Only my opinion, but putting these "Allegra Lansing" (not this woman's real name, by the way) videos on here does this site no favors whatsoever. In terms of in-depth TLB research, she has, as far as I can see, brought nothing of value to the table.
He remembers small details in his anecdotes, which are not present when people fabricate stuff from whole cloth--hairy armpit turn-off, the sign on the door, etc. Too, when he mentioned the "prejudice" against drinkers vis-a-vis soft drug users, this I can distinctly recall from that era.
Also, he used "heads" for soft drug users, and yep, sure enough we sued that term commonly to distinguish hip from straight--back when "straight" simply mean "strictly law abiding".
Also there was this silly distinction between a "dealer" (soft drugs) and a "pusher" (hard drugs like heroin, cocaine, speed, etc.). It is in fact immortalized in the Steppenwolf song The Pusher:
"You know the dealer, the dealer is a man With the love grass in his hand Oh but the pusher is a monster Good God, he's not a natural man"
As it turned out, a silly distinction...
He mentions making "lids", which was the most common term for a small plastic sandwich bag of dope. It was maybe 1/2 ounce, and the common price at that time was $10 for regular stuff (not very good, really--a lot of stems and seeds). Also, at the time I took the lyric in Dylan's Subterranean Homesick Blues--basically a long whining kvetch-- where he says:
"The man in the coon-skin cap By the big pen Wants eleven dollar bills You only got ten"
was to imply that the singer comes up just short of enough for a lid. The song is filled with frustrations and threats--common dope paranoia of the era, really.
Small details is exactly what's lacking in a synthesized anecdote.
There's a part where Atkins mentions the dog at the window, another where Kasabian mentions that it going around behind the house to check (Watson's orders), there is a small drop-off as you pass between the house and the detached garage.
He could be lying or exaggerating some things but so far as being from the era and from the right milieu, he's got that much credibility. I think he is worth listening to and checking out. Time's bein' what they are, I'd never believe anything someone unknown to me tells me without multiple independent verification that's to my satisfaction.
Too, I think many here are conflating Mr. X's credibility with the interviewer's credibility. Apparently she exercises no quality control and sells the idea of having access to valuable "secret" knowledge, but, you know, even a broken clock is right twice a day...
Small details were the tell for me. Back when I used to interview people tied to the case, there was a commonality about them. That commonality was vagueness. They spoke from memory and were more often unclear about things. Often had trouble remembering basic stuff. With time, I attributed that to the fact that they were speaking from memory and not sitting around reading about the case everyday like people like us. This guy and the guy claiming to be a Straight Satan are, in my opinion, too clear to be real. My impression was that these were composite characters authored by someone who researches the case.
When I heard the other guy refer to Beausoleil as Bosley I knew that guy was a fraud
What I'm talking about is small, inconsequential details that really could be left out and not impact the story. But I speculate such a person mentions them because at the time they made an impression and linked themselves to the a
...actual event, and in that sense you recall them. Sorta like I heard about Kenndy's assassination while I was in a college placement councilors office in Nov 63. I c
...can recall that he stepped out to get some coffee, and when he came back, he finished the meeting, then said: "I just heard that President Kennedy was shot. Let's wish him well."
Stuff like that.
Now if someone asked me how did you select the college you went to, I'd likely tell them about that incident.
Same with playing sports. There were screwy little things that surrounded the main narrative that didn't matter, but are stuck in there indelibly.
...but I guess we each have our own methods for analyzing and evaluating, and they differ. For me, I believe the interviewee, Mr. X., dealt and used drugs in the mid/late 60s. He may/may not have direct contact with Manson, et al.
...can come to the conclsuion that because asked him not to deal from the ranch, and then later he was busted, this implies that it was Manson, and because Manson himself was not hassled much (so far as he knew), Manson was some kind of intelligence asset.It simply does not follow *even if Mr X.s info was accurate--and we don't know that."
Now it could be that all of the interview was relatively accurate up to that point, and that it was that point (Manson the Spy) that the interviewer prepared for Mr. X, and gave it to him to use.
And why? One reason would be she may have paid Mr. X. but payment was contingent of him adding the stuff. Because we've got to face the fact tha
...that at this late date, there are people *still* trying to capitalize on aspects of the crime and the Manson phenomenon. He told us nothing but interesting color, but without the "added" wrinkle about maybe Manson the Spy, it was worth very little. With it, it plays to people like Starviego, who grasps at any straw whatsoever that will raise conspiratorial controversy.
What parts of his content seem false, or likely to be false, given the totality of your information about the scenario?
Not being a wiseguy, orwhut, but so far we have people who do not like trust the interviewer, and who have enountered other interviewees who were like Mr. X, not not Mr. X. himself, who seemed dishonest and likely were.
None of that has anything to do with Mr. X., himself, does it?
Outside of his *speculation* that Manson had him busted, and that Manson, himself, seemed unhassled by the police, most of what he says seems both plauible and consistent with what little I know.
That's why I'm asking: people here know a lot more detail than I do. That's why I asked about the outlaw shacks: to see if he was basically making that part up. He goes into a lot of detail about the ranch--maybe someone can spot something false?
To me, he knows a lot about soft drugs and selling soft drugs in the late 60s, and it's consistent with my peripheral personal experiences. So I'm convinced that *that* part is right, but it certainly does not mean everything is true or accurate--some may be, some may not be.
You have to break it all up an examine it in pieces and test it. E.g., he mentions the stuff about the "prejudice" about drinking--he didn't have to, to tell his story, and if he made it up, he'd get burned down by someone like me, who lived thru the era, and *knew*...
Off topic Here's a link to several yearbook photos of family members. Some of them are new to me. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-14259731/charles-manson-family-murders-killers-yearbook-photos.html
These videos got me watching a lot of Allegra's videos and I was impressed that there were photos of John Haught I hadn't seen and some of the others. I liked her videos about what happened to various people in the Spahn Ranch orbit, especially Bill Vance. It seemed that she has done her own original research in some of these cases and found details other people haven't. It also looks like she relies on information from others which has been disputed or discredited. I think there is some value to her work.
Thanks Matt. That gives some more context of her writing and how it's viewed. I'd heard of her but didn't know anything about her. I probably won't read that book. And I'm pretty sure I missed the post.
20 comments:
Only my opinion, but putting these "Allegra Lansing" (not this woman's real name, by the way) videos on here does this site no favors whatsoever. In terms of in-depth TLB research, she has, as far as I can see, brought nothing of value to the table.
...and yet the guy has some level of credibility.
He remembers small details in his anecdotes, which are not present when people fabricate stuff from whole cloth--hairy armpit turn-off, the sign on the door, etc. Too, when he mentioned the "prejudice" against drinkers vis-a-vis soft drug users, this I can distinctly recall from that era.
Also, he used "heads" for soft drug users, and yep, sure enough we sued that term commonly to distinguish hip from straight--back when "straight" simply mean "strictly law abiding".
Also there was this silly distinction between a "dealer" (soft drugs) and a "pusher" (hard drugs like heroin, cocaine, speed, etc.). It is in fact immortalized in the Steppenwolf song The Pusher:
"You know the dealer, the dealer is a man
With the love grass in his hand
Oh but the pusher is a monster
Good God, he's not a natural man"
As it turned out, a silly distinction...
He mentions making "lids", which was the most common term for a small plastic sandwich bag of dope. It was maybe 1/2 ounce, and the common price at that time was $10 for regular stuff (not very good, really--a lot of stems and seeds). Also, at the time I took the lyric in Dylan's Subterranean Homesick Blues--basically a long whining kvetch-- where he says:
"The man in the coon-skin cap
By the big pen
Wants eleven dollar bills
You only got ten"
was to imply that the singer comes up just short of enough for a lid. The song is filled with frustrations and threats--common dope paranoia of the era, really.
“He remembers small details” because he’s a fraud
Small details is exactly what's lacking in a synthesized anecdote.
There's a part where Atkins mentions the dog at the window, another where Kasabian mentions that it going around behind the house to check (Watson's orders), there is a small drop-off as you pass between the house and the detached garage.
He could be lying or exaggerating some things but so far as being from the era and from the right milieu, he's got that much credibility. I think he is worth listening to and checking out. Time's bein' what they are, I'd never believe anything someone unknown to me tells me without multiple independent verification that's to my satisfaction.
Too, I think many here are conflating Mr. X's credibility with the interviewer's credibility. Apparently she exercises no quality control and sells the idea of having access to valuable "secret" knowledge, but, you know, even a broken clock is right twice a day...
;^)
Small details were the tell for me. Back when I used to interview people tied to the case, there was a commonality about them. That commonality was vagueness. They spoke from memory and were more often unclear about things. Often had trouble remembering basic stuff. With time, I attributed that to the fact that they were speaking from memory and not sitting around reading about the case everyday like people like us. This guy and the guy claiming to be a Straight Satan are, in my opinion, too clear to be real. My impression was that these were composite characters authored by someone who researches the case.
When I heard the other guy refer to Beausoleil as Bosley I knew that guy was a fraud
What I'm talking about is small, inconsequential details that really could be left out and not impact the story. But I speculate such a person mentions them because at the time they made an impression and linked themselves to the a
...actual event, and in that sense you recall them. Sorta like I heard about Kenndy's assassination while I was in a college placement councilors office in Nov 63. I c
...can recall that he stepped out to get some coffee, and when he came back, he finished the meeting, then said: "I just heard that President Kennedy was shot. Let's wish him well."
Stuff like that.
Now if someone asked me how did you select the college you went to, I'd likely tell them about that incident.
Same with playing sports. There were screwy little things that surrounded the main narrative that didn't matter, but are stuck in there indelibly.
...but I guess we each have our own methods for analyzing and evaluating, and they differ. For me, I believe the interviewee, Mr. X., dealt and used drugs in the mid/late 60s. He may/may not have direct contact with Manson, et al.
But I cannot see how1 he ca
...can come to the conclsuion that because asked him not to deal from the ranch, and then later he was busted, this implies that it was Manson, and because Manson himself was not hassled much (so far as he knew), Manson was some kind of intelligence asset.It simply does not follow *even if Mr X.s info was accurate--and we don't know that."
Now it could be that all of the interview was relatively accurate up to that point, and that it was that point (Manson the Spy) that the interviewer prepared for Mr. X, and gave it to him to use.
And why? One reason would be she may have paid Mr. X. but payment was contingent of him adding the stuff. Because we've got to face the fact tha
...that at this late date, there are people *still* trying to capitalize on aspects of the crime and the Manson phenomenon. He told us nothing but interesting color, but without the "added" wrinkle about maybe Manson the Spy, it was worth very little. With it, it plays to people like Starviego, who grasps at any straw whatsoever that will raise conspiratorial controversy.
...and maybe *that's* wha
...what the interviewer did in this 2 part conversation: establish that they guy may have been around, then get him to favor a conspiracy.
That part remains pretty obscure.
To All: sorry about the broken-up comments. Something about the keyboard l
...causes me to hit a keystroke combo, on this site only, that initiates send.
I will compose separately, then cut/paste in.
Again, sorry.
Mr. X's close acquaintances can probably recognize his voice. Why is he hiding his face?
What parts of his content seem false, or likely to be false, given the totality of your information about the scenario?
Not being a wiseguy, orwhut, but so far we have people who do not like trust the interviewer, and who have enountered other interviewees who were like Mr. X, not not Mr. X. himself, who seemed dishonest and likely were.
None of that has anything to do with Mr. X., himself, does it?
Outside of his *speculation* that Manson had him busted, and that Manson, himself, seemed unhassled by the police, most of what he says seems both plauible and consistent with what little I know.
That's why I'm asking: people here know a lot more detail than I do. That's why I asked about the outlaw shacks: to see if he was basically making that part up. He goes into a lot of detail about the ranch--maybe someone can spot something false?
To me, he knows a lot about soft drugs and selling soft drugs in the late 60s, and it's consistent with my peripheral personal experiences. So I'm convinced that *that* part is right, but it certainly does not mean everything is true or accurate--some may be, some may not be.
You have to break it all up an examine it in pieces and test it. E.g., he mentions the stuff about the "prejudice" about drinking--he didn't have to, to tell his story, and if he made it up, he'd get burned down by someone like me, who lived thru the era, and *knew*...
Off topic
Here's a link to several yearbook photos of family members. Some of them are new to me. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-14259731/charles-manson-family-murders-killers-yearbook-photos.html
The link above should lead to a Daily Mail article with the photos. I'd hoped the link would go directly to them but it didn't.
These videos got me watching a lot of Allegra's videos and I was impressed that there were photos of John Haught I hadn't seen and some of the others. I liked her videos about what happened to various people in the Spahn Ranch orbit, especially Bill Vance. It seemed that she has done her own original research in some of these cases and found details other people haven't. It also looks like she relies on information from others which has been disputed or discredited. I think there is some value to her work.
Know what the all-time most viewed post on this blog is? I kid you not it's this one:
https://www.mansonblog.com/2021/11/not-ready-book-review-h-allegra-lansing.html
Thanks Matt. That gives some more context of her writing and how it's viewed. I'd heard of her but didn't know anything about her. I probably won't read that book. And I'm pretty sure I missed the post.
Post a Comment