itself?

17.  Statement: Whenever soul loss occurs, the world ceases to be a safe place.” Questions: For whom?`The person who experienced the soul loss?  Others in the world with whom that person interacts?  Both? Does this apply to animals as well?  For instance,  if everyone in the world had an intact soul, would animals be safe from being eaten by other animals, or people for that matter?  Would the “law of the jungle” no longer apply?  Do animals have souls? Do they experience soul loss? Are people somehow to blame for the soul loss of animals, assuming that they are in fact capable of soul loss? If all beings had intact souls, would it follow that all beings would be safe from harm at the hands of any other beings?  Does “soul loss” have something to do with the concept of “Original Sin”? (Note: Villoldo references in some of his work that being “kicked” out of the garden of Eden” is a ‘storyline’ that needs to be changed.  How does this tie into his concept of soul loss?)

18. Statement: After soul retrieval, the world again becomes a safe place.” Question: For whom? If a person in Scotland has a soul retrieval done, but an entire neighboring country is full of say, warmongering individuals with lost soul parts, is that person still truly safe?  Are the individuals in the neighboring country safe?  Is the world itself safe?Is it still safe for the dead animal on one’s plate, assuming one is not a vegetarian?  Exactly who is “safe” and what is the definition of “safe”? If it is oneself who becomes safe, could it be possibly that this sense of safety is merely an illusory bubble, albeit a convincingly real one?  How does we know the safety is “real”?  Or is this simply determined by the “story” we tell ourselves – aka our “perception” or “recollection”, as opposed to reality?

19. Statement: ” In order to recover parts of the lost soul, the shaman needs to journey into the unconscious realm.”  Questions: How exactly are shamans trained to enter into the unconscious realm?  How is this realm defined?  What are its borders?  How is information stored there?  Who stores it?  What is the mechanism for storage? How does this mechanism work?  How can one retrieve the lost soul part, precisely?  Can soul parts be edited or re-engineered?  If so, how can the shaman be certain that he or she is indeed recovering the original lost soul part and not something compromised or corrupted?

20. Statement: Shamanic work happens at the level of ‘energy’ not ‘story’.” Questions: What does this mean?  How is ‘energy’ defined?  What is the difference between ‘energy’ and ‘story’? This is left unclear to the viewer.

21. Statement: “Reality manifests at 4 different levels of expression: physical, mental, soul, spirit”. Question: What is the source of this information? Why only 4 levels?  Why not 400? Or 4,000?  How precisely is the mind different from the soul?  How is the soul different from the spirit?  Couldn’t there be something informing the spirit as well?  (Following the “mental informs the physical, soul informs the mental, spirit informs the soul line of thinking.”) . What informs the spirit?  And what informs the thing that informs the spirit?  (And so on and so forth).  Again, how is ‘energy’ defined?  How are ‘images’ defined?  Images of what?

22. Statement: “You can only change the script/story from the level of the soul.”  Question: Why?  What is the source of this information? Is this really the only way to change one’s “script”?  How can this be verified?






Q-Anon (and the mad dash to explain it)

I’ve been tracking news headlines pretty closely ever since the recent allegations made by Issac Kappy, with an interest in seeing what (if anything) “pops up”.  Of note, is the fact that several major media news outlets have just released articles- most within the past few hours – endeavoring to break down the Q-Anon phenomenon and how its influence amongst right-wing conspiracy theorists has now emerged into the mainstream.  I, myself, only learned of Q-Anon over the past couple of days.  I’d never heard of it until Isaac Kappy made references on YouTube and Twitter.  Evidently it’s been around since March of 2018 (but another article I read gave a conflicting inception date of October 2017) and has gained quite a following.  I’ve linked 9 articles below, which I found amongst mainstream media outlets for anyone interested in reading them at length.

They all essentially posit that Q-Anon is fringe, yet dangerous, due to the fact that some followers may take violent action in response to the information put forth by “Q” (an anonymous user/s) on the forum.  The real life example provided was an incident near the Hoover Dam, during which an armed man blocked a highway, demanding the release of a government report pertaining to the Clinton email probe. (CNN covered it here: . What I find interesting about that particular CNN article is that there is no mention anywhere of the Q-Anon factor, and how it was an influence in the incident. This is a pretty glaring oversight of a rather important piece of information.  That incident took place well over a month ago and to my knowledge there have been no reported incidents since linked to Q-Anon… until the recent Kappy allegations.  But interestingly none of the 9 articles linked below mention Kappy by name.  Instead, they make general references to pedophilia hysteria and assert that certain claims have been put forth amongst Q-Anon followers along the lines of Pizzagate absurdity.  One might expect these major news outlets to mention Kappy by name, but they are curiously silent.  It’s odd that the Hoover dam incident, which took place over a month ago, generated no Q-Anon buzz in the media, but (from the looks of it and barring an incredible coincidence in timing) the Kappy allegations have – all while managing to leave any mention of Kappy himself out of the equation.  It seems the only media outlets mentioning Kappy by name are the likes of TMZ and Movieweb.

Either way, the outcome of the Isaac Kappy affair is downright grim.  If indeed he is telling the truth, horrific things of the reality-rending sort are happening daily – particularly at the highest echelons of power and society.  If he is not telling the truth, the implications are certainly just as terrible, as his claims are convincing enough that were they eventually proven to be false, it would only help to perpetuate a scenario in which the public’s trust and support of whistleblowing – on any level, towards any individual – would be absolutely decimated.


Is Isaac Kappy telling the truth?

I’ve had this domain for several months now and this is the first time I have actually taken the time to create a post.  The sheer volume of material across any number of categories to be found online could easily have served as inspiration to get started much sooner.  However as fate would have it, the impetus for this initial posting was my online discovery of the recent and very disturbing allegations made by one Issac Kappy.

His story is not one I could easily put out of mind, as with some seemingly sensationalist here-today-gone-tomorrow headlines.  In fact at the time of this writing, his story has – remarkably – not really made any headlines to speak of at all.  If one looks into it far enough, there does indeed seem to be a groundswell of information sharing and support for his claims and some coverage on perhaps lesser known sites (and there are a few videos posted by him on You Tube) but no major news outlets have as yet acknowledged them.  In brief, Kappy, who has worked as an actor and writer (see IMBd page for bio verification: is putting forth some very serious allegations regarding the prevalence of child abuse/pedophilia in Hollywood.  Specifically, he is naming the following individuals as offenders – two of whom were former and fairly close friends of his, no less – amongst others:

Seth Green (former friend)

Clare Grant (former friend)

Tom Hanks

Dan Harner

Steven Spielberg

Here is where I was first made aware of the story:

It was a lot to take in.  Fast forward to 41:25 and 47:30 for key pieces of information.

And here is a link to Kappy’s Twitter account, with plenty more to be found:

There are damning references there all over the place, from accusations of sexual child abuse by Sarah Ruth Ashcraft leveled against Tom Hanks to strong support from Robbin Young (former actor who worked on the Spielberg film “Night Shift” with Jaid Barrymore) for Kappy’s claim that Steven Spielberg is also a pedophile.  Young’s comment on Kappy’s Twitter feed reads:

“Your revelation, Isaac , about Steven Spielberg is accurate! I acted in the 1982 film ‘Night Shift’ along with Jaid Barrymore (Drew Barrymore’s mother). Spielberg brought (7 year old) Drew to the set, several times, and he was VERY friendly with her.”

Interestingly, I found this link, posted by Isaac himself, which online wanderings of my own unearthed several years ago: . Granted, the contents of that link are not directly related to his current claims but I do marvel at the synchronicity of even the smallest events, as for some reason the memory of my having read this article randomly surfaced a bit earlier today, and before I saw Kappy’s reference to it on his Twitter page.  There is even an old photo of a young Anderson Cooper with his mother, Gloria Vanderbilt, posted on the page, with the caption: “The CIA Trained Me”.  True enough, in a sense.  Cooper did spend two summers there, working as an intern, per his own Wiki page.  What caught my eye though, was the unsettling piece of artwork above the bed in that photo.  Indeed, the whole tone and content of Kappy’s Twitter page is unsettling at best, outright alarming, heartbreaking and earth-shattering at worst.  I would suppose that is to be expected given the nature of the horrific allegations being put forth.  A cursory google search of Seth Green’s and Clare Grant’s Twitter pages reveal that they are set on private at the time of this writing, and not open to public view or comment.  Not so with Hanks’ page, which is already awash with accusatory (and unanswered) public comments.  No public statements addressing any of these allegations have been made by any of the accused.

In the Age of Information, anyone with a computer and an inclination has a voice.  So how is one to go about discerning the truth?  This is what I ask myself every time I come across such disturbing material.  On the one hand, there is a certain amount of research that can be done to unearth convincing enough circumstantial evidence in the face of these types of claims.  But research of any kind can be a long and arduous process, and it makes sense to try to establish a sense of whether the material is even worth the time it takes to research to begin with.  Along these lines, I spent some time sifting through the results of the following Google search: “How to know if someone is telling the truth”?  A flurry of pages presented themselves.  The first one I chose was written from the point of view of a former CIA agent (the link is here in its entirety:

Here were some instructive pointers:

So make a point to ignore truthful behavior, instead focusing on deceptive ones. Meanwhile, recognize tactics of evasiveness, which are major clues that a person is not being candid, such as:

  • Failure to provide information asked for — does the person go on at length but not answer the question you asked?
  • Failure to deny. “The most important thing to the honest person is giving you that answer, denying if they didn’t do something. The truth is their biggest ally,” Carnicero says.
  • Use of exclusionary qualifiers, such as saying “for the most part,” “fundamentally” or “not really.” These beg for a follow-up question to reveal what the person is leaving out.

Aggression Is Often a Sign of Lying, as Are ‘Convincing’ Statements

When evaluating a person’s trustworthiness, “some behaviors weigh more than others,” according to Carnicero. “Aggression is one of those.” If you question your child whether he’s taking drugs and his immediate response is one of anger, it’s a major red flag. Likewise, if you’ve had a theft at your company, and the employee you’re questioning attacks you for asking about the theft.

“If you have somebody who jumps down your throat because you ask them a question — I don’t even care if it’s your kid … you got a problem,” she says. They may also attack a third party, such as the company itself for not providing enough security to prevent thefts in the first place. Along these lines, demonstrating an inappropriate level of concern is another telltale sign that someone is not telling the truth.

For example, if they brush off an important question as inconsequential, smile at an inappropriate time or get angry for seemingly no reason, they’re likely lying. Carnicero also stresses the importance of differentiating between convincing statements and those intended to convey information — the former being a sign of lying. Let’s say you ask someone if they stole something.

If the person launches into a long response about their good employment history and trustworthiness, those are convincing statements that, while they sound true, signal a lie. Simply saying “no” is conveying information that is likely a truthful response. Carnicero says, “A convincing statement is the strongest arrow that any person is going to have in their quiver. Saying ‘I’m a good person,’ ‘I’m a good worker’ … when somebody’s trying to convince you of something” rather than convey information, it’s a strong sign of a lie.

Paying attention to small details can also reveal a lie — like saying “I wouldn’t do that” versus “I didn’t do that.” The former — “wouldn’t” — is often a lie. “We have to listen for didn’t,” Carnicero says. Invoking religion is another tactic liars often use to draw you in and manage your perceptions of them, saying things like “I swear on a stack of bibles.”

Other subtle signs include “perception qualifiers” such as “honestly,” “to tell you the truth” and “quite frankly,” which are used to verbally “dress up a lie.” When combined with clusters of other deceptive behaviors, these can help you to spot a lie.

Nonverbal Signs of Deceit

A person’s nonverbal cues are also important to hone in on when evaluating whether or not they’re lying. Carnicero recommends paying attention to the following nonverbal cues:2

Behavioral pause: If you ask a person a vague question, such as what were you doing on this date years ago, it’s reasonable to expect a pause before they respond. But if you ask, did you rob a bank 10 years ago to this day, they should respond immediately. In the latter case, a delay is a sign of lying.

Verbal/nonverbal disconnect: If a person nods their head while saying no, or shakes their head “no” while saying yes, this disconnect is considered a deceptive behavior (except in certain cultures in which nodding doesn’t mean yes).

Anchor point movements: Another sign of a lie is movement in an “anchor point,” such as feet on the floor, arms on a desk or even a dangling foot if a person’s legs are crossed.

Grooming gestures: Straightening a tie or other piece of clothing, fixing hair, adjusting glasses or fiddling with shirt cuffs can be subconscious ways that people try to quell their anxiety and are often a sign of a lie. Clearing of the throat or swallowing prior to answering are also considered indicators of deceptiveness.

Hand-to-face movements: If a person put their hand to their mouth, licks their lips, pulls on their ear or otherwise touches their face or head, it’s another deceptive behavior. Parade noted:3

“The reason goes back to simple high school science. You’ve asked a question, and the question creates a spike in anxiety because a truthful response would be incriminating.

That, in turn, triggers the autonomic nervous system to go to work to dissipate the anxiety, draining blood from the surfaces of the face, the ears, and the extremities — which can create a sensation of cold or itchiness. Without the person even realizing it, his hands are drawn to those areas, or there’s a wringing or rubbing of the hands.”

Spotting a Liar Isn’t an Exact Science

While it isn’t always easy to determine when you’re being lied to, following Carnicero’s guidelines can certainly help. You can find more details, including many anecdotes that show the guidelines in action, in Carnicero’s book “Spy the Lie: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Detect Deception.” Being able to decipher the truth can be life changing when it comes to your professional and personal life, and you can even use it to save yourself money and avoid getting ripped off.

So, using the basic criteria provided above, via a reliable and experienced source, here is my assessment (taking into consideration that Isaac Kappy is the accuser and not the accused):

Failure to provide information asked for – Kappy is pretty forthcoming about providing information as it is directly asked by interviewer Nathan Stolpman, in the youtube link mentioned in the beginning of this post.  He does not seem to over or under-embellish his answers, from what I observed.  He does provide a few word-for-word examples, but is not at all hesitant to point out instances where he cannot remember exactly what was said due to the emotionally fraught nature of the situation in which he found himself.

Failure to deny – This criteria is not really a useful measure, as Kappy is not the accused.

Use of exclusionary qualifiers – I don’t hear him use these all too much.  Once or twice I heard the much overused term “basically”, but not during moments where key information was being questioned.

Behavioral pause – I was not able to discern any telling pauses suggestive of red flags when presented with direct questions by Stolpman.  He paused where it seemed to make sense to pause, but there was no overt “stopping and starting”, which is often observable when people are clearly gearing up to create some sort of fabrication.

Verbal/nonverbal disconnect – I did not notice any of this.  I will say that for the most part Kappy was fairly stone-faced during the interview, but this seems not out of the ordinary given the nature of the discussion.

Anchor point movements  – Was not able to clearly discern this, especially as feet were not visible in video footage.

Grooming gestures – There were several of these to be observed, but how much of it was due to anxiety/nervousness about the nature of the material he was presenting versus a direct by-product of any deliberate lying would be conjecture, objectively speaking.  Having said that, my conjecture is that he was indeed distressed, or at least appeared to be.

Hand-to-face movements – Yes, there were some of these as well, and I place them in the same category as the above.

As for how to discern if one is telling the truth (as opposed to whether or not they are lying), a cursory search on that revealed material offered by this site:

And here is a complete list of the criteria from that link along again with my associated assessments:

1. Their Story Is Longer & Detailed

Well, considering that Kappy spent over an hour delving into not only the specifics of the story (the hidden room behind the bookcase, the stuffed toys on one of the upper floors) as well as the backdrop leading up to it, one cannot claim that the story is lacking in  detail.

2. They’re Holding The Right Amount Of Eye Contact

This measure is not altogether too helpful in this case, as the interview was not conducted face to face.

3. Their Breathing Is Steady

I observed no visible change in breathing during the interview, other than the moment during which Kappy was describing exactly how and when he learned the worst from Seth Green firsthand – and this seemed to be more of a demonstration of how the air was sucked out of him, so to speak, at the time.

4. Their Voice Is Steady, Too

Voice was indeed steady, and generally only hesitant where it seemed understandable to hesitate (such as when Stolpman asks Kappy if he is comfortable naming other individuals in whom he has confided, by way of further evidence to support his claims).

5. They Neglect To Blame Negative Outside Forces

It seems there is a balanced approach to this.  Kappy ultimately takes responsibility for speaking about this disturbing subject matter while also admitting that there was a period of time during which he did not come forward, due to the nature of the surrounding environmental factors (fears of local police collusion/corruption, for instance).  Likewise, he fully recognizes the heinousness of the crime he is shedding light on, while acknowledging that many of the perpetrators were once also victims, imploring them to “tell the truth”.  He clearly shows signs of grappling with the fact that these were people he once considered to be friends.

UPDATE as of the evening of 8/1: TMZ posted this article about the Seth Green/Clare Grant allegations:

Of note, neither Seth Green, Clare Grant, nor Paris Jackson have openly commented for themselves in any public way about the matter, as of this writing.  The TMZ piece offers no direct statements from any of them.  Seth’s and Clare’s Twitter profiles are still private, while Paris’ Twitter is public and redirects followers to her Instagram page, also public.  No mention of the affair is made on either of these.  TMZ’s account of the “choking” accusation is threadbare, with no mention of who actually is bringing forth the accusation.

Here is their statement: “Additionally, we’re told he allegedly grabbed Paris by the throat about a month ago during a game night party.” 

Curiously, these handwritten letters (ostensibly by Isaac), were included in the article:

Perhaps inclusion of the letters (written in all caps and rather sloppy handwriting) was meant to support the story of Kappy’s seemingly unhinged obsession with Green and Grant, as reported by TMZ.  However upon actual reading, it has just the opposite effect, given it does more to support Kappy’s allegations than TMZ’s.

The Santa Monica Observer had this to say:

The closing comments:

“Spielberg is considered one of the founding pioneers of the New Hollywood era and one of the most popular directors and producers in film history. Allegations of sexual misconduct against him, if verifiable, would be explosive, and would make the Weinstein affair look small in comparison. Whether or not any of the many allegations contained in the 48 minute video are true or not, one thing can be said for certain: Isaac Kappy will never work in this town again.”

Notably, the SM Observer made no mention of the Jackson “choking incident”, nor did it mention anything about Kappy’s alleged obsession/harassment of Green or Grant.

As is the case with the TMZ article, no direct comments were provided by any of those named in the Observer.  Kappy, for his part, responded with this on Twitter:

“Hey , this article is loaded with factual errors. Please respond and we can address. Thank you.”

As well, he appeared in an interview here, where he specifically responds to the Paris Jackson accusation (at 2:55):