The Funk, Part One

But goddamn I am in a funk.

There, I did it. I started a post. Okay, now I just got to keep on going….

Some recent photos to take up space, make this look more substantial.

(A half hour later) I used to wake up early because I couldn’t wait to get to the Macbook and play those keys like a Steinway. Could not wait. One word followed the next like water going downhill.

(A few minutes later) Bear with me here. Please. Something is wrong. I don’t think it has anything to do with O’Neill’s book, CHAOS, from my last post. I was going to do a Part Two but then I got stuck. Okay, what happened? I got to work back and see if something happened…

…okay, as some of you know, I heard back from Tom O’Neill after sending him a link to my ‘review,’ and warning him that he’s ‘not going to like it.’ Next day I get this back:

Which was a surprise, to say the least. I know, I know, his reply could mean a couple things. It might mean he just didn’t want to deal with it and figured this would be the best way to shut me up. If this is the case, then he probably doesn’t have a come back to my review’s main thesis, i.e., that the ‘murders’ were a black op and no one (at the Tate house) actually died, plus no one went to prison. So this would be good news, in the sense that he’s ‘agreeing.’

I mean, if he really didn’t agree with me he could say, ‘You’re nuts and don’t bother me again.’ This would have the same effect (he could spam me to make sure) without the subtext that I squarely hit the nail with my observations. Why not do that? What he seems to be saying is that he knew the truth but for whatever reason could not put it in the book.

Okay. For what reason could he not put it in the book? For one, no mainstream publisher would publish it. You know, a ‘conspiracy theory.’ If this is the case, we have to ask, When did the truth occur to him? He started his ‘investigation’ in 1999, right? As I say in the essay, he had just about all the needed facts within a year or so of starting.

So why did it drag out for 20 years?

But wait; it’s more complicated than that. See, he’s telling us that the book started as a magazine assignment, for the now-defunct show biz magazine,Premiere. Got the job to do a piece about the thirtieth year anniversary of the Manson/Tate Event (my label). It’s effect on the H-wood community. Does that sound right? Yeah, okaaay.

If we do buy that, then we have him working on a three month deadline, which whizzes right by and no article is forthcoming. We’re not told if James Meigs was the original editor or not but either way he (Meigs) not only says no problem with the delays but he does so for like a year and a half, with expenses and more advances likewise not a problem. Don’t forget, this is a movie rag, not an alt media sheet that might like an exposé. So this makes no sense at all. (Unless we ask, Who was James Meigs really working for?, which we will do in a sec.)

What this is telling me is that the book was a limited hangout from the get-go. Do you agree? James Meigs is the tell. As mention last time, the guy has Mockingbird stooge written all over him. Before Premiere he was at National Geographic, which is a PTB-plus outlet. After Premiere he went to Popular Mechanics, where he was behind ‘Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories’, the mega-article, then the book of the same title. That should be enough, but if not there’s this. (I know, I’m repeating stuff from the last post, but give me a break, I’m trying to get going here.)

So O’Neill’s got a spook for an editor and is paid for an article that makes no sense for the magazine for going on two years. Meigs was the editor-in-chief, by the way, not just an editor. Now to keep paying a writer that long, knowing that no article is forthcoming, Meigs must have been under orders from higher up in the Hearst Corporation. O’Neill goes on and on about the faith Meigs had in him that all would be well, but all was not going to be well, not for a movie rag and the ‘exposé’ O’Neill was working on.

A good time to tell you: After his ‘thank you, brother!’ email, I wrote O’Neill back, asking if he could clear up what he meant by ‘thank you brother.’ His answer was a super-terse

S.O.S.

This too could mean a couple things. ‘S.O.S.’, literally speaking, means ‘Save our ship,’; it’s a distress call. It could also mean ‘Same old shit,’ which is a bit different. Same old shit as in he was working for the PTB?  Or he’s under duress and that is the same old shit. But that he replied at all seems to indicate that he’s taking me seriously, which is another nod that my stuff is truth.

Anyway, the 20 year time lag is the big tell that we’re looking at a mop up/extension of a black op. O’Neill hems and haws about how he managed rent money and so forth for all that time but the bottom line is that he must have been supported, and the lag was a matter of waiting for someone to die. See, a participator in deceit of the magnitude of Vince Bugliosi — whom O’Neill outs as a felon for suborning perjury (and a lot more unstated!) — would have, as part of his deal, the guarantee that while he’s walking around, nobody can blow the whistle on him. For anything. If you doubt that The Bug was dirty, think about his door-stop sized Reclaiming History, and what it implies.  

Possibly the same with Charlie Manson and even Terry Melcher, who was a vital aspect of ‘the motive’ and of how Manson ‘chose his victims’. (A legit Bugliosi would never have taken O’Neill to court — as he threatens in the book — given the documents/proofs O’Neill had on him.) All three named above were finally dead by pub time.

See, though, if ‘S.O.S.’ meant the first definition, O’Neill is saying that he was, and is, under the gun, and can’t tell the truth as I (and ‘MM’) do in our essays. This would fit with his first ‘thank you, brother’ missive, in that he wanted to tell the truth but couldn’t, for fear of his life. This possibility is backed up by the title to his book, which links Manson with operation chaos, which is totally, I mean 100% completely missing from the actual text.

CHAOS; Charles Manson, the CIA and a Secret History of the Sixties. Put it all together and you do have a headline-maker of a truth. But, as I say, with James Meigs his handler from the start, it’s tough to picture O’Neill as a real truther who came under threat only after the PTB figured him out.

Add Dan Piepenbring as his end-game handler and we have ourselves a well-planned op, with the motive of reminding the ragtag zeitgeist how nasty anti-establishment clowns really are.

The Bible is a great source of Mandela Effects. This is a book from the 1970s. Look at the first line. Isaiah 11:6 no longer reads like that.

And Piepenbring, the online editor for Paris Review, is really worth a close looking at. As mentioned last time, the Review is a spook magazine from the ground up; it was a disappointment to me, personally, to find out that Peter Mathiessen — a fine writer and whose book on the baymen of eastern Long Island was the inspiration behind my best screenplay (which saved my ass as a working writer) — as the founder of the magazine, was paid CIA for basically his whole writing life. Christ.

A reminder: Piepenbring’s last spook-job was apparently to oversee Prince in the writing of his memoir. Do some google searches on that, use your critical thinking, and you’ll come up with Prince going the same route as Michael Jackson, who also wanted to blow the whistle on the music biz. It’s all pretty obvious.

#

Well, fuck, at least I got started. Writing I mean. Feeling a bit better, even if the above is old news and a bit ragged. Maybe we should move on….

..this morning I was doing searches on the Mandela Effect and came across a hoot of a video, which you can view here.

This is ‘direct’ residue and a goodie. ‘Life IS like a box of chocolates.’ Add this to the screenwriter verifying it, and it’s ‘Houston, we’ve had a problem.’ (Yeah, that one changed too. Then back to what it ‘was’. Easy to get your tenses fouled up with the ME.)

That’s what they call indirect ‘residue’, i.e., an indication that someone else remembered an event in a way that is now ‘wrong.’ ‘Direct’ residue would be if someone involved in the event also remembered it wrong. Like James Earl Jones repeating that it was ‘Luke, I am your father’ on various TV interviews.

And I did find some direct Gump-residue, in the form of the screenwriter of the movie, who assures us he wrote it as ‘Life is like a box of chocolates…‘ I believe him. No good writer (and he is one) would have gotten his tenses wrong in a line like that. Not in the branch of reality I come from.

I have to tell you guys that I don’t care if the ME is ‘an embarrassment to the truth community’, or even if you think it’s either explainable or unimportant: In my view, the goddamn thing is the clearest evidence we have that reality is not what we think. 

‘..we all exist in different branches of reality, an unaccountable number of them, and all of them are real.’

From my 1986 novel, Cosmic Banditos. Nice to be so far ahead of everyone else!

Allan

I feel better, but not 100% better. (I’ll never make it back to 100%.)