There was a logic to nobody. A good deal of it was due to the shedding of things: from the warehouse workshop/apartment, to the selling of the machinery, the motorcycles, the furniture - to living out of a suitcase in Japan, China, and Italy, and finally to the old man's shoebox apartment in tourist town. Was that really ten years of living out of a suitcase? Unbelievable.
And through it all, the shedding of friends. So many people who don't want to talk to me anymore - too much of that crazy conspiracy talk. My favourite Jim Jarmusch movie, Dead Man, made more and more sense.
Once they realised who I was the stories of my adventures angered them. They called me a liar. Exaybachay. He who talks loud, saying nothing. They ridiculed me. My own people. And I was left to wander the earth alone. I am nobody.
Melodramatic sense but whatever. Everyone gets it I'm sure. Not forgetting the old chestnut: if you're going to steal an idea (or a name, ha ha), make sure it's a good one.
And so I barely existed. At least in the sense of interaction with anyone in the real world. With the old man so sick and mad there was no hospitality to be offered - no visitors, no friends, no sensible conversation. But it's alright, you get used to it.
Thus un-named I became a voice in the ether divorced from the real world. And I liked that. When I'd been in the real world my presence had been acceptable but my voice hadn't. And so I flipped it. Freed from the constraints of the real world I could be nothing but the voice. My name was gone, my identity, my physical appearance - all as nothing, what did it matter?
I was a non-sectarian Banquo's ghost free to take on a world of Macbeths. I could say what I wanted and be untouchable. I was a ghostly un-psychopath. With psychopaths being all about their five senses, their bellies, and their cocks and cunts (with their thoughts unspeakable apart from lies) I was the other way around - nowt but thoughts and wondering, with the physicality neither here nor there.
Well, that was the theory. The real world never goes away and there are always people and they'd ask me about my blog. I'd refuse to tell them. I figured having people know would be like crossing the streams in Ghostbusters.
"There's something very important I forgot to tell you." "What?" "Don't cross the streams." "Why?" "It would be bad." "I'm fuzzy on the whole 'good/bad' thing. What do you mean, 'bad'?" "Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously, and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light."
Did somebody say 'melodramatic' before? Oh, it was me. Still it would be bad. Sure enough, what with me being pissweak I didn't stick to it. I told some friends, maybe half a dozen, no biggie but I always regretted it. It meant I wasn't truly free - not if I wanted to write without fear or favour. It was a sullying of the nobody concept.
Up until now this was just a niggle at the back of my brain. It didn't really check anything I wrote and nor did any of these people blow the gaff by lobbing in and turning the house lights up. Regardless, it was a carelessness that was bound to come a cropper sooner or later.
And it did. The inevitable occurred and the streams crossed. But rather than an explosion the opposite occurred. The voice of nobody is now merely me, same as I ever was, tied to the real world and its nagging concerns. For the logic / idea / concept that was nobody this qualifies as a fundamental, existential failure. Without this separation from the world, nobody is nothing.
But it's no big deal. The thing is, nobody was nothing. It wasn't real - it was just a thought, a wisp of smoke, a thing without substance. I have nothing invested in it. Why would one invest oneself in something that was only ever a figment of one's imagination, a name pinched from a movie? A fig for the figment, ha ha. It's not me and I'm not it. Not really.
And so for me the gig is blown and I walk away. Time to start again. This is not a crash and burn - no Sargeant's Inn, me. I'll leave everything standing just as it was. I have no problem with any of it. And let no one be confused about me fleeing something I wrote - I'm doing no such thing. I stand by everything I said and to prove it I'm leaving it all here. Me, I'm proud of whatever this was, this experiment, this art installation, this place. I liked it here and I shall miss it. But we've all moved house and we all know that feeling. You get over it.
I expect that there will be people unhappy about this. I apologise to them. I never wished to make anyone unhappy - except for the Macbeths, ha ha - it just is what it is. And speaking of which, I also expect that there will be people who are exultant. Three cheers and what does it matter?
There will be a new thing but I've no idea what it will be or what I will call it. Sure enough, it will not link to here. If anyone wishes to find it I can offer you no assistance. The idea of starting again necessarily precludes it. Were I tell everyone, the slate would not be clean and the experiment would be as doomed as this one was.
So, off I go now. Thanks boys and girls, you've all been brilliant. All my love to you, and you never know, maybe I'll see you again sometime in the funny pages.
Just lately I had a fellow in my comments section who wanted to tell me I ought not to trust Dave McGowan because he refuses to acknowledge the banking/zionist arm of the twin pillar death cult. Actually, to be honest he didn't use those terms - that's just me. In fact I suspect that he'd be of the opinion that the PTB are entirely Jewish and that there is no second pillar.
To a certain extent I can understand this what with it having been my position back when I took my cues from WRH and Smoking Mirrors, which is to say before I discovered McGowan. But I've broadened my horizon since then. Now I hold to the view that there are two sides to the death cult. Actually, now that I think about it, they're more like two snakes intertwined, with each declaring the other the villain and all the while ignoring their own serpentine nature.
And in amongst a reverie about the it's-the-zionists crowd who hush up all talk of an MKULTRA satanist pedophocracy, and the it's-the-MKULTRA-satanist-pedophocracy crowd who don't want to hear about Jews, banking, and zionism, I had a flashback to me wondering at you as the former. And I thought about how nothing came of that. Everyone ignored it and we all went on like nothing had happened.
I realised that this was probably because I'd written it in such a way that I'd effectively addressed my thoughts to the ether. And the ether sure enough felt no need to reply. So it occurred to me that what I should have done was to simply ask you directly. Okay, so here I am asking you directly:
- Given your near perfect resemblance to what I'll call the McGowan template ie: the military childhood; the violent abuse throughout it; your own time in the military, in jail, in psych wards; the pharmacopoeia of drugs; your proximity to other spooky Laurel Canyon characters; your resemblance to such musically; your assertions of supernatural abilities; and the fact that your blogs come as close as blogs possibly could to resembling the guru/follower vibe perpetually present in all those other MKULTRA end-of-the-world cults,
- Given your solid association with Mike Rivero who not only completely (and impossibly) ignores the concrete reality of the pedophocracy, but has actually stepped well into the territory of pedophocracy disinfo, so much so that under the rubric of 'if you got the game you may as well have the name', that I call him on it,
- Given your own complete and tireless focus on the Jewish half of the twin pillar death cult, to the near complete exclusion of the satanist / MKULTRA / pedophocracy wing, all the while without apparently having to take a break to earn a living,
-Given your devotion to, and promotion of, the occult and all that quasi-satanist, kabbalistic, Blavatsky-esqe gear that so perpetually features throughout Laurel Canyon, the pedophocracy, and numerous MKULTRA autobiographies like Brice Taylor's etc,
And finally - Given the fact that MKULTRA subjects don't know that they're MKULTRA subjects, here's the question -
How do you know you're not an MKULTRA subject?
Have you ever asked yourself that? I would if I was you. I'd have to - I couldn't not do it. This is not an attack. It's a fair question. And I ask it with a straight face and unblinking.
MKULTRA exists. MKULTRA subjects exist. And they resemble no one so much as you. How do you know you're not an MKULTRA subject?
Doug and Dave, eh? What are we to make of these two? They're the chaps who lobbed up in 1991 and not only said that they'd invented crop circles but had in fact done them all. To be honest I can find no glaring holes in their story, at least not of the stand-up-in-court variety. But nor can I find anything that makes any sense either.
The story was that these two blokes, Doug Bower and Dave Chorley, had been sitting in a pub one evening and, what with Doug having lived in Australia and being familiar with 'saucer nests' (that appeared in Tully, Queensland in the mid sixties), thought it would be rather jolly if they did something similar. And off they went.
It certainly must have been very, very jolly because they went on to do it hundreds of times for the next thirteen years. They did it right up to the point where they realised that there was money in the caper and that they weren't making any and how dare anyone else. That's why they went on the media and effectively announced their retirement. Curiously in spite of being driven to take credit for the whole thing on account of others making money, at no point did they ever try to make any themselves. No books, no t-shirts, no nothing.
Astoundingly the otherwise hard-bitten hacks of Fleet Street who reported the whole thing never so much as cocked an eyebrow at two jumped up Johnnies who were unambiguously declaring themselves as hoaxers. Madly, between the two possibilities of a hoax involving: a telephone call and five minute demonstration; and a hoax involving thirteen years of anonymous, unrecompensed labour for no clear purpose, the hacks gave no thought to the former.
Never mind me being surprised last week that no one on QI was interested in the question 'why', it seems that when it comes to crop circles this failure to ask obvious questions is as traditionally English as thrashing fags. Almost no one asked the question and those that did, did so in a very cursory fashion, which is to say, any answer would do.
Apparently Doug Bower was appointed main spokesman. Dave Chorley's gig it seems was to smoke cigarettes and glower (presumably at the stupidity of all the people who fell for their trick - but more on Dave later). This is pretty typical of Doug's answers to the unasked question of why did they do it:
"I said why don't we put a circular depression in this corn field the same as they had out in Australia. I said the UFO society out here, which was at its height at the time, Warminster especially, I said that they will probably think that it is a UFO that had landed."
And I don't know... that's not so terrible is it? I'm prepared to buy it. It sort of reminds me of us as a bunch of uni students drunk at a party one time and coming up with the brilliant and very jolly idea of stealing the garden gnome from across the road. The only problem was that the owner of the gnome had somehow attached it to a square metre of concrete slab that was buried underground. So there we were drunk and gnomeless standing in the by now destroyed garden as various house lights came on. Run away! Run away!
But now that I think about it, I don't recall us doing that a dozen, two dozen, three dozen times a year, for thirteen years. Once is fair enough, maybe even two or three times, but beyond that you'd really have to wonder at someone wouldn't you?
Thankfully Dave Chorley, on one of the two occasions where he actually spoke, sort of addressed the 'why' in terms of doing it more than once (sensibly avoiding the phrase 'hundreds of times'):
"And when you get in one of these fields at midnight, or two in the morning, we would rather, I'd rather be out in one of these fields than a week away in the South of France or something. Anyone that's not been out in one at midnight in the English countryside with the moon up, and you're doing that, and a few beers and a couple of cheese rolls - Absolutely wonderful. Absolutely wonderful."
It's poor of me I know but I think a perfectly reasonable reply to this assertion would be 'You're joking surely? You'd rather be crashing about in a field in the pitch dark than spending a week in the South of France?' Perhaps the journo he said it to was deterred by his somewhat aggressive if-you-haven't-done-it-you-can't-comment gambit? Who knows?
Yours truly falls asleep and dreams of a spiffing new game show...
"Okay Janet, you've already won a week in the South of France but how'd you like to trade up to A 2am walk through a field in Hampshire in the pitch dark with a pint and a cheese roll!!! " "Gosh Simon, that does sound tempting... I, er... sorry, did you say 2am in a field in Hampshire? With a pint and cheese roll? Are you mad?"
But our Dave wasn't mad. He was English! And proud of it. Why shouldn't a man love his country at two o'clock in the morning? And like the best sort of mad Englishmen nor were he and Doug to be deterred by a complete and utter lack of success for the first two years (or three, it depends on who's talking). Here's Dave again in a really curious telephone interview that he did with a Canadian radio station late in 1991:
"We did this for two years... and nothing came of it. So we decided then, that what we'll be doing, is putting them down in sites right under the view of the general public."
Wow. Talk about undeterred! They did it for two years and no one noticed? Sorry, but wasn't that the point of the exercise? To trick UFO people? For over two years they went out week after week, with dozens of repetitions, before they realised that maybe they were doing it wrong?
Ha ha ha ha, never mind shake my head, I just have to laugh out loud. Here we have Doug and Dave as a magic act that never advertises and only performs in empty halls. Or something. Most people would be disheartened after the first, second, third, fourth, fifth effort - hell, pick a number - but not Doug and Dave. I doubt that there's anyone in the history of Mad Persistence in the Face of Constant Failure who could even come close to them. Except Charlie Brown perhaps, with the old snatch-the-football gag. Mind you he was six years old. And fictional.
In their TV appearances it's perfectly evident that neither of them are stupid, but to repeat an exercise dozens of times for two years for zero results speaks of what? Some kind of mental retardation? And Murdoch's hard bitten hacks bought this and thought nothing of it did they? Yeah right.
Mind you, Doug and Dave were 'artists'. And as we all know, artists do things for 'art's sake', which is to say 'the hell of it'. They care not a whit if anyone pays them any attention or not. Ha ha ha, good joke! But let's carry on. What kind of artists were these two? Water-colourists or so they say. Whilst I admit that this story predates the internet, in spite of a dozens of searches involving every possible permutation of their names +art +artwork +painting +water-colour +gallery +exhibition +catalogue I couldn't find a single thing apart from one painting that I suspect is by Doug Bower. It sold for £20 and it probably only got that on account of his fame for crop circles. Whatever, we'll declare them both amateurs.
I'll admit that the absence of their art is no killer blow argumentatively but I bring it up because both Doug and Dave mentioned it, and they did so in what I would declare a very curious fashion.
Doug - "we used to go out on Friday evenings, to have a drink in the pub and talk about paintings."
Doug - "and we used to go and venture out on Friday evenings and have a chat about watercolours and things and have a pint of beer."
Dave - "So we were out one night and we discussed, whatever, about watercolor painting, and having a beer together."
I don't know if that's worth mentioning but I just can't help feeling that the constant superfluous mentions of what they talked about rings a false note. Would one ring the other and say, "Hey, let's go down the pub and talk about painting"? Why would you mention it? Keep in mind this wasn't a single event pivoting on a single germane topic - the topic wasn't painting, it was crop circles, and the event was a weekly Friday night usual. To me, these repeated mentions smell of rehearsal. It reminds me of those extraneous facts that bullshit artists throw into a story to make it more believable. Or so they imagine. But whatever! I just wanted to mention the art because it kicks in big time in the next piece.
But why don't I wrap up with another really curious exchange from Dave's Canadian interview:
Interviewer - "How do we know, Mr. Chorley, that your are not hoaxing us now about the hoax?"
David Chorley - "You don't know, do you?"
Interview - "No I don't."
David Chorley: "You don't know."
Interviewer - (laughter)
David Chorley - "You don't know!"
Is it just me, or does he sound exultant there? It's as if he knows he has one over the interviewer and he doesn't even need to bother with any window dressing. Safe in the knowledge that no one can disprove him, rather than protest his innocence, or declare that there are photos, or witnesses, or any other to-be-expected thing, he instead crows at the perforce ignorance of the mug at the other end. He reminds me of no one so much as a spook.
* One last thing. In 1993, Doug Bower gave a talk at the Nafferton Hall in Marlborough so that he might put paid to the criticisms of crop circle believers. Never mind Dave Chorley's absence, nor the fact that it was run by a fellow named Ken Brown who did a very fine impression of a handler, the extraordinary thing is that it featured a display of never before seen photos of Doug and Dave actually making the crop circles. Apparently they were quite convincing. One wonders why they weren't produced the first time round. Still, they exist now but astoundingly (given the insane interest crop circles garner on the net) are nowhere to be found in google.
Or is this one? Are they making a crop circle? Where are they? Does it predate 1993? And who took the picture? And why wasn't this person offered as a witness as to their veracity? As Dave himself said, You don't know, do you?
Hmm... crop circles, eh? They were something I never bothered pursuing. Certainly they were curious but nothing I saw or read about them ever gave me pause. Maybe they were real, maybe they were fake - who knew? Thus I'd filed them under the category 'things about which I have no opinion'. And then QI lobbed up.
I hereby confess to being an absolute QI tragic. I've downloaded every single ep (nine seasons' worth) and have watched them all at least twice. For those who don't know, QI stands for Quite Interesting and is an English post-modernist quiz show hosted by Stephen Fry. It's post modernist insofar as: no one gives a bugger if you get the right answer; the scoring system is by way of I Ching; and the only thing that counts is being funny. With Fry at the helm, it's all very English Public school, which is to say lots of classical references to Pliny the Elder, Euclid, Linnaeus etc. and all of it interspersed with more lavatory humour than you could poke a toilet brush at. I don't know about proper intellectuals but for smutty-minded pseudo-intellectuals like yours truly it is the only show worth watching.
But adoration aside, this is the BBC we're talking about and what with QI's insane popularity there's no way it was ever going to be left alone as a mechanism for propaganda. Thankfully they keep it to a minimum but every now and then it goes into overdrive, and its Hoax episode in season eight was a perfect case in point. I'll skip their flings at Apollo loonies apart from saying that between footprints and flapping flags, and the fact that NASA lost: all the plans of Saturn V; all the telemetry records; all the astronauts' biofeedback records; as well as all the original footage, we got the f-words. I'd have thought that the absurd and otherwise impossible loss of all historical data from mankind's single greatest moment was Quite Interesting. But at Auntie's animal farm some animals are more Quite Interesting than others it seems.
But never mind, hardly surprising really. Somewhat more curious was their treatment of crop circles, or more specifically the three blokes who allegedly make them all. What with having been commissioned to make a crop circle of the QI logo they were brought in so that Stephen Fry could ask them to enlighten us all.
Fry - Can you tell me how you did yours? Without giving away too many trade secrets. What's the most technological item you need?
Bloke - We need something called a stalk stomper, which is a plank of wood and a loop of rope that you put under your foot to flatten the crop. And to actually mark out the design you use a surveyors' tape so it's very, very, kind of simple techniques and very simple tools.
That may not seem too radical but I thought the use of the words 'trade secrets' curious, particularly in light of the obviousness of the answer. But we'll let it pass and likewise the idea of 'simple techniques and simple tools'. I'll be breaking this up into several pieces and come back at it later. They go on:
Fry - So how many do you do a year, in the season?
Bloke - We don't say how many we make but we've made hundreds over the years that we've been doing it.
Fry - And do people, are there still people who believe, who refuse to believe that it's all hoaxers like you?
Bloke - Absolutely...
...as the panel takes it sideways into inanity with Fry finally bringing it back to the topic of thanking the blokes for coming, with the audience giving them a big round of applause. Hurray.
Nowhere in amongst this was the obvious question, why? Why, do these blokes do this? What's the point? Week after week, year after year (!), these three go and spend all night crashing about in complete darkness to make an endless series of what are essentially glorified geometric doodles.
And there's Sean Lock on the panel, who's funny in spite of being a nasty piece of work, and for whom 'get a life' is never far from the tip of his tongue, and he just sits there schtum. Hmm... okay, so why don't I write his lines for him?
"Yeah, boys, you ever heard of Spirograph? Yeah? I had one when I was ten but somewhere along the line I'm not sure what happened but... I got over it. But not you blokes! You're the only guys I ever heard of who embraced it all the way through to adulthood. Have you ever thought of, I don't know... getting a life?"
But seriously though, huh?! Me, I'm speechless. As far as I'm concerned the three of them may as well have just stood up and declared, 'We don't make a lick of sense'. In Urdu! Morris dancing makes more sense than this. And you'd get laid more often. Okay so, seriously - who are these guys?
Bear with me for a second here as I take a detour with the wrong blokes. This came about by way of me missing the spokes-bloke's name during the show and instead looking it up at the episode's wikipedia entry. There, (and you can't blame me for being confused) our three chaps aren't mentioned but two others are, they being Doug Bower and Dave Chorley. So off I go to hunt down the wrong people. But, as luck would have it the legendary Doug and Dave were exactly the chaps I was looking for - I just didn't know it yet.
This is a longish piece and so I'm going to split it into several parts. Next up, Doug and Dave and another truckload of 'Huh?' And following that, don't worry - I'll be coming back to the right bloke as it were, Doug and Dave's annointed successor, one John Lundberg, next. I swear it just gets weirder.
Bursting. I am bursting. My heart is bursting. It overwhelms me. The energy coursing out of me will not stop. An invisible sun, it burns without heat. Too intense to stand and yet impossible to look away from. A burnt out retina for a revelling mind's eye.
The dazzling light of God - a burden, a joy, a happy strait jacket. I cannot share it with anyone, not without babbling like an idiot. And God knows I've babbled enough already. And still it pours out of me.
So I focus it back inwards upon itself, doubling and redoubling, an infinite equation. It cannot be contained but nor need it be. The sun upon itself remaining in the sky not falling. I stare but no harm befalls me.
A thousand possibilities fill my head. But in the face of this light, burning without sound, all things are put in their place. The discoverer, awe-struck at the fusion star that he holds in a magnetic field, thinks nothing of the weather. This is Shiva in a bottle - death and creation both. The best of all impossible worlds.
And what would that fellow say to mortal men? Is conversation even possible with that silent white-noise roar filling your ears? People's lips move and sound comes out but what's the point? I smile and nod. Does it matter what I say? I give them riddles and absurdities. Confused, they leave me alone to close my eyes and behold the silent sun.
It will kill me of course, but only if I become distracted. Around me life goes on. But nothing will be the same again. With such potentiality everything understood must be looked at anew. New eyes for the horizon - an horizon that meets itself again, a single thing without beginning or end.
And so I head towards it. Pick a point, any point, they all bring that future closer. A white light burning within.
There is nothing I can ask you. And nothing you can tell me. Not without we were face to face, and then I could only kiss you. And lose myself of course.
My fall will be my own. Certainly you will push me. Cruel and beatific as I, like some flightless rail, panic and wonder at all those before me winged by evolution. Or were they? How the fuck did they do that?
The bottom is nowhere in sight. This fall is to be epic. Makes the Holy Grail look like a comedy. Look at that mad creature, flailing about - flip flap flop. You thrill at the prospect.
A gold top mushroom at my feet. You guide me as I trip. The ageing neophyte and the neonate sage. Hold my hand. As I fall into the abyss.
The only thing that's real is 15,000 kilometres. A flick of your wrist, and my face wreathed in smiles. Time and space are nothing. Golden eyes gleam at me through the smoke that's left behind.
It's the devil. Hold still while I paint horns on you. Is this a mirror I see before me? I kill the Medusa and hear laughter. Silly boy, you were looking at yourself.
Who are you? Don't you know I'm nobody? And that none of this is real? Not you, not me? I really am nobody - a ghost in a crowded street. Falling, unnoticed. Is that the gutter? Oh, I hope so. Here's to seeing stars.
Cairo, Egypt: Police were called when a man attempted to attack the Sphinx with a stick. Fortunately no harm was done as the man knocked himself unconscious with the first blow. Attending paramedics laughed their arses off.
Hey Gorgeous. I'm digging an inside-out mountain. Are you impressed? Okay, not yet, sure - so far I only have half a hole. But one day...
One day, if I try very hard I know I'll disappoint you! Huzzah! The Gods are triumphant! The possible achieved. You are too much like me to be my son. Okay, but which was which?
A puzzle I never asked for. An answer I'll never understand. What was the question again? Exactly. Tantalus smiled.
Goddess I beseech you: kill me or make me you. Smash my brains to pieces and rearrange them as you will. God help me if I have to do it myself. I can't even find my head.
Dumbstruck. Too bedazzled by the stars. So effortless.
Following the stoush in the previous comments I thought it might be enlightening to see what led to it and what it all means. I expect that there are people out there who will view the whole thing as the paranoid ravings of a madman, not to mention a flagrant disregard for all rules of common decency. But that's alright - I really don't care. I'm nobody and you can kill if him you like. One day I'll no longer be here and what will it matter?
Furthermore I should also add that whilst the following is intended primarily for those of us who are anti-death cult, it will also effectively function as a debrief for spooks keen to avoid the missteps that would otherwise give them away as cointelpro. But there's nowt to be done for that and we'll just have to carry on regardless.
First up: Statcounter. For those who don't know, statcounter is a website, one of many, that one can plug one's blog into and be given details of who hits what and when. Only I can access my statcounter of course - all you get is a single number at the bottom of this page's right hand column (which at time of writing stands at 241,579).
I can understand certain people might view this with a degree of alarm. All I can say is, better you know about it than not, what with every site you go to recording details much like the ones I shall lay out here. The only difference between them and me is that I tell you about it.
Confession time: I'm a statcounter junkie. I find it beyond fascinating. But by the same token it's also a lot like trawling through shit looking for pearls. Here are some pearls I've saved with an eye to one day putting them up here:
Ah, yes. Heartwarming and good clean fun. And the DHS! The US taxpayer's dollars at work. But as if any of us are surprised. And whilst I doubt that that fellow was looking for an image of a cum-spattered Australian Prime Minister, that's what he got, ha ha.
Along those lines, I find myself fascinated by google drop-ins. God knows this blog is perversely desultory (or is that desultorily perverse? Perhaps the latter. I shan't say 'eclectic' since that would be putting on airs), so inevitably most arrivals from google, searching say for ten plagues of passover, will find themselves in amongst waaay more information than they wanted.
But for those of you who've read this far and are wondering what I make of you, would you be disappointed if I said, nothing at all? Approximately half of all hits to this blog look like this:
They read what's on the front page and don't bother with the comments and nor do they click any images or links. They just want the text and they're off. And fair enough. I invariably do the same myself as I wander around the net. And who is that person in London? Hell if I know. Not only do I have no idea, I really don't care. Even if I did, I have no means of finding out anything beyond what you see there. WYSIWYG.
The other half of my hits are best exemplified by the following two grabs:
I like these people, whoever they are. They check out a couple of images and links and otherwise spend a bit of time. Hats off. I invariably do the same myself as I wander around the net. The only thing I know about them (that I don't know about the preceding individual) is how long they spent here. A single hit gives me no idea whether someone stayed for a second or an hour. Two hits or more and I can take a guess. It has to be a guess on account of the possibility of whoever it was having left their computer to make a coffee or somesuch. And if anyone can recognise themselves in any of the preceding three, consider me impressed. The service provider I'm currently availing myself of seems to shift its virtual location so often I can't even recognise myself. Ha!
But then again, I'm not looking neither. All of the three preceding are of no interest to me at all. I grabbed them because they are to statcounter hits what John is to men's names. They're merely more of the same that I have to plough through in my search for attention grabbers like the DHS, Fort Huachuca, The House of Commons, the Whitehouse, and The Office of the President of the United States. I've had hits from all of those by the way, with the last one involving someone googling the McMartin scandal curiously enough. And sure, it could be an intern taking a break from blowjob duty but either way a hit is a hit and bragging rights ensue.
After several years of this one becomes inured to the humdrum. But one also becomes attuned to oddities, things that not only stick out like the proverbial but have you wondering at the curious logic that drives them. Like the individual in Seattle, Washington who hits the same page dating from January 2010 up to five times a day, day in, day out. What the hell is that? What's the point of hitting a page that's never going to update? A complete stumper.
---
And then there's John Friend of San Diego who, if he was to tell you one single thing about himself it's that there were no planes at 911. Did he mention that there were no planes? Because there were no planes at 911. It's interesting that, how there were no planes. Everyone talks about 911 but there were no planes there. Oh! Just remembered! There were no planes at 911! Ha ha ha, what a laugh, no planes at 911, he says.
Does anyone play that silly game Who would you invite to your ideal dinner party? I do. I'd have my faves from QI, Bill Bailey, Alan Davies, and Rich Hall, Aangirfan's schoolgirls, David Bowie, P2P, Hugo Chavez, English John, and um... Vincent Cassel! Like I'd fail to invite myself to my own party? No doubt this party might be a bit stilted at first but once the Stoly started to flow we'd hit full gear. Stories! Jokes! Smutty double entendres! Laugh! What a swell party we'd have! Right up until fucking John Friend walks in to tell us there were no planes at 911. Shit! And we were having such a good time!
---
John sure enough, has charted his own weird course through statcounter. Truth be known, on its own it would have been unremarkable. However, when you lay it side by side with what he's saying and doing in the blog, all sorts of things become clear.
I first noticed him by way of an arrival via direct link from a Mr. Friend's Blog. Hmm... curious. And sure it sounded like some creepy paedophile thing, but whatever, I go check it out. As a chap not often linked to (astounding given that I'm easily the best writer since William McGonagall) I always check such things out and then keep an eye on it to see how much traffic it generates. At time of writing: nada - just that single solitary hit. Would anyone blame me if I was to declare that that was merely John checking to see if his link worked?
So I visit his site and instantly notice he's also linked to my haiku blog. Double curious. Not a single arrival from there which means he didn't even bother checking the link. Doubtless he didn't actually care, what with never having written a haiku (that being the whole point of the place). And this after a single visit - one hit, no haiku, but he likes it enough to link to it. Sure. But let's not jump the gun and start using the word 'glad-handing' yet. We'll save it for later.
Like the haiku blog, John loved the church after his very first visit. He liked it so much he didn't need to look around, hang out in the comments, click any links, nothing. A blink was all it took and he was sold! Love at first sight - "Let's not fool around baby, let's just go to Vegas and get married!" - and he promptly pledged his troth with a link. Wow. Talk about swept off my feet! Or not. Probably not actually, now that I think about it.
On the same day, he pops into the comments for Pedophocracy Disinfo 102 which I loosely paraphrase thus -
1) Dropped Aangirfan's name, said he loved my blog.
2) Made a single para almost-on-topic comment about the twenty year old Franklin Scandal and condemns paedophiles to hell. *For those who don't know the Franklin scandal is the only scandal to have made the front page of any major US daily, albeit not in connection to any other scandal. It's also the only scandal that Mike Rivero is prepared to mention on his blog without condemnation (as he does with the McMartin scandal). And it's also the scandal which I have previously declared to be the limited hang-out fall-back position for pedophocracy disinfo spooks. Not that I'm accusing John of that, or anything. Oh, nearly forgot: John was a kid in Nebraska at the precise time Franklin was going down and associated with many of the same people and organisations that were involved. Not that he had any idea at the time of course.
3) Writes nine paras detailing how there were no planes on 911.
4) Once more tells me I am great.
5) Reappears with a second comment asking for my insight into whether Paul McCartney really is dead. No seriously, he did. Also writes 'LOL' for the third time, not that that makes me grit my teeth or anything.
John's penultimate misstep came when he arrived at the last piece wherein I discussed his favourite topic in the world. Unlike the curious people at Kenny's who checked out his no-plane links, and unlike the average 'interested' punters above, John was filled with an insatiable incuriosity and completely failed to click on a single link, pic, or movie. His utter lack of desire to check out my blog, which he professed to like so much, was here perfectly replicated by his complete uninterest in checking out an article pretty much written for him. It's all he can talk about but really, he just ain't interested. Go figure.
Did somebody says 'figures'? What with yours truly being a complete maths wizard, why don't we mathematically compare John Friend's curiosity in his professed field of interest with that of a standard punter. As we can see, as the standard punter's interest in a given topic increases, his curiosity charts a concordant rise. John Friend on the other hand follows a curve of inverse proportion. Thus as his interest in a given topic hits maximum his curiosity scrapes zero. Like that makes any sense at all. Otherwise, Descartes, eat your heart out!
As I said in the comments there, the only time I've encountered such extraordinary incuriosity in the face of professed interest is with blank-eyed zionists and pedophocracy disinfo scum. It ain't great company to be in, is it? And John's response? He did click some links! What's that John, fingers crossed and a quickly muttered, 'he durst not give me the lie direct.' Ha ha ha ha - durst I not? Bullshit. I fucking durst.
Dear oh dear. So much for that. But John wasn't done yet. He still had one last nail to hammer into his own coffin. Never mind me having called him bullshit and telling him to fuck off, nor him saying he'd knock my teeth out (yeah, yeah, you and stevieb, the apple onion, and zionists too numerous to mention) the next day he... wait for it... came back pushing his piss-weak no-planes barrow and acting like nothing had ever happened.
Huh? I shake my head. Who the fuck does that? I can imagine all sorts of responses but that's just too weird for itself. Mate, do you even know how a normal person behaves?
---
Cointelpro exists. Cointelpro is not passive. It is aggressive. They do not sit at their computers playing the ghost surfer. They go out and they pile in. That's what cointelpro is. And not in any half-arsed way. Remember they are not passive. They will do their level best to become big wheels. They will clock up hours. They will dominate the discussion. They will be tireless and busy and full of enthusiasm. They will network and make links. They will be charming and complimentary and have their gladhanding down pat. Will they want to be your friend? Abso-fucking-lutely. Hell, they've studied the art of making people trust them. They have sincerity down pat. And they depend upon your credulity and unwillingness to think ill of people.
And if you think you're safe because you only get a thousand hits a day, go read up on all those peace activist groups who warranted a full-time infiltrator who would live and work amongst them for a year, and the group only had an effective membership of a couple dozen people. The internet and blogs are not going to get a free ride. If you frequent these circles you will encounter cointelpro. It's a dead certainty. The good news is they will give themselves away. And he did!
911 was three events - WTC, Pentagon, and Shanksville. WTC was two events each differentiated by time but otherwise both resembling each other. Shanksville was two mutually exclusive events differentiated by location, neither resembling the other.
Germane aspects taken at face value (loosely in order of timeline occurrence)
WTC
- Numerous and sundry witnesses and footage of wide-body jets striking buildings, exploding, and leaving plane shaped holes. Extensive media coverage.
- Numerous and sundry witnesses and footage and seismic evidence of explosions leading to the unprecedented and complete destruction of three buildings involving the pulverisation of steel-reinforced concrete and the melting of both steel and concrete. No media coverage.
Pentagon
- Numerous witnesses of a wide-body jet striking the Pentagon. Extensive media coverage.
- No footage. No plane shaped hole. Scant debris and that inconsistent with a 100 tonne wide-body jet. No media coverage.
Shanksville location A
- Numerous and sundry witnesses and footage of a small hole in a field. Extensive media coverage.
- No witnesses or footage of a crash. No debris. No bodies. No fuel residue. No media coverage. Shanksville location B
- Numerous and sundry witnesses (no footage) of a low-flying wide-body jet breaking up in mid-air, an explosion and mushroom cloud, a white chase plane, and plentiful debris scattered over a wide area. No media coverage.
Questioning of official narrative (in loose order of argumentative usefulness, ha ha)
Pentagon
This began with Thierry Meyssan who not unreasonably asked where the 100 tonne wide-body 757 had gone. Where was the debris and litter that accompanies every jet crash ever witnessed? Why was the hole in the face of the Pentagon so small and the damage so slight? These were reasonable questions that would have to prompt any thinking person to wonder if the story of a wide-body jet inflicting such damage was factual.
There were pieces of evidence to support this idea. Flight 77 was the only flight of the four to have its course plotted as a dotted line on all maps reconstructing the courses of the four planes, this on account of it 'having disappeared from the radar'. Wide-body passenger jets, transponders turned off or no, do not disappear from radar. Usually if a given flight disappears from radar the automatic assumption would be that it is thus no longer in the sky. Furthermore the black box allegedly recovered from the plane indicated an attack angle that experienced pilots declared impossible. In addition to this the FBI confiscated all CCTV video footage of the attack and released nothing until three years later. The release consisted of two near-identical clips neither of which showed a plane of any sort.
Counter to Meyssan's question was the evidence offered by numerous witnesses some of whom saw nothing at all (and wondered at it) and some (almost entirely apparatchiks of the military industrial complex) who were adamant they'd seen precisely the plane the government had declared had been there.
It should be kept in mind that in spite of the fact that the government sat on the two clips for over a year, and in spite of obviousness of video fakery being in their best interest, it's clear that they either failed to insert any digital element into either of the clips, or they did so very badly, ie. in a fashion that it wouldn't convince anyone of anything.
Shanksville
Here too, no fakery was ever proffered. Admittedly it would've been a little bit more difficult than the photoshopping of a single frame of the Pentagon video, but not much. If I were a death cult FX guy, I'd have gone to a nearby recognisable shanksville location (after the event, sure enough), swung a simple handicam up to an empty sky as if following a streaking plane and followed the imaginary plane down to the horizon right next to the stated location. I'd then put the footage into the laptop, track in an off-the-shelf 3D model of a 757, quick textures, lighting, render with motion blur, and load to youtube. Fast, simple, cheap, 1 all-nighter = 2 days @ $500 a day (cash money), $1000 thanks very much. But as we all know, no such thing happened.
WTC
The events we saw in New York prompted many questions (mostly around buildings doing a vertical drop into their basements at free-fall speed) but in regards to planes, the first and most obvious question centred on how men who couldn't fly cessnas could successfully steer wide-body passenger jets travelling at over 700 km/h into targets 100m wide.
Extraordinarily, it turns out that the dual-Israeli financial comptroller of the Pentagon, one Dov Zakheim, who'd the day before 9/11 announced that 2.3 trillion dollars of the Pentagon's money had vanished, also happened to own a company, System Planning Corporation, that specialised in the remote control of aircraft. Further, the remote control of jet aircraft was not any kind of new science but had been perfected in the early 60's.
Given the technological advances that have taken place since then, with cruise missiles capable of following roads, turning at intersections, and hitting targets with a 5m accuracy, the guiding of a passenger jet into a 100m wide building becomes the simplest thing imaginable. Were confirmation needed, many examples of passenger planes being accurately remoted-control crashed into small targets can be found on youtube.
Regardless, many people were troubled by what they considered to be faults and errors in much of the footage of the planes that day. The first consisted of a discussion of pods. Does everyone remember that? Where is it now? Next up was talk of holograms. This too was abandoned, probably on account of the perfect stupidness of the whole idea. Finally we've arrived at a workable proposition to explain the undeniable fakery in the footage: there were no planes, or holograms, or any other thing in the sky at any time in New York and everything we saw on TV was digitally inserted, either in real time or as a post event. And all the eye-witnesses were either bullshit artists, à la the Pentagon, or mistaken.
Wait, let's rewind to the beg-the-question: ie. that the various youtube shots we all saw, displayed evidence of 'undeniable fakery'. I couldn't be fagged tearing apart all of them. I'll just do one and see if that doesn't say something about every other one. Have a look at this astounding example of obvious fake footage -
What a give-away! Such obvious fakery!
Groan. What happened to the assertion that the US military skunkworks magicians are capable of making holograms so perfect that they could be projected into clear blue sky and fool cameras, witnesses, everyone? Now they seem to be the very opposite of that. Now they seem incapable of doing something so simple that if it had been my job I'd have palmed it off to the work-experience boy and expected him to finish it before lunch. I can't tell you how basic this is as a CG shot. Something like this would qualify as tutorial 1, lesson 1, and the only way you could fuck it up is if someone hit you over the head with a pickaxe handle half way through. But somehow the vaunted US military did precisely that. Go figure. (Mind you, they do groove on violence. Perhaps they actually were beating each other with pickaxe handles and that's why it looks so bad?)
Enough of that, just go play that youtube thing again but this time don't look at the where the magician is pointing. Instead look at the top left hand side of the image. See the aerial / antenna thing at the top of the building? Watch it as the foreground leaves move backwards and forwards in front of it. And wait for the slo-mo. Wait for it! There did you see it? Holy shit! They've faked that too!
Yeah, right. Does everyone get it yet? You're looking at compression. Do we need me to explain that? Surely not. Let's just say nothing gets more compressed than youtube images. They get compressed to one step shy of complete incomprehensibility. Or beyond, as is the case here.
But the thing is, we don't even need compression. Every ad, every TV show, and every movie gets put into post because raw footage looks like shit. If I had a buck for every shot that had us remarking, 'Gee that looks weird doesn't it?' I'd have enough money to get that penis shortening surgery I so badly need. As is, I'll just have to struggle on I guess. Never mind.
The thing is, footage gets put into post precisely to clean this sort of shit up. Or to put it another way: to make it believable. And yet for the no-planers this raison d'etre paradigm is turned on its head. For them, all these artefact-laden shots are proof that they have been put into post, when the truth is, it's proof that they haven't.
How about this guy?
How's that for logic, eh?
- I can fake footage of a plane crashing into a building
- 9/11 has footage of a plane crashing into a building
- Therefore the 9/11 footage is fake
God help us. That's what Aristotle would have called a 'syllogistic fallacy'. Or to put it another way, 'crap'. It's proof of nothing beyond that silly boy's desire to show off.
But forget the little pictures. We'll be here all day otherwise. Let's gun for the big picture. This was best encapsulated by what I learned in University, year one, product design, age seventeen. The golden rule of rendering was If it looks wrong, it is wrong. And sure we were told this to stop us whinging that we didn't deserve the lecturer's criticisms because "technically it's correct". No one gave a shit. If it looked wrong, it was wrong. But forget us as spotty youths making silly arguments - it's not the output of this rule that counts, but the input. Which is to say, why did this rule exist? It existed because this sort of shit happens all the time. It's beyond common. Technically correct images can and do look wrong. All the way through college. All the way through prop and model-making. All the way through CG.
Inversely, I could take you through dozens of shots I've worked on, that would look completely normal to you but were in fact no such thing, each of them being so bent out of shape that they made no sense from any other angle. If I swung the camera around and showed you the side view you'd have been amazed at how abortionate it all looked. And the reason I had to cheat that thing was because when we did it the first time (correctly) it looked wrong. Do we get it?
In every discussion about 9/11 video fakery it's always the same - I dutifully follow the links to the examples cited and never have I found anything that impressed. All of it was the same old shit that I'd seen my entire working life and was, as far as I was concerned, the kind of thing you put into post in order to be fixed. To declare that these not-cleaned-up images were the result of fixing demonstrates an arse-about understanding of the logic of the whole process. Not to mention an eat-your-cake-and-have-it-too argument whereby the light-years-ahead, scifi-wunderkind Pentagon suddenly become hapless amateurs that couldn't organise a shitfight in a pigsty.
And this same inverse logic follows the no-plane argument from the micro to the macro. Back to me as post production supervisor: as supervisor it was my job to decide, for any given shot, what we do for real (in-camera) and what we do as CG. In-camera (no, not the latin meaning) is always preferable. It's cheaper, quicker, and the client couldn't endlessly fuck with it like he could with CG (which is to say, ruin our lives).
So! I'm in a production meeting and the brief says we need to put two planes into the twin towers and have them come down. Obviously you'd do that in post because it's not like we can use real planes and real buildings. Except, that we can. We have an unlimited budget! We can do any fucking thing we like! We're the Death Cult! Not only do we have no compunction about mass fatalities but as far as we're concerned, the more dead the better. We fucking love it.
But never mind that, just in terms of whether we go with CG or a real plane there's only one question. I turn to the RC guy -
"Can you guarantee that those planes will hit the building?"
"Mate, we've been doing it since the sixties. Have a look at these quicktimes. See that 707 nail that fucking camera? And that was in the sixties. And 707's are lumbering elephants compared to 757's and 767's. You've no idea. Think of cruise missiles. They can turn right at street corners, you know. And they're twenty years old. It's no problems, forget about it, accuracy under 5m."
Yeah, yeah, that's me being hyperbolical. Forget me. Why don't we just go to the only attempt by a no-planer to answer the question of why bother with CG when you could use real planes instead. ...impressed? No, me neither. Well, at least he tried. For comedic value why don't I paraphrase the four bullet points he gives as to why there's no way you'd use a real plane and would have to go with CG.
- what if it missed?
- what if it didn't go into the building?
- what if it missed and didn't go into the building?
- what if it missed and didn't go into the building?
And that's it is it? That's the best he could come up with as to why you'd reject forty year old technology in favour of some mad fucking idea no one has ever tried before? God spare me. It's a good thing there's no one asking the flip-side question: "So what happens when there's no planes and in the twenty minutes between the two strikes a bazillion people all grab their handicams and film a building that explodes for no apparent reason apart from air pressure? How's the FBI going to find all those fucking cameras and insert a plane in each of them?"
Back to the bullet points, it's this chap's opinion that the likelihood of the plane missing its target is unacceptably high. Cue the obvious question - Well is it or isn't it? So far it's just an assertion, something he just made up. Mind you he posts a little youtube clip to prove his point. Let's have a look at that. Blogger doesn't do animated gifs, so here's the key frame as a still. (You can see it moving at the above link).
Sure enough, it's the least accurate piece of footage of a 707 being crashed that he could find. In case anyone thinks that he might be onto something there, just think about what you're looking at. You're looking at a forty year old plane aiming at a 20m wide target and absolutely knocking the living shit out of it. It's easily accurate enough to nail a 100m wide skyscraper. And that's the best example of inaccuracy he's got is it? So much for what-if-it-missed. A pointy hat for that boy - go sit in the corner until you get some arguments that aren't crap.
And do we have to address the old 'what if it didn't go into the building' bit? I think the only sensible response to this is - What the fuck else is it going to do? Bounce off? Like a squash ball? Fuck that - you line up a 100 tonne jetliner travelling at 700 km/h and aim it at, hell... Ayer's Rock! and it's only going to do one thing and that's to pile-drive itself into oblivion. It'll have no hope at all.
As for 'no evidence of jet-liners' we all roll our eyes - it's just too desperate for words, isn't it?
Honestly, between a question that didn't need to be asked based on a shit reading of shit evidence, and a bullet-proof in-camera effect that perfectly fills the brief, what the fuck are we talking about this for? Not forgetting we're discussing a bunch of people who, when they really needed some fakery at the Pentagon and Shanksville, were utterly incapable of producing the goods. A single shot would have done it. But, nope! Not a sausage. And yet, somehow in New York, they knew where every camera was, took them, and inserted a CG plane into every bit of footage and no one said nothin' bout nothin'.
Man, I shake my head.
Now, go read this piece by Paul Craig Roberts. (Thank you Aangirfan) It's a helluva read, ain't it? Now ask yourself: what function does the no-planes meme serve within that discussion?
