I wanted to try and document some of my thoughts in the aftermath of the incident Tuesday evening which I wrote about entry before last.

The next morning, which was yesterday morning, I sat down with a consent form that the so-called researchers had handed out. I guess that is so that the participants couldn't say they weren't warned. Well...the warning was pretty obtuse.

But, much to their credit, they did give the number of the "Office of Research Integrity" at Univ. of Kentucky, with instructions that "if you have any questions about your rights as a volunteer in this research, contact the staff in the Office of Research Integrity," and provided a phone number. Well, heck, I thought, that is central to what happened to me - I thought that my rights had been violated and I had questions about it. So I called the number.

I got a receptionist and when I told her my experience, she said to hold on while she delivered my phone call to an appropriate someone. In a moment, I was on the line with a lady named Helene Lake-Bullock. She was very nice, and I told her my story. I did not present it as a "complaint," I just reported the incident. She took it seriously and asked me to put it in writing, which I did in my ruralthoughts.net posting. She said they would consider it as a complaint.

But in retrospect to my conversation with Ms. Lake-Bullock is that, when she was asking me info about the research project, which I provided to her, she found it apparently on some kind of database that the university keeps of all of their research projects. I think she said there were 500 some, but I could be wrong about that. But she apparently read to me a summary from her database or list as to what the research was about. But her one or two sentence summary said something to the effect that it was about using these "visualizations" and how they worked in persuading people, at least that's how I remember it.

These visualizations have to be the computer generated graphics of the so-called "scenarios." But, in the researcher's literature, they say that the study is to "assist the local community to identify a vision for the future use of the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant site." When I told Ms. Lake-Bullock that the researchers were telling us that this was the purpose of the study, and not what she said, she made a comment to me something like, well, apparently "there is a higher purpose" to this study.

This has stuck with me now for the last 24 hours. So what really is going on here? I mean, Mr. Anyaegbunam, the "mugger" out and out lied to me, so the question of whether or not he might go along with something completely deceptive has already been answered for me. And DOE has a sordid history of experimentation on people without their knowledge or consent. Who knows what is really going on?

But, one thing is clear - this is an attempt to get a lot of momentum to build a nuclear power plant at the PGDP site - without making much of an effort to involve the community at large. And, Mitch McConnell's name is all over it. But it's all over now, because they have been "outed." So, the best thing these folks can do is come clean about what they are really up to in their so-called "study" in Paducah. I'm pretty sure that the whole project is based in serious deception, secrecy, and manipulation.