Thursday, May 5, 2022

We Solved for X!

Don't worry. We're not gonna bust you out to the world, Mr. X. 

You gave us stuff none of the gurus ever discovered in their "research." Your contribution is noted and appreciated. Same for you, Allegra

You probably said too much and they might find you like we did but your secret is safe with us. High five, dude. Keep that beat going

116 comments:

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Shoutout to the research crew known today as The Searchers. Not these Searchers but please enjoy a couple minutes of Ed Sullivan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugDXpdjmpgw

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Ramones Needles and Pins if you will

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQcRXx8SwTE

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Alt Ramones. Sonny Bono is given song writing credit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tTHAdyWLMc

cielodrivecom said...

Why is research in quotes?

G. Greene-Whyte said...

I don't consider anything without verifiable sources research.

cielodrivecom said...

Good approach. This guy is anonymous, correct?

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Check your Patreon messages.

David said...

Wanna fill me in? I admit to being confused.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Emailed.

Loegria15 said...

Ooh ooh ooh!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju-lptJweTc

(no, I don't got it...but I'll wait to find out, I guess.)

What about the name of the band he mentions being in?

G. Greene-Whyte said...

1000 Green Points if that's a Sweathogs' Vinnie Barbarino, "Ooh ooh ooh!"

shoegazer said...

OK, I'll admit it...

I'm completely baffled by the recent articles that seem to be about marginally believable (yep, that's the impression I get...) individuals who do mysterious things.

It might appear that we've run multiple articles devoted to people whose main goal in life is to get attention--and in this humble ambition we're helping them to succeed.

"Say it ain't so, Joe!"

Loegria15 said...

@Mr. G-W: It's Horshack, not Barbarino, who made that exclamatory noise.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Right!

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Shoegazer...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jJIVK-daGk

shoegazer said...

Clearly!

John Patrick said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
G. Greene-Whyte said...

I've always wondered if Billy beat it out the back door of the guesthouse and hopped on the trails. But then why return and fall asleep later?

prefeteria said...

This feels like a special club that I haven’t been invited to join.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Sorry. I probably made others feel that way too. Wasn't my intention. I really wanted to jump on X with both feet and call him a total fraud but he's just not. So now we're in this weird limbo. He's likely telling us there was an earlier Spahn raid we were unaware of, and I'd like to know more about it.

The club is finding the people from the mugshots no one found before and asking them what was going on during the raid(s). All are welcome.

H. Allegra Lansing said...

Hi everyone - I know our natural instinct in this community is to doubt and then doxx. I get it - there are people who want to attach themselves to this story in some uber-creepy ways, and of course our instinct should be verify, verify, verify. I promise I did my due diligence in this matter. I had support in those efforts. I'm not asking you to believe everything he said. Hell, I don't even have an agenda in this matter. He contacted me, he had an interesting story about being told not to deal drugs at Spahn Ranch by several Manson women (allegedly on behalf of Charlie) and he very personal reasons why he didn't want to go public that have nothing to do with this case. We've all done things when we were young and dumb that in hindsight, we recognize might not jibe with our current lifestyles or professional responsibilities. Memory is fallible and some of what he shared with me might be slightly off base, but I still believe the bulk of his story. You would too if you met him. And after Part 3 of this interview airs, he is open to joining us live at my YT channel for a chat with everyone. I've also seen documents he provided and a photo of him as a younger man from around that era.

I also want to say again that I had no agenda in this matter except my own curiosity about his story and the observations he had to share about the Family. I'm glad he has provided a tipping-off-point in which we can explore some other issues such as that earlier raid. A big reason why he contacted me was because with his record essentially expunged, he doesn't know the date of that raid. It could be as early as spring 1969 or as late perhaps as July, but he doesn't know and none of his research has born fruit and he was hoping someone in this community might help him figure out the best way to find that data, which is purely for personal reasons that he wants to know.

I want to continue to use my platform to allow people with stories to share from that era to give us all a birds-eye view into that world. Some of their stories will be deeply resonant and others might just be loosely connected, and that's all okay by me. I have a couple more interviews in the works now and I hope you all will tag along. I don't mind if you question whether I've vetted the people I interview. But I do feel protective of my sources and want to make sure that they don't feel in jeopardy by coming to me and therefore, scare off others who might want to do so and want assurance of their anonymity.

Hope to see you all tomorrow night for another "aLIVE with aLLIE" discussion of the docuseries. I'll have the next episode available this weekend as well.

Happy Friday night!

Doug said...

You're 100% awesome as far as I am concerned Allie! And, while I can't speak for the other people on this blog...I have a feeling that you are most welcome to join us at your leisure and share your thoughts and opinions about this whole kooky case with us!

I definitely believe that you are thorough with your research and vetting. I did comment that I felt that you were trying to reel in Mr X a few times during the second video. And, I felt that he might have been "spicing up" his story/recollections of his time with the MF at Spahn!

After taking on the task of researching and troubleshooting with regards to the "unknown" people who are among the infamous mugshot collection...with numerous colleagues...I can totally say that I now have a much greater understanding of who he might be and how he is connected to other "unknown: people who are also among the mugshots.

Others on this blog are doing OUTSTANDING work verifying information that has previously been stated but, not always verified as truth. The recent sleuthing has been exciting and fruitful.

Very much like your work on the Madeline Cottage mystery and in bringing Mr X to the surface from the netherworld of this case!

Hope to see you more often here and on your youtube channel.

Cheers

Doug

PS - I hope that I haven't passed anyone off with my response and, my thoughts on the great work being done here at present

H. Allegra Lansing said...

Thank you Doug - I will confirm that Mr X was not present during the August 16th raid and had, in fact, left the ranch sometime previous to that date. In part 3 you'll learn where he actually was that month and some of what happened to him subsequently. You'll also hear about his opinion on Manson's involvement in TLB. Appreciate it!

Doug said...

Cheers

Check your Messenger

Doug said...

PISSED anyone off

David said...

AL said: "I'm glad he has provided a tipping-off-point in which we can explore some other issues such as that earlier raid. A big reason why he contacted me was because with his record essentially expunged, he doesn't know the date of that raid."

I'm sorry, I have not listened to anything as my comment above indicates so maybe he is referring to a third "raid", but there were two raids. The first was on July 28th.

David said...

Oh, and if X was there on July 28th , well, if he was there say August 1-6 maybe you could do me a favor and ask him if he heard anything about why Manson went to Esalen. And 'no' I am not a fan of "Chaos".

Thanks

Doug said...

So, who was arrested in this so-called "mini raid" on July 28th? I haven't found any list and/or names attached to the Olmstead and Grap "visit"

I only found one mention of "28 people" with no names attached and, this 28 people must've been from the "main raid" on August 16th...

WTF

David said...

This source says there were three raids.

https://gangsterreport.com/all-in-the-family-the-ultimate-manson-family-timeline-1967-2019/

G. Greene-Whyte said...

(1) Enough of everyone telling us what we can't dig into. Every record is out there except the pretend ones.

To that, our curiosity has us wanting to Ronald Reagan every claim. We're good at it and want to know things. Nothing more. Because we've been burned in the past, we try to verify the gurus and people claiming they want to help us understand. Moreover, like every other Manson site, we need to create content and feed the beast.

Therefore, and for no other reason, I'm going to cover every person putting content out there. I don't give a shit what someone privately told anyone. That dog does not hunt in 2022. Every one of you calling yourselves researchers should proof up when asked or it's not research. That's how history and research actually work. Tabloids run on secrets.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

(2)

The overall lack of formal education in the Manson scene is a GIGANTIC problem. Several of the loudest voices don't know what they're doing because they were never trained in the academy. They don't know it shows, or think it matters, but it does.

None of us are doxxing X. We have his whole life including senior picture from high school. It's nothing new. We have stuff like that on everyone. And I'd offer at least in my group, we fell in love with X even if we think he fibs a bit here and there. I hope Allie interviews him fifteen times. She's the freshest breath of fresh air in this thing.

I'm tired of the Manson blog being called meanies by the Facebook posses because we ask for proof. All of you can go get paid and I'm always willing to help promote you and share links, but we're gonna run our own program over here just like everyone runs their own programs in their own places. Enough of telling people what to do on the Internet.

En todos - Put your books out. I'll probably give everyone a good review and try to help sell a few. But we're also starting at your sources. I'm going to write about it here. No pre-attacks are going to stop that from happening. I want to learn about Manson. Not be anyone's follower.

Doxxing comes with the territory for all of us. We've all been there. I was recently doxxed by Dennis LaCalandra and Nik Schreck for sharing a post about Michael Channels. They knew me because I helped them with Jay and Jack White and others.

Before I took a Facebook break, I was talking to Dennis on Messenger. I actually thought he was a trip and enjoyed his comments here. Still do in fact. I'd heard thru the grapevine he was looking for a close family member. I found the family member and made Dennis a nice folder of old family photos I'd wondered if he'd ever seen as well as other cool genealogy stuff I never got the chance to give him. I also made a nice big fat folder for Mr. Schreck.

For anyone who's not aware, my name is John McConnell. I've literally told everyone I've ever met in this study my name but there might be twelve of you who don't know. I'm pretty much a boring writer who sits at home and looks things up. I write on contract for a company started by one of the richest people in the world. They give me fascinating projects, know I write here, and laugh their asses off about our crazy little scene.

Criminally, I've received one traffic ticket in my entire life. If someone would like me to fire myself from my contract job for finding myself trapped in a yellow submarine with a bunch of angry nuts with a shallow grasp of database research, I totally will, but I'd love if someone else could provide additional work since I get hungry a couple of times a day & etc.

Every sneeze all of us have ever taken is online. Doxxing died a decade ago. Our aging scene just doesn't know it yet. Bigger picture, our culture worships fame. I'm not even mad at ya. Put me in the docs right next to my idol Max Motherf'in Frost. Mr. DeMille, I've always been ready.

Rock on with your bad selves. My beautiful river flows all the way to the Gulf and takes every one of our words with it. It's Nature's filter after all.

shoegazer said...

Therefore, and for no other reason, I'm going to cover every person putting content out there. I don't give a shit what someone privately told anyone. That dog does not hunt in 2022. Every one of you calling yourselves researchers should proof up when asked or it's not research. That's how history and research actually work. Tabloids run on secrets.

Personally, I'm on board with this sort of attitude, but maybe I'm just paranoid.

shoegazer said...

GW:

You know, there's a side attraction to reading this forum, and that's how credulous participants here are, and why this may be so. There's a lot of basic human nature on display here--a thirst for heroes and villains, a desire to have something to believe in, a pathetic self-association with what they judge to be glamour, etc.

The main attraction, for me, which I've made clear a bunch of times, is to create what I judge to be the most plausible scenario of the actions of 8-9 August. I think a lot of it is based on the location--the house, itself, as a sort of oddball stretch for Neverland for the Beautiful People of LA in that era. The personalities are not very important to me, except as how they may have materially motivated the events of the night.

E.g., some versions of the narrative have Sebring offering a sort of threat to Watson, and if his personality seems compatible with this, I'd want to include the supposed threat as a part of the scenario, and test it out.

Since we'll never know for sure--and right there you'll have a sort of an intellectual triage: those who think that it's possible to know what happened, and those who in an epistemological sense see absolute knowledge of anything as futile--I then have other scenarios in descending order of probability--again, in my own judgement.

Last observation...

One of the things that immediately jumped out at me when I started reading/posting was that curiously, many people here seem unable or unwilling to discriminate between the possible, the plausible, and the probable. It's as if it's all the same to them.

The biggest, most important first step in analyzing information and creating hypothetical scenarios is being able to discriminate between the first two items: separate the possible (which in theory includes every possibility, in the manner of quantum mechanics) from the plausible. An example of this is the recent "Cielo steak knives" discussion. Certainly it's possible, but damned if I can get it up to the "plausible" cut line, let alone the "probable". Given this, fuller exploration of this gets shoved way the hell down the task list.

It's really a simple Venn diagram of concentric circles.

Once you've culled off what's merely "possible", leaving you with the "plausible", you can productively move forward toward the probable. Not certainty, but probability. Then test the living shit out of it. Repeat as necessary, ad infinitum, maybe.

If one cannot or will not do that much, at least, it's the legend of Sisyphus for you, my friend. You'll look like nothing so much as a witless purebred Irish setter running aimlessly, but enthusiastically, on the beach. You know, the kind who jumps into a stranger's car as readily as his owner's car, not realizing that there's a profound difference.

Peter said...

I'm perfectly happy with this site's new disinformatuon governance board. It's important for us as Scholars (TM) to know what is officially possible, plausible, and probable so we can correct any wrong think and adjust our opinions accordingly.

shoegazer said...

Peter:

I'm perfectly happy with this site's new disinformatuon governance board. It's important for us as Scholars (TM) to know what is officially possible, plausible, and probable so we can correct any wrong think and adjust our opinions accordingly.

Good man!

Your Re-education Certificate is in the mail.

Doug said...

I have felt a real rejuvenation from the recent array of topics and, the joint effort to sleuth and build plausible and, solid conclusions and theories that are proving to be factually supported, well researched and tight as fuck!

We're collectively branching out in numerous directions and each of us kinda drives certain discussions that are of significant interest to each of us and we have really stimulated the overall wider world of this kooky world we are all hoping to bring something new and tangible to the masses...and, we have been kicking all kinds of ass and gone all-in to bring the facts/the truth and not just talk about Soap Operas and/or the same shit that has been discussed ad nauseum.
Who gives a rat's ass if we're taking on a vast array of topics as long as we are bringing factually verifiable information to the group for discussion...and if something doesn't appeal to you - find something you dig...or, bring something of your own to the table for the group to dig into.

Super jazzed about the excellent work that you all have done lately

Cheers

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Shoe gets 5000 Green Points for epistemological.

Peter, well said. I have no dog in this fight and I'm completely willing to say someone is right and I was wrong if they have proof. I really don't care why the murders happened, either. I have empathy for everyone involved in those horrible nights from Sharon all the way down to Charlie.

Doug, gabba gabba one of us.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Anyone out there not liking what we say...

I invite all sides to a written debate following the formal rules of debate. Supporting evidence that can be independently verified must be provided. Holler back and we can finalize the rules.

shoegazer said...

GW:

I have empathy for everyone involved in those horrible nights from Sharon all the way down to Charlie.

Interesting you bring this up. FOR SURE, there are legitimate grounds for empathy for most of the characters I've learned about. E.g., I can see Manson as valuing thinking for himself--a worthy trait, in my opinion--and actually for a while believing that he was going to make it in the "regular world" with his art.

This is almost child-like optimism, not because he had no talent (he did, IMO), but because it was his last, best hope at normal fulfillment--something that had eluded him his entire life, as he was painfully aware.

So that from his POV, his best shot at going legit was snatched away from him, arbitrarily--by members of the Privileged Class.

You can then fairly easily see him falling into a final apocalyptic sort of Ragnarok scorched earth finale. It was faulty and deeply flawed, in part due to the disorientation caused by acid consumption, being the center of a cult of personality (which necessarily insulates you from daily reality), limited formal education, and just plain lack of talent for effective strategic vision.

In that light he could be seen as a tragic, heroic figure, like Milton's Satan in Paradise Lost.

You could cook up a similar view for Atkins, not the same flaws/foibles, but as a tragic figure. Possibly some of the others, as well.

But I don't really have it in me to take it beyond simply observing these interpretations as possible. I don't actually empathize deeply--I simply characterize--it's as far as I can go for people who are strangers to me.

shoegazer said...

Doug:

To me, here's how the best of this open forum can work...

John recently raised a couple of eye-brow raising points--not supercilious rejection, but more like "Wow. now that's out of left field. I wonder...".

He mentioned a "property report" and I'd never seen this or even heard of it. Then someone, Tobias, maybe, linked to it. I read it for the first time...

OK, so while I was unconvinced WRT the the steak knives, simply because its seems both pointless and implausible, with giant gaps in the needed information that cannot be filled by hearsay, I found out that:

1) The police had checked Folger/Frykowski's home on Woodstock, and ostensibly talked to Witold K, or had some implied connection at that time (unimportant, but good background details);

2) They had found or possibly received from Sharon Tate's father some tortoise shell prescription glasses that he said would normally be on a table near the entrance; (not necessarily important)

3) That near Folger's body was a tip of a rubber glove and a yellow metal ring;

4) That Parent's watch had a broken metal expansion band.

5) A video tape was found in the loft. (Kinda makes you curious, doesn't it? ;^) )

6) Other assorted information...shitloads of rollers, etc. But really, nothing much more than I might have had around in my college apartment.

Of the four specific items, the ring and the broken band were of particular interest because they could be artifacts of how, exactly, the attacks on these two victims proceeded. For Parent, we can now think of what ways the band could have been broken, rather than cut, and make this try to fit with the defensive wound on Parent's left hand, and that watch's ultimate location in the back seat.

For the ring, more needs to be discovered, but if it was Folger's and if it came off during the final attack on the lawn, it might further inform the exact nature of the attack and the nature of any defensive wounds. I've checked none of this yet, but look how great it is that John first posed his points!!! Keep 'em coming, John! This stuff acts as a catalyst. Nor do my conclusions preclude the possibility of the knives being peripherally involved.

I think that shit like this can happen all the time, if we let it...

Doug said...

That ring especially interests me...I've never read anything about where it came from and/or who it belonged to.

The tip of the rubber glove is also got my attention...however, for entirely different reasons...

WTF

THE RING!!!

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Re: empathy

While I do spend too much time lamenting the fates of children paying for their parents' sins, I also understand that at some point we make conscious decisions on our own that affect our lives. There's just no way around it.

And I also think Ghandi was right. His quote is in my mind a lot. Charlie was well into his 80's and sick while still incarcerated. If punishment is indeed punitive, he served his sentence.

I know I always fall back on my research into his people, but knowing what I know, I'm always going to see Charlie in a completely tragic light on the level of Shakespeare.

Doug said...

Quick tangent...

Do you think that Charlie beat the shit out of Gypsy a little bit more often and severely than the majority of the others because Gypsy released a 7: vinyl record on an actual legit (but small) record label and he hated her for living HIS dream?

David said...

Shoe said: "A video tape was found in the loft. (Kinda makes you curious, doesn't it? ;^) "

If you mean curious to watch it ignore this. If you mean 'what was all that about?' here you go:

In searching the loft above the living room, Sergeant Mike McGann found a film can containing a roll of video-tape. Sergeant Ed Henderson took it to the Police Academy, which had screening facilities. The film showed Sharon and Roman Polanski making love. With a certain delicacy, the tape was not booked into evidence but was returned to the loft where it had been found.

Bugliosi, Vincent; Curt Gentry. Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders (25th Anniversary Edition) (p. 48). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.

One writer would later claim that the police found a vast collection of pornography in the residence, including numerous films and still shots of famous Hollywood stars engaged in various sexual acts. Aside from the above, and several unexposed rolls of videotape, the only photographs found anywhere on the property were a set of wedding pictures and a large number of publicity shots of Sharon Tate.
The same writer also claimed that a number of black hoods were found in the loft. Apparently he created them out of the same material as his photos, for nothing even resembling a hood was found.

Bugliosi, Vincent; Curt Gentry. Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders (25th Anniversary Edition) (p. 588). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.

Doug said...

7"

Doug said...

A friend of mine purchased a lot of 60s and 70s promotional stills and "talent" photos from one of the porn distributors of the time in an estate sale...

One of the "performers" who was featured in a few photos is Maria "Crystal Palace" Alonzo.

Her shots have her personal information from her driver's license etc...as well as the info for her pimp (I mean agent).

My friend puts out a publication called "Cinema Sewer" and is a well-known and acclaimed artist who does amazing images of women in a style similar to R Crumb or Gilbert Shelton

I couldn't believe that he just lucked out and came across this MF related oddity

I have always thought that a few of the girls followed that path once they cosied up to the AB assholes

shoegazer said...

Her shots have her personal information from her driver's license etc...as well as the info for her pimp (I mean agent).

Hah!

That reminds me a a line in a book I read a while back, where the narrative point of view said something like:

"We thought we'd go to the theater that evening, to watch the actresses advertise for their true profession...".

shoegazer said...

Here's a general question to all...

To what degree do you accept information revealed in a book, interview, or article, but otherwise not supported independently?

First, I'd run it by the "does this make any sense at all, based on personal knowledge/experience/trusted reading?" test. Is it even vaguely plausible?

If it passed, I take this kind of material and "shade" it a bit, judging the general established credibility of the source, and other ancillary factors, such as does this information appear to add monetary value, potentially (i.e., does it make the book more salable?). Its a kind of context check.

E.g., a book that comes out in close proximity to the 50th anniversary, that basically is a lisand hearsay t of possibilities the the author has encountered over a period of years, but otherwise are largely undeveloped/unvetted, that right away would suggest to me that it's a superficial attempt to capitalize on the added demand generated by OUATIH.

So everything in it would be pushing uphill for credibility. Fun ideas and new possibilities may come from this, but not solid info, unless abundantly supported.

Then, even if it passes those two superficial tests, it would still need to be independently verified, or at least supported in some fashion, otherwise it would simply be another neat idea to check out, but not in itself reliable as a source.

And I would not consider it a very good basis upon which to build a sound hypothesis.

How about yew?

David said...

Shoe said: "To what degree do you accept information revealed in a book, interview, or article, but otherwise not supported independently?"

I treat every book/interview or article like Ed Sanders' The Family: cool stuff but if it isn't independently verifiable (or I am actually provided with the proof in the book) its just cool stuff. You can think something and even know something but if you cannot prove it you really don't have that much.

shoegazer said...

Agreed, David.

I might even tend to want to believe it, but without really convincing (personally convincing) independent support it's some level of speculation.

Speculation, itself, can be quite convincing, but if you base a hypothesis on it, there's great danger.

But everyone's free to do that, no problem, so long as you recognize its inherent limitations.

David said...

Shoe,

I think people just need to be clear they are speculating when they do like..... IMO.....and then feel free to say why they think XY or Z. That and acknowledging when you are wrong.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

My hard fast is rule extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Providing the evidence is the job of the person making the claim. Telling us to go look it up for ourselves or any of the other weasel shit people try to pull is unacceptable.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

*rule is

grimtraveller said...

David said:

This source says there were three raids.

https://gangsterreport.com/all-in-the-family-the-ultimate-manson-family-timeline-1967-2019/


There may have been 3 raids but that source is embarrassingly poor. It is riddled with inaccurate information. I lost count but there were at least 27 items that can be consigned to the scrapheap.

David said...

Grim,

You did see I said "This source says" right?

orwhut said...

Shoe,
I can't add anything to the answers to your question, that have already come in. The question however, reminds me of the days when I'd buy a "True Crime" paperback thinking that tag meant every word in the book was true. Now, I think that tag means the content is related to something that was truly a crime. Sometimes, I'm not even sure about that.

ColScott said...

Since the start of Nelson the molester's site one truth remains- Everyone is Ouisch. No one is Ouisch. It's just a fact

Monica said...

I have been confused by many of these posts lately. I read to gain info, that's all. Not really into pissiing contests or conspiracy theories. The article on Abigail a few weeks ago was good. I have been reading a lot of H Allegra's info on Medium lately as well as the cielo drive facebook page. Lots of pics I haden't seen. This blog seems to be losing a bit of focus. Or maybe it is getting new legs. Might be time for another survey Matt -this time on the topics people want to read.

brownrice said...

Personally, I think the Colonel summed it up very nicely.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Monica - So write what you want to read, for free, week after week, or you comment something like this every few months? Why not just cut and paste?

grimtraveller said...

shoegazer said:

To what degree do you accept information revealed in a book, interview, or article, but otherwise not supported independently?

It depends on the book, interview or article, and who is providing the information.
It also depends on the information.
It might take me years to reach some sort of conclusion.

David said:

You did see I said "This source says" right?

Yeah.😄
The comment was about the source, not the provider of the source. I try to avoid shooting the messenger.

shoegazer said...

Yo, orwhut:

The question however, reminds me of the days when I'd buy a "True Crime" paperback thinking that tag meant every word in the book was true. Now, I think that tag means the content is related to something that was truly a crime. Sometimes, I'm not even sure about that.

This sure sounds like me as a kid growing up. I was a pretty credulous little turd.

But reality pimp-slapped numerous times, and I finally got "it". It's that many people, knowingly or otherwise, are pretty comfortable with the idea that the truth is whatever they think it is.

shoegazer said...

GT:

To what degree do you accept information revealed in a book, interview, or article, but otherwise not supported independently?

It depends on the book, interview or article, and who is providing the information.
It also depends on the information.
It might take me years to reach some sort of conclusion.


Don't back yourself into a corner, now, GT. ;^)

Seriously, in what case would you accept as foundational information, the sort where you'd feel comfortable forming up an extended hypothesis from it, from a book that is not supported by solid testimony or physical evidence?

Right now I've got in mind something recent on this thread. I wondered aloud what was on a video tape found in the Cielo loft. It was on the property report, and I'll accept that, itself, as qualifying its existence as foundational, and it'll remain that way until something compelling (and solid) pushes it off.

But then David pointed up a section of HS where Bugliosi tactfully (?) mentions the tape as having been viewed (names the viewers) and that it had Tate ad Polanski making love.

The investigation then quietly, tastefully, deep-sixed this information.

To me, this info about the content is unsupported, so it's a level hearsay. I'd say t's high-quality hearsay (named names so that it would be possible to check), and the content of the tape is possible, but I see it as marginally plausible, and somewhat improbable.

I realize that these folks take narcissism to a whole new height, but is this something you'd want to leave for your house-sitters to find, and perhaps view?

Plus, the tale of the private porn loop is exactly what spices up a book--in a way, it's Rona Barrett stuff...

So for now I've got it in a category of "unproved but maybe"...nor is it important to the case, so that's about as far as I'll go on it.

Then in books you can also get someone claiming that there was a phone exchange on tape between Manson and the CIA, for example, but golly-gosh, they don't have the tape, have any record of the existence of the tape, or any possible way for the reader to check further.

Like GW says..."Extraordinary claims require...".

And the burden in any legitimate debate is on the claimant to supply some level of support, if asked. When the response is "Go find it yourself, it's out there..." this is a tell-tale sign that you're dealing with someone who either doesn't understand the legitimate responsibility of a claimant in a fact seeking discussion, or they understand it, all right, but are notably lacking in personal integrity.

Noteworthy exceptions to the requirement for the claimant to support claims are religious discussions and military tribunals.

(BTW, how many hear remember Rona Barrett, or Jerry Dunphy? Cal Worthington/Ralph Williams commercial feud? Moona Lisa?)

Doug said...

Ouisch's Razor

G. Greene-Whyte said...

LOL! That's the B side to the single I asked you to write yesterday!

shoegazer said...

DIVERGING HERE, SOMEWHAT:

I've often seen Watson mentioned in the popular press as "Manson's right-hand man", and I'll bet you have, too.

Now, even reading a little about the structure of the Family (that's me: I've not been overly interested in the specific family relationships, but a bit more about the overall phenomenon that was Manson and the Family) shows that this is not accurate--Watson was a sort of sorry-assed drifter, with little personal magnetism or sway, who was looking for a combination of recognition and direction.

So then thinking further, the next thing I thought was: "Well, jeez, did Manson have a 2nd in command, you know, his own personal El Segundo?"

And the more I thought about it, the less I could see any possibility of it. It was strictly all on Charlie, he was the entire show--and he knew this and it was the way he wanted it, too, I think. It might be possible that in his absence someone may have tried to coalesce a sort of social group, but it sure would not have been "the Family" any longer.

So put on your thinking hats, friends and fellow-sufferers: do you think that there was, or could be, a recognizable 2nd in command, and if so, who was that and why?

And if not, who was the closest thing to it, and why?

I'll prime the ol' pump, as it were. No real 2nd and the only guy with any possible claim was Beausoleil--and that's a real stretch. He was smart enough and manipulative and narcissistic enough, and he was good looking, which all confers a certain reflexive charisma, but he did not have the gut core of Manson, which was the thing that set Manson apart. In a word, shit came easy for Beausoleil, whereas Manson really had to grind it out, his whole life, this giving him a sort of life-tempering that Beausoleil would never have.

Beausoleil was courted his whole life, while Manson bootstrapped everything. Manson was a grim survivor, while Beausoleil was a poor man's little Lord Fauntleroy.

As always, these are only my opinions; I could be wrong...

Doug said...

Sometimes I think that Charlie felt that he was above everybody and, the de facto "chosen one" and, he had a "pyramid of power/importance" much like the Mafia Crime Families where key personnel were placed underneath him in order of their abilities in certain areas key to his idea of organizational strength and operation.

Some key 2nd tier people had strengths that provided a certain asset and sub-group strength/leadeeshio much like the underbosses of the Crime Families but, some were just given higher rank due to their importance in Manson's own evolution/story but provided little or no skillset or leadership qualities.

One could place folks like Bruce and Squeaky as 2nd tier soldiers with Bruce as a roving field general and Squeaky as a director of information and media. Important positions.

Sandy, Brenda, Capps and, initially Gypsy were the information and media Sstreet team/outreach.

Mary was the 1st and the mother of his child. She was not really in charge of anything really but, was "Mother Mary" and, entitled/elevated in the operation due to Charlie's preference and, most of all, his word.

Bobby was an excellent musician and, was a great recruiter of the little girls and, Charlie placed high value on both. He must've both admired Bobby and feared him (but would never admit to either) and, he placed Bobby as a subgroup leader with people like Paul and Clem and the strong musicians snd as guys who could pull girls and bring them in to the organization.

Sadie was the person who was his #1 girl (lead zombie sex worker) and, sexual "greeter" who serviced whom Charlie wanted ger to and, educated the new girls in the will of man's son. She/they were also completely expendable and she was an easy choice for his murder squad.

Tex was the Sadie equivalent of the men...he had mechanical savvy but was expendable and, wanted to prove his worth (like Sadie)

Kenny was everyone's soldier confidante and, in charge of the daycare. 100% loyal and expendable...

Etc...

Doug said...

Krenny

I am a robot

Dan S said...

Tex's outsider status (e.g. sleeping in worse quarters and being left out of group activities) and his desire to impress his leader are the biggest contributing factor to the murders

ColScott said...

TL/DR. what is going on? Anyone wanna summarize this? Grim ?

Doug said...

They definitely play into it quite significantly. Also his self-perceived valuation of himself as a failure/loser in the big westcoast scene (at every level) when he was somewhat a hero in Hicksville Texas...and, his complete contempt for his prior Hickoid self and, hatred for the devoutly religious mother and, his country bumpkin upbringing.

He may have been smart but he sure was dim...all-in on everything he attempted in Cali and, barely able to stick to anything for any great length of time. We can debate how long that himan massacre would've kept his attention once he realized people despised him for it.

At least he ended up getting blowjobs in prison and screwing up his sham of a marriage over inmate luv.

Doug said...

Human

G. Greene-Whyte said...

I'd put Fromme as the strong #2.

shoegazer said...

GW:

I'd put Fromme as the strong #2.

To my *very* limited knowledge, I can dfinitely see this as true in the absolute sense.

Now, stepping away from the idea that there would necessarily be a sort of de facto descending order of personal magnetism and potential for a following, do you thgink that the Family, as it existed under Manson, could be led by a female?

It's an odd question, not meant to be provocative in a sort of divisive sense, but it's very hard for me to see anything like the Family existing under female leadership simply because from what I can tell, it was had overt patriarchy at its core.

Now a quick jump...do you recall Rajneeshpuram back in the 80s, where the Rajneesh was the head dude, and his second was Ma Anand Sheela. She was a sort of behind the scenes power player, and I'm not sure how true this might have been for Fromme within the Family.

Certainly, Manson seemed to be his own man.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

I definitely saw the Netflix series on those folks. The looks on the old farmer yokels' faces were priceless.

This is almost a cop out but I don't know what I think about the Family in terms of what they were and what they were really up to when their train came off the tracks. For criminals, they did some pretty stupid stuff. For hired murderers, they got caught. Neither were they the best strong arm crew if that was the plan. They'd be the most loyal crooks ever if they were seriously still paying the Satans the day after the Tate murders stopped the country dead in its tracks. I have no idea what they were.

Isolation. Poor nutrition. Poor hygiene. Us against them. Hot as balls every single dusty day. Could they have been nothing more than knuckleheads doing knucklehead shit until they eventually went too far? And then were sent right into outer space with the intense media coverage.

What I don't get is Manson was a documented schizophrenic. All those kids at the equivalent of a squat decided to let the crazy old man tell them to commit Helter Skelter and they did? Sixty-four feet of rope to a drug heist?

I do think Fromme held it down once Charlie went inside but how long before there were only a couple of them. They were still talking revolution when the rest of us were heading toward Rocky movies.

shoegazer said...

Yes, from how I vaguely remember it, Fromme and a few other women (were any men still left in the rump family 12 months after Manson was gone?) stuck to it like Weathermen.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

I lived in Kent, Ohio, as a kid. Ranter/raver hippies seemed to hang around there longer than other places. Lemme ask you, did you get the feeling being a young adult at the time that groups like the Weathermen, Hoffman, etc etc, were actually going to overthrow the establishment and usher in some new type of age?

Doug said...

What about "Dope, Guns and Fucking in the Streets?"

shoegazer said...

Lemme ask you, did you get the feeling being a young adult at the time that groups like the Weathermen, Hoffman, etc etc, were actually going to overthrow the establishment and usher in some new type of age?

I'm ashamed to admit this, and please don't spread it around, GW ;^), but there was a very brief period where a lot of young folks like me--including me--thought that something radical was about to happen. Clueless as to just what, exactly, that might be, but it felt that way for maybe 3 months.

Let's see...

Robert Kennedy getting killed in June of 68 was a REAL BIG thing because immediately you felt that your weren't even going to get to have *your* guy elected--he'd be snatched away, some how.

Then the following Xmas was Tet, I think. So the summer of love in 67 migrated to "get a rifle and go up into the hills" sorta thinking by spring 69 or so, I think.

But there were no effective national leaders or focused groups around which to rally. The Weathermen were underground, no actual public presence, and Hoffman was clearly, even to me, a prankster, a provocateur, not a leader.

So then entertainment figures, especially in music, sorta inherited this mantle, but they were not intellectually sophisticated enough to understand mass movements in the same way that Che, or Ho Chi Minh did.

Plus, we were rich, with something to lose.

But Nixon was good, you had to hand it to him. I didn't see it then (few of my cohort could see this, if any), but first he had a "plan" to end the war. No one believed him, but that planted the seed that just *maybe*... then they did the draft lottery, effectively reducing *committed* opposition by 2/3rds (only the first 1/3 of the draft pool was likely to be drafted, while the other 2/3rds were off the hook). How that worked was that, yep, you were on the side of your room-mate, who had #5 in the draft, but at the same time, you, yourself had #294, and you knew that if things stayed the same, if you did *nothing*, you'd be safe--so why risk a revolution? You already had what you *really* wanted...sure, you'd talk, but do nothing, really.

He undercut the level of commitment to socio-political revolution. Took the air out of the opposition.

But yeah, as silly as it now seems...

All this teaches you a lot about yourself, if you let it.

shoegazer said...

Doug:

What about "Dope, Guns and Fucking in the Streets?"

Lessee...Hollywood picked up on this, which means that the front edge of the movement had passed, and the general sentiments had worked into the fat part of the Gauss curve--Everyman.

I can remember this getting a lot of ad time. Seemed silly as shit, too silly:

Wild in the Streets

This one actually *worked* for me...

If...

So these were in 1968, and this would tell me that the idea of revolution as an actual possibility was already out there, if it got into popular films.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_in_the_Streets

Doug said...

That film had fans in the punk scene 10-15yrs later too...

"Fourteen or Fight"

Another bizarre LA band from the same time was The West Coast Pop & Experimental Band....an LA punk band (TSOL) even covered this anti-vietnam war art rock/protest song of theirs in 1982

"Suppose They Give A War (And No One Comes)

https://youtu.be/tDPAAR956sg


MC5 - House band of the White Panthers and, managed by John Sinclair -

"Dope, Guns & Fucking in the Street!"

It was a nutty time to be a teenager for sure

shoegazer said...

Doug:

Fun reminiscing and talking about... :^)

shoegazer said...

Doug:

You know, WRT to music, I *think* I understood punk--I liked the aggression--and often liked the super-upbeat tempo and lyrical ranting (I don't mean this a a complaint--it's an a verifiable characteristic of the genre, just as rap is rhythmic chanting closer to beat poetry than to musical composition as I recognize it), but I *really* connected with grunge.

But grunge is a dead-end intellectually, and what much of it was (in my untutored opinion) was basically metal, sometimes with just a bit of punk.

"Black hole sun, won't ya come,
and wash away the rain,
black hole sun, black hole sun, black hole sun..."

So intellectually, where do you go after that, huh?

Now, orthogonal to all this, I've been sorta addicted to late-40-70s jazz: bebop, hard bop post bop, straight ahead...

Go figger, huh?

Loegria15 said...

MC5 - House band of the White Panthers and, managed by John Sinclair -

"Dope, Guns & Fucking in the Street!"


And boy, do they still revere JS here in the Detroit area; but no one mentions how bloody sexist they were. And Danny Fields or JS sending them to a concert in a limo - a show for the Motherfuckers. NOT smart.

And now my thoughts re the Charlie & the Family re some of the other comments above and other threads:

1) I could go back in time and space and grab five-year-old Charlie and give him the love and time and education he deserved. I would hug him when he cried, and encourage him to create.

2. If my mom made me get an abortion then forced me to bury the fetus in the back yard, I'd have heavy-duty issues re sex, gender, parenthood, and my mom, among other things.

3. I think if there was a second-in-command, it would've been Squeaky.

4. I've not done HALF the reading most of you folks have done outside the blog, much less the research. I've gleaned a lot from the results of the work y'all've done, and I want you to know it's much appreciated (pass it on, plz!)

That's all for now, I'm fadin' out, I mowed my too-long back lawn today.

3.

Doug said...

The communal scene around Sinclair era MC5 was TOTALLY male dominated/sexist...and, their guitars were cocks, guns, swords...and, Sinclair pushed HIS agenda on them and, they were all-in...like the Sex Pistols with Malcolm McLaren or, like Tex Watson with pretty much everyone.

The wives/girlfriends sewed there costumes/clothing ffs!!

Yet, Fred ended up married to Patti (who I'm sure wasn't an underling in their partnership) and, Wayne with Margaret Saudi Kramer who is also a magnificent presence and powerful woman. They split with Sinclair (taking major flak in AA/Detroit for it) ended up progressing from weed to heroin and ending up ad a ssd imitation of themselves in the (original) end.

Those MF folks were all pretty fucked up...damaged...disconnected...yet, at least 80% came from Privilege and, around half of those sure held on to the credit cards/trust fund $$$ their wealthy parents gave them for as long as humanly possible...some even robbing their family homes if/when challenged to prove themselves.

Geez

Doug said...

Although I first played in a pumk band at 14yrs old in 1979 and, even did some touring in 81/82, my most "successful" (bwahahaha...hardly) times playing were 85-92 (playing with ALL the big grunge/alt groups) 97-99 (Clash-like band in Toronto...on German and UK labels and toured) and, 2006-2012 5 bands of varying genres *Rock n Soul" with horns, Country Punk, Psychedelic garage, big concept wee guitar playing project.

Some of the greatest times and lasting human connections have been with those seminal, primarily west coast bands, in the 89s punk, grunge and alternative rock scene.

I feel you

I like my horns to be free jazz or soul based...

Contortions
James Black/White
Stooges Fun House album
Roxy Music
Memphis Horns

Yada Yada

Doug said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Doug said...

In the 80's

Robot ate my homework

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Shoe, here's one of Doug's groups I've been listening to the past couple of days. I like it a lot.

https://open.spotify.com/artist/4AxdkmHgv7FBf3Ysvm5oQt?si=ZvrVOTLhRFG6253JkG6RhA

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Col - The natives all went RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE for a moment and now the dark seas are calm again while we wait like sharks wait for fresh attacks from other sharks. Here's the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJMabRbuN3c

G. Greene-Whyte said...

I am the walrus robot.

shoegazer said...

DOUG:

Hah! I've got to draw the line at Ornett Coleman, though. ;^)

But when Coletrane went off his way, I could follow that...it still connected with me.

Good vibes, Doug!

shoegazer said...

I am the walrus robot.

Yeah, but you got to play it backwards at 78 to know that...

;^)

leary7 said...

black hole sun....listen to Nora Jones version...it illuminates the song as a mantra.
I liked "Days of Rage" as a decent history of radicalism '67-'73. You come away really wondering 'if only the black radicals and white radicals had successfully interacted even a little' there just might have been a serious revolution.
Egos prevented the proper coalescing.




















G. Greene-Whyte said...

Howdy, Leary. I tried to put a little EJB into my most recent post for you. Hope life is treating you well.

ella_cinder@icloud.com said...

Hey, Tim. It's true Ella was a charmer, She was a beauty with big beautiful eyes and a southing way. Ella Jo Bailey was a GREAT cook, remember? She had been raised on a farm near Holland, Michigan and had two older brothers. There had been a death in her family and Ella had to take over the cooking for her brothers and father as well as milk cows, feed the ponies, chickens and do a host of farm chores. But her cooking skills were considerable, especially her home made wheat bread which she would bake in the oven at Spahn. Linda Baldwin was also an excellent cook, winning awards in her High School Home Economics bake sale. When Ella and Linda got out the big wooden bowl and began baking homemade wheat bread, the folks came running to the kitchen at Spahn. There were good times and these good times are still remembered.
Ella was quite sophisticated actually, I always thought of her as a lovely Flower Child. She had a bright pink and orange yarn poncho that she knitted herself. Along with her red hair and blue eyes, she cut a striking image. I know how we all loved her, I think everyone loved Ella. She indeed retired up to Clear Lake, California...married and lived a happy life. She was a country girl, remember? She had a beautiful soul.

shoegazer said...

Manson family, or Cleaver family?

J-Dog said...

Doug
I've always been interested in wild and criminal women, maybe starting when I read "Helter Skelter" in HS around 1971.

I was wondering why someone w the name Maria Alonso would marry an Aryan Brotherhood dude, except maybe for legal reasons.

I have some few issues of "Cinema Sewer" in .pdf form. Very dense. Did your friend publish the photos/info of Maria? If so which issues?

Um, asking for a friend. Thanks

beep boop

ella_cinder@icloud.com said...

Manson Family with the hippie whole wheat bread....Cleaver family would have been white bread.

shoegazer said...

But the Family, themselves, were whiter than a Klan meeting, right?

ella_cinder@icloud.com said...

Klan meetings are pretty white so I don't know. Ella Jo Bailey did marry a black man and had children up near Clear Lake.

Doug said...

I don't believe that Robin has published any Alonzo photos. He uploaded one (censored of course and, no image of back info) on his FB wall around a year ago.

I know he uses these types of images as sources for inspiration for his own drawings.

Cheers

shoegazer said...

Clear Lake itself is pretty grim. It must be a leading candidate for Meth capital of the west coast. It's like Barstow, but with more rain.

grimtraveller said...

At least he ended up getting blowjobs in prison and screwing up his sham of a marriage over inmate luv

Re: Watson, this is the kind of statement that I would want verification of and I'd set the bar high. I wouldn't make this sort of statement in public unless there was verification.

shoegazer said:

do you think that the Family, as it existed under Manson, could be led by a female?

I don't think the Family as it existed under Manson could be led by anyone but Manson ! I often laugh to myself when Bruce or Tex are paraded in parole hearings as Charlie's right hand man.
Basically, once he was in prison, the next few years saw what happened when the Family was led by women. It's an interesting contrast. Whereas Charlie was quite subtle in the sense of not parading his wares in public, once he was in prison, that's when the Family was projected into the national consciousness and much of the murderous, dangerous image was actually pushed by the females. Clem may have been scary to his parole officer, but were people shitting themselves in general over him, Bruce and Mark Ross ? The females were, in some ways, Charlie's get out clause {he apparently told Al Springer that no matter what, they would always take the fall} ~ except of course, that it didn't work. The more the women parroted Charlie, the more extreme the gulf between his streetwise con and their, to put it bluntly, un~thought out naivety.

Now a quick jump...do you recall Rajneeshpuram back in the 80s

Possibly the first documentary I remember watching as an adult was about them. They were known here as the Orange People. I actually worked with a one of them for a while, back in '82. He was quite intense. He had changed his name to Artan and I think he got a bit frustrated with me as I was atheist back in those days. He didn't seem to have any everyday living peace.

shoegazer said...

GT:

Fayez has talent as a writer. I mean this.

What is it about people who glom onto this topic? Soemtimes I'm tempted to deep-six my account, and go take a long, long shower.

For myself, looking at it from the outside as best I can, there was the physical property, itself. Once I had read enough about it, understood the layout/design, and what the house represented to people living in it, or owning it, I connected with it the way I do with special real estate. It is very much the same underlying grown-up storybook symbolism that really saturates that part of LA ever since they started building "theme-based" residences, like faux Moorish apartment buildings, and little Swiss chalets in the shadow of the Hollywoodland sign.

Garden of Allah. I mean, what were they thinking? Now combine that with the property that's now Yamashiro...there was nothing too imaginative and whimsical in LA, at that time, and still, to a degree.

So I liked that.

Then the details of the crime, and the ambiguities that can never be solved, but certainly can be tightened down into a "best case" hypothesis, plus plausible variants.

Then I got to remember stuff from when I was anywhere from about 18-40--actually some from before that, when visiting relatives--and I picked up a lot of forgotten immediacy, which was a lot of fun, too.

But it comes at a cost in these forums, and maybe I'm getting into diminishing returns.

Doug said...

I was just being COCK-y my friend...very much throwing down hearsay...buuuut, I would not be surprised if it was true

shoegazer said...

GT:

So you folks in the UK knew about Rajneeshpuram, out there in eastern Oregon?

It was sort like Jonestown, but without the Koolaide.

David said...

They wore red.

Doug said...

Flavor Ade

TabOrFresca said...

Part 3 for the mystery of mr x is on youtube but it is not that interesting as far as learning something new or of “Mr X” finding out when he was arrested. If you’re helping him, I would suggest using a binary divide approach, narrowing between known events.

grimtraveller said...

Loegria15 said:

I could go back in time and space and grab five-year-old Charlie and give him the love and time and education he deserved. I would hug him when he cried, and encourage him to create

I get where you're coming from. While there are never any guarantees, and many well cared for children go on to do horrific things or become attracted to darker pursuits and people, that's no reason to give them a helping hand in negativity from the start.

If my mom made me get an abortion then forced me to bury the fetus in the back yard, I'd have heavy-duty issues re sex, gender, parenthood, and my mom, among other things

I think you might too. I've seen far too many children go through trauma and come out the other side, somewhat misshapen. It doesn't excuse any stuff they may go on to do, but it goes a long way towards explaining and some of those adults that played a large role in the warping of those children rarely face the responsibility they bear.

GG-W said:

Could they have been nothing more than knuckleheads doing knucklehead shit until they eventually went too far? And then were sent right into outer space with the intense media coverage

Pretty much !
The Family members that remained on the Charlie side of things , without a shadow of doubt became extreme, once their leader became a news story. And to some extent, have remained so, in ever decreasing circles, for half a century.

What I don't get is Manson was a documented schizophrenic

Was he actually ? In that 1968 paper that David Smith did on the Family {although it wasn't published for about 3 years}, he wrote "Charlie had a persuasive mystical philosophy placing great emphasis on the belief that people did not die and that infant consciousness was the ultimate state. However, Charlie's mysticism often became delusional and he on occasion referred to himself as "God" or "God and the Devil." Charlie could probably be diagnosed as an ambulatory schizophrenic."
I noted the "could probably." But prior to 1969, was he actually diagnosed as schizophrenic ?

All those kids at the equivalent of a squat decided to let the crazy old man tell them to commit Helter Skelter and they did?

My observation over many years is that if someone truly believes something, it is far easier to convince others that it is true, than if one is just running a standard con.

shoegazer said:

Fayez has talent as a writer

I don't doubt that. I think he'd be a really interesting lyricist. My point about him is that I'm not just going to believe his accounts about his dalliances with Susan Atkins because he happens to say that they happened.
When I first found these blogs, there was an occasion when some guy claiming to be Robert Earl Murray, who hung with Family back in '68, wrote a lengthy letter to one of them, with stories of Charlie, Bruce and Susan, baby Pooh Bear and Family life. It turned out to be a hoax. I'd been sceptical but unsure, as there were some things there that could have been genuine, and you never know....
But that episode helped sharpen my standards. So for me, the bar is high. I can't say what it'll take for me to believe someone. I'll let you know when I do !

grimtraveller said...

shoegazer said:

So you folks in the UK knew about Rajneeshpuram, out there in eastern Oregon?

Yeah. I thought they were weird at the time. I remembered the sexual attacking that was filmed by the documentary makers. I was 18 and that raised my eyebrows. So it was interesting when about 7 months later, I was actually working with one of the orange people. I remember thinking that their leader reminded me of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Grim - Carrie Leonetti cites numerous medical reports from the State of California in her Eye of the Beholder article that appeared in a peer reviewed journal.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Manson apologists typically offer that Charlie outfoxed generations of trained doctors and medical professionals and was not indeed schizophrenic.

chimneys

shoegazer said...

Manson apologists typically offer that Charlie outfoxed generations of trained doctors and medical professionals and was not indeed schizophrenic.

For quite a while now I've never had the need for a conventional label to use as an impramatur to justify my judgments.

Manson is really fun to try to evaluate, and this is because a) the media has done such a thorough job of pigeonholing him as a madman--and this is also used for Hitler and any other persons chosen to be the poster boys for evil; and b) his method of personal expression of his belief systems and his tools for going thru life are idiosyncratic and unconventional; and c) the ideas he had, as he delved into more complexity (which he did attempt to do, to his intellectual credit), seem to me to be scrambled and tending toward non-sequitur. I'd these tendencies to a combination of a lack of formal training in logic (at least an intro would have set him straighter, for sure), the disorienting effects of psychedelics, and being somewhat isolated and deferred to as a role model.

So far as know, he never really butted heads at length with anyone who was both intellectually sophisticated, and immune to his charisma. He seemed to have the last word, most of the time, and this seems to have re-enforced to him the value of his own ideas.

Loegria15 said...

So far as know, he never really butted heads at length with anyone who was both intellectually sophisticated, and immune to his charisma. He seemed to have the last word, most of the time, and this seems to have re-enforced to him the value of his own ideas.

This triggered a memory of when I was a teenager at my older brother's flat one night (I could drink and smoke over there), when "Helter Skelter" was being aired on one of the local TV stations, it was sort of a watch party, I suppose.

My brother, who's since quit (though long after I did - oops, ego trip, lol) drinking, was still in his cups, and being an afternoon/midnight worker at Chrysler (think BTO's "Blue Collar"), was a very charming (still is) and extroverted man, and he was going on about him being - and I quote, even though this was from the early 1980s - "the Bizarro Manson".

Lessee, I would've been 16 (able to drive from Mom & Dad's to his place), so he would've been...23. So younger than Charlie. But a Scorpio (11/6) FWIW, and very, VERY well-read and schooled in the scientific method. I'd've put him up against Charlie, just to listen to the conversation.

I mean, my dad wanted us to let him know when Jehovah's Witnesses came to the door so he could uh...debate with them. (Oh geez, my dad's name was Charles...but he was Chuck at home and Charlie at the post office, lol).