Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by PufPuf93 » Fri Aug 30, 2019 1:14 pm
by Cordelia » Fri Aug 30, 2019 3:40 pm
by Wombaticus Rex » Fri Aug 30, 2019 8:34 pm
by Belligerent Savant » Sun Sep 01, 2019 5:09 pm
Wombaticus Rex » Fri Aug 30, 2019 7:34 pm wrote:A monumental shitpost that proffers many hundreds of details not in CHAOS. The fact Esalen was left out of a book that outs a CIA agent is ... interesting!
by guruilla » Thu Nov 21, 2019 2:21 pm
Now is not a good time for Roman Polanski. With somewhat grim, though also poetic, irony, this means it is a good time for me, to be sharing this new film I made, while finishing up a new book about the Hollywood superculture of organized abuse and the criminal underworld of which Polanski is just one of the more overtly guilty practitioners. (He is also the first film director I admired and emulated as a teenager, so it is perhaps inevitable he would land in my “net.”)
This is a summation of the new film’s content:Polanski’s rise to prominence in Hollywood and proximity to the underground Hollywood S & M pornography scene; the many parallels with intelligence blackmail ops such as Jeffrey Epstein; & a shocking alternate theory of the motives behind the Cielo Drive murders. Includes Charles Manson’s coded admission from 1991, and eerie parallels with Rosemary’s Baby and Polanski oeuvre: like Oscar Wilde’s Picture of Dorian Gray, the movies reveal what the idealized image of Hollywood conceals.
I did not choose the word shocking merely as click-bait; this truly is shocking to me, because for so many years I have admired Polanski, considered him a beguiling, fascinating, and charismatic “genius.” So it has been very hard for me to believe he could be involved in something that is easily as malevolent and destructive as anything depicted in his movies.
But awakening is never easy, and part of it does seem to require, for me at least, a disorienting period of transition, from unconsciousness to consciousness, during which the dream starts to turn to nightmare.
I am aware that this material will be disturbing, and even horrific, to some; it is really meant to be, not because I want to imitate Polanski and horrify people with my “art,” but because there are aspects of this case (the Cielo Drive murders & the Manson Family), even now, with the new (insider?) counter-myth of Chaos and the (definitely insider) doubling down of Tarantino’s Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, that are being kept off the table & so preventing us from making sense of the grisly spectacle. So it behooves (some of) us to look again, and look more closely.
They say that the brain cannot file away an experience if it contains serious anomalies, like a tongue that keeps going back to the sore tooth and aggravating the infection. We are captured not only by the horror, but also by the glamour that conceals it, and the combination of the two is what traps us in endless reruns and remakes.
If only the truth sets us free, this is my attempt, forty years after my Polanski infatuation-fascination was first seeded by the images he projected into my soul, to make sense of this picture, and turn away from the screen.
by Wombaticus Rex » Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:13 pm
My attempts to correspond with Tom O'Neill have not reassured me that he's a good guy: arrogant, standoffish, rude and unengaged;
What I wonder is if maybe O'Neill is pitting himself against Bugliosi, the real villain of Chaos, thereby presenting himself as the new dogged folk hero, an energetic journalist devoting 20 years of his life to getting to the truth? And if there is an agenda, now the old narrative is in tatters, to at least co opt and profit from the new (paranoid-friendly) narrative?
by guruilla » Thu Nov 21, 2019 4:10 pm
Wombaticus Rex » Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:13 pm wrote:My attempts to correspond with Tom O'Neill have not reassured me that he's a good guy: arrogant, standoffish, rude and unengaged;
Is your rubric for "good guy" really just a matter of who makes time for your emails, though? That man has a whole-ass adult life, same as any of us here.
It's not evidence, admittedly, but it at least suggests he's not open to new perspectives; maybe he feels done with the whole thing, but then I don't suppose he minds raking in the cash from Amazon. I think he has a responsibility to be open to other researchers. I found it esp. odd, because he did "William Ramsey Investigates," an equally small podcast as Liminalist, but then was dancing around my attempts to connect as if it was beneath him.Then again, that's hardly a bad thing in a forest this dark.
A big part of the problem here is just "Writers," period -- a neurotic and insecure lot. I think your own works benefit from accepting that and being upfront about how intimately important your research is. Those who purport to be reporters fare far worse, in general.
by semper occultus » Sat Nov 23, 2019 10:00 pm
by cptmarginal » Sun Nov 24, 2019 5:04 pm
Louis Jolyon West seems to have used chemicals and hypnosis liberally in his medical practice, possibly leading to the death of a child and the execution of an innocent man.
Dr. Louis Jolyon West in San Francisco, Calif., in 1976. Photo: Lawrence Schiller/Polaris Communications/Getty Images
by Elvis » Sun Nov 24, 2019 7:57 pm
cptmarginal » Sun Nov 24, 2019 2:04 pm wrote:Today in the Omidyar Post (aka The Intercept)
Inside the Archive of an LSD Researcher With Ties to the CIA’s MKUltra Mind Control Project - by Tom O’Neill, Dan Piepenbring (November 24 2019)Louis Jolyon West seems to have used chemicals and hypnosis liberally in his medical practice, possibly leading to the death of a child and the execution of an innocent man.
Dr. Louis Jolyon West in San Francisco, Calif., in 1976. Photo: Lawrence Schiller/Polaris Communications/Getty Images
by cptmarginal » Sun Nov 24, 2019 10:00 pm
Elvis wrote:Thanks. Go to 45:50 in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCU2MCxjAJ0
Dr. Brown believes that Joly West is most likely the psychiatrist who programmed Sirhan.
Then, if you haven't seen it, watch the whole video. It needs to be seen far and wide. I have a hard time getting the most avid researchers I know to invest the hour. Just do it!
guruilla wrote:
by Elvis » Sun Nov 24, 2019 11:16 pm
cptmarginal wrote:Of major import to me regarding "Jolly" West, though of course totally unmentioned by the likes of The Intercept, was his presence on the FMSF advisory board.
by guruilla » Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:05 pm
by FourthBase » Sat Dec 21, 2019 9:37 pm
by Belligerent Savant » Sun Dec 22, 2019 11:28 pm
guruilla » Sat Dec 21, 2019 7:05 pm wrote:By a weird chain of events (short version, someone left a weird comment at this guy's blog using my email address), I found this article recently: https://blog.banditobooks.com/this-star ... ok-review/
It's a "review" O'Neill's book that turns into a sustained argument that O'Neill is "dirty," with links to Mockingbird, and that the Tate/Sebring/Frykowksi murders were staged. He draws on Miles Matthis while simultaneously acknowledging that MM is a front for spookery. Allan Weisbecker is also a "no-planer," which I guess makes him by definition either kook-or-spook at RI, or once did. He also apparently wrote a book now being developed into a film by John Cusack.
Despite all these warning signs, I found the piece of merit and it definitely gave me a better idea of the flaws in Chaos & of O'Neill's dodginess. I'd be interested in other people's impressions, and whether Allan Weisbecker has come up before in this place, as I am divided roughly down the middle about him.
Belligerent Savant » Sun Sep 01, 2019 4:09 pm wrote:Wombaticus Rex » Fri Aug 30, 2019 7:34 pm wrote:A monumental shitpost that proffers many hundreds of details not in CHAOS. The fact Esalen was left out of a book that outs a CIA agent is ... interesting!
"Interesting", meaning it was purposely left out (i.e. the book may be a limited hangout), or simply an inadvertent, albeit unusual omission (given the breadth of the book, though the author apparently does indicate in his closing that numerous volumes can/may follow, suggesting there were portions left out)?
I understand this is mere speculation on your part, of course, but curious as to your learned take.
[the above bit in blue was a strike-through when initially posted further up]
On 2nd thought, disregard my ask. Largely rhetorical.
...I’m going to blurt my main conclusions right up front. This way, as you read (and view the images) you can better catch my drift:
Charles Manson was a deep cover CIA operative with his parole officer as handler. Given the evidence that Manson was a ‘lifetime actor’, there is nothing about the man or his background that can be taken as literal truth.
The Manson/Tate Event (henceforth referred to as ‘The Event’) was a black op run by CIA’s Operation CHAOS, with the cooperation of the FBI’s COINTELPRO, plus various law enforcement offices, mainly the L.A.P.D. and L.A.S.O. (sheriff’s office), plus several federal agencies. The members of the ‘Manson Family’ who were convicted of the crimes were likewise part of the op from the very beginning. Which lesser Family members were privy to the op, and which were useful idiots, is unclear.
The ‘murders’ on August 9 (technically, the night of the 8th) at 10050 Cielo Drive in Los Angeles were a fabrication, with the possible exception of Steven Parent, who most likely was actually murdered. (He may have stumbled onto the scene while evidence was being planted and had to be eliminated.)
The LaBianca murders of August 10 were real, carried out by a black ops team, which made it look like another crime by the Family.
Other murders – that of Gary Hinman being one example – may or may not have been part of ‘the script,’ and fabricated. There was a lot of ‘improvisation’ by the participants in The Event, including by the various ‘legal’ and governmental ‘actors,’ but especially by the Family members, who, predictably, given the times and the nature of the op, often went ‘off script’.
The trial was scripted from start to finish, with Vincent Bugliosi being the principal ‘on the ground’ planner of the manson ‘legalities’. Various judges, parole officers, and other bureaucrats, plus of course law enforcement personnel, were to some extent knowing participants, although, like all black ops, everything about The Event was highly compartmentalized.
Given that the ‘celebrity’ murders were fabricated by an ensemble of actors, no one actually went to prison (not counting a few days in local jails by the major players). Most of the evidence of this will be sprinkled throughout this essay in the form of photos and videos indicating fabricated jail terms. Obviously, ‘records’ in whatever form, are meaningless in a situation like this. (Other evidence of this will be included in Part Two, if I decide to press on.)
As mentioned above, this essay is aimed at a savvy readership, one that has already come to the conclusion that we are being lied to about… well, let’s start with the term ‘a lot’ and work our way up the deceit-scale towards ‘everything’.
Regarding the term ‘spook’: I herein use it as a loose reference to any knowing participant in the op, however unspecific and/or misleading that knowledge may be. The line between spook and useful idiot is often blurry. There are ‘spooks’ as in formally trained black ops agents (‘Jack Bauer’ types as seen in various movies/TV shows) – Sharon’s Tate’s father, Paul Tate being one relevant example (a colonel in ONI, Navy Intelligence) – and there are those playing roles, either ‘official’, as in a ‘government official’ such as prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi or Roger Smith, Manson’s ‘parole officer’ (among his other ‘duties’), or unofficial, such as the major Manson followers, especially those accused of the crimes and who ‘went to prison’ as a result.
Given it would take a book to properly describe Operation CHAOS, I’ll just paraphrase O’Neill’s brief description of it as an illegal CIA operation, in conjunction with the FBI’s COINTELPRO, meant to discredit/destroy the anti-war and hippie movements, no matter what it takes. (Their emphasis)
Finally, I would alert the reader to the multi-purposefulness of this essay. Although it started as a book review, if a not-so-simple one, it grew in the telling to a deep-dive multi-leveled investigation, not only on the nature of The Event, but as an exposé of the media resources that are behind the falsification or outright creation of ‘history’, the author of the book in question, Tom O’Neill, being one such resource.
That I use an outside resource (the persona known as ‘Miles Mathis’ [MM] more below) that I will brand as a part of the apparatus I seek to expose is a clear sign that as a culture we have descended into the depths of a mind control morass that even Orwell could not have imagined.
Also be advised that in order to comprehend The Event’s scale and complexity the reader will need to get through this rather lengthy essay plus the even longer one by MM. Ironically (and there is plenty more irony to come), for a complete picture it is not absolutely necessary to read the O’Neill book (I don’t wish to promote it any way), which we will delve into now, starting with my initial impression of it before this investigation began in earnest…
According to O’Neill, at least a dozen major players fingered Witson as CIA, including prestigious and super-connected L.A. attorney Neil Cummings, who could not have been more clear about Witson-as-CIA, even verifying other testimonies that Witson had visited the crime scene before the police arrived. This revelation alone – and it is backed up – should have led O’Neill down the ‘maybe CHAOS did it’ path, but O’Neill’s aversion to ‘conspiracy theories’ stopped him in his tracks at every turn.
Addendum: An O’Neill line that elicited an audible growl from yours truly was this one: ‘I’ve never been into conspiracies.’ (Words to this effect appear in every section of the book.) I’ve tried, and have not come up with a dumber statement that any ‘journalist’ could make. In case Tom O’Neill is reading this, I have news for him: With the exception of spur-of-the-moment crimes and those involving just one person, every crime ever committed involves a ‘conspiracy,’ with only the rarest of exceptions.
O’Neill also uses the term ‘conspiracy theory’ quite a lot, conflating it with ‘tinfoil hat wearers’ and ‘nutcases.’ In his twenty years of research into a crime that by anyone’s definition (no matter your conclusion) is a ‘conspiracy’, one has to wonder if O’Neill somehow missed the derivation of the term ‘conspiracy theory’ as he so often uses it.
...
I found it interesting to analyze a book via its audio version. I’d let it play in the background while going about my day or even while writing this essay, and found myself yelling ‘Shadap!’ each time the narrator droned on with words to the effect that Tom O’Neill didn’t want to deal with evidence that pointed at, or screamed, that there’s a conspiracy afoot!, no matter how obvious or oft-repeated or multi-leveled the evidence was.
And no matter how many times I went through the 16 hours of CHAOS I always seemed to find something that told me that the book is… and I’ll use the word repeated by O’Neill regarding the ‘official story’ of The Event: ‘Smelly.’
But back to Reeve Witson! I’d bet a valued possession that Witson ran this op (with Sharon’s spook-dad, Paul Tate, as second in command). But O’Neill just flat… does not know who Witson was (he died in 1994)! It’s truly, utterly, incredible that O’Neill leaves us with a ‘I don’t know who he is’ bottom line verdict on the ûber-spook Reeve Witson.
...
That O’Neill never connects Witson’s foreknowledge of the crime to the many testimonies (some by police detectives) that Manson and Witson together buggered the crime scene evidence before the cops got there, tells us more about Tom O’Neill than anyone else. How could an ‘obsessive’ researcher not understand that these two tidbits reinforce each other?
Regarding the most significant, or at least the most public single ‘official’ player in the farce, and the slimiest: Vince Bugliosi denied to O’Neill knowing Witson, in spite of multiple players who testified to seeing them together on multiple occasions. (Bugliosi shoots himself in the foot on this, since he testified under oath that Witson had brought him Hatami as a witness, and was there for Hatami’s interrogation.)
So I’ll ask a question that O’Neill leaves hanging: Why would the legal big shot in The Event deny knowing someone else we know was heavily involved, with foreknowledge of the crime? This in fact would be a pattern with Bugliosi, at the trial and in his book, Helter Skelter. Both instinctively and for good reason, Bugliosi would avoid even mentioning fellow black op spooks, other than those with whom he had no choice, such as the ‘perpetrators’ in The Event. Aside from Witson, spooks like Manson’s ‘parole officer,’ Roger Smith, conspicuous in his absence at the trial and in Helter Skelter.
...
did you know that Tom’s first editor on the CHAOS project was/is a Mockingbird operative of the first magnitude? A scumbag who produced a major magazine piece and a book ‘Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories’?
And did you know that Tom’s co-author works for a magazine (in the important post of online editor) that even Wikipedia brands a major CIA asset?
One last goddamn addendum: Being a book writer myself, I have a bunch of questions for Tom O’Neill, but the big one is why he needed a co-author (Dan Piepenbring), as opposed to an editor. I mean here we have this well-respected, longtime magazine writer spending 20 years writing a book, then, somehow, he needs a co-author? And why, given all the constant whining and supposed self-reflecting in the book, is this co-author never mentioned? (His first editor, the Mockingbird spook James Miegs, is often mentioned as the guy who kept O’Neill afloat financially for several years in the beginning: again, ‘handler’ ring a bell? By the way, if you need proof of Meigs’s-as-spook/mole, check out this debate on 9/11.)
Another question is whether O’Neill knew about his co-author’s last assignment, which was to ghost write a memoir by the rock star Prince, who was threatening to put in his book the real history of the music business, but suddenly died of mysterious causes; so the co-author, O’Neill’s co-author, not only finished the ‘memoir’ but put his own name on it as the sole author. If this sounds familiar you’re probably thinking of Michael Jackson, who died in a similar manner after making the same threat to write about the music biz.
Allan Weisbecker
December 20, 2019 at 5:53 pm
Interesting news. Recall I said I sent the essay to O’Neill? In my email I warned him that he ‘wasn’t going to like it.’ I got this back:
On Thursday, December 19, 2019, 04:01:39 PM MST, Tom Oneill wrote:
“Not going to like it”?! You kidding? I LOVED it! Thank you, brother!"
Holy shit! I was thinking. I then wrote asking if he’d like to do a Q and A, etc. but haven’t heard back.
I’d like your takes on his reaction but one is that with his title he really was trying to tell the truth but could not do so in the text because of his overseers. Or the pub biz, but I think the PTB repped by Meigs and Pieperbring are more important.
However, no matter what, the subtext of his reply is that I am 100% right with the essay.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests
