Tonight's movie was "Brigham Young" (1940), starring Tyrone Power and Linda Darnell, through whose name I discovered the film in a database search. As you will infer from the title, it is a story of the Mormon leader, and in fact it briefly encompasses the story of church founder Joseph Smith as well. Really it is the saga of the Mormon exodus from Illinois in the 1840s, and it plays like an epic Western. You don't have to be Mormon, or even religious at all to enjoy the film, as it is a gripping story of survival against very difficult circumstances.
I know little about Mormonism, but I know the basics about Joseph Smith and his beliefs. I knew he was murdered by a mob, but I didn't know why. About Brigham Young I knew nothing except that he became the leader of the Mormon church and that a famous university is named after him.
The movie details everything a non-Mormon would need to know, including how Young came to become a Mormon himself, which is shown in flashback. The first half hour actually deals with the last stand of Smith (played eloquently by Vincent Price) and his parishioners in Illinois. The townspeople in Nauvoo (a real town), who are Christians themselves, nevertheless fear and hate Smith for his claim to be a prophet. They also detest the at-the-time Mormon practices of multiple marriage, which - because of the potential pregnancies that could ensue - causes them to worry that they will eventually be outpopulated in their own town.
History, and the movie, show what their reaction was, and it was savage. The townspeople of Nauvoo burned the Mormon settlement to the ground, shot Joseph Smith, then chased after the wagons with torches in hand as the Mormon people fled in the night with only the possessions they could carry.
Say what you will about Mormons, and I don't think most folks have a beef with them nowdays, but as they began they were a persecuted people. The movie shows them only wanting to live in peace. It also depicts Joseph Smith's philosophy of shared goods and community property, and early form of socialism, and as we have seen on the world stage, these ideas work best when implemented among small nations or groups. Smith did not believe in capitalism or the accruing of personal wealth, and Brigham Young carried on this policy after taking over the flock, adding on a few of his own beliefs such as his stand against tobacco and other intoxicants such as coffee and alcohol. The film shows us all of this in due course.
But it's really the story of their epic struggle to find a new place to settle after fleeing Illinois. As an aside, I ask you to imagine an America before police departments, when an angry mob of townspeople could murder or displace anyone they didn't like. There was such a time, and it wasn't all that long ago, less than 200 years.
Once the Mormons were out in the frontier, their battle was against nature. They faced frozen winters with no food. Many in the wagon train died of starvation and disease. The movie shows that the Indians in Iowa helped them out, and the two peoples became great friends forever after. The script is still ultimately about the leadership of Brigham Young, though, and it turns out that he will have to face a reckoning for his own deceptions, which have left his followers in dire straits. Young will need a miracle to get himself, and his people, out of their predicament, and he just might get one.....
As I say, you don't need to be Mormon to enjoy the picture. It is quite a tale, and I think it's part of How The West Was Won, as the Mormons were pioneers who helped to settle the Utah territory which was pure desert, like a moonscape. Who would have had the balls to settle there?
Well at any rate. I give "Brigham Young" Two Strong Thumbs Up. Unlike some biopics, this one doesn't get bogged down in historical details but instead concentrates on the hardships faced by the people as they cross the country.
Tyrone Power and Linda Darnell (who was only 17 at the time), make up one of the best looking pioneer couples ever to grace the screen, though both are earnest in their roles. I am a big fan of both actors, and especially Miss Darnell, who lived a short and tragic life.
So there you have it, a Mormon epic that you wouldn't have expected but that comes highly recommended to you by your expert reviewer. Dean Jagger plays Brigham Young, and you can't miss long tall John Carradine as his gun toting sidekick. /////
Today was my last day off, but I had a nice hike at Whitney Canyon and even saw some deer. Check out my photo on FB, posted earlier.
That's all for now. See you tomorrow morn, with tons of love in the meantime.
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Thursday, September 19, 2019
Wednesday, September 18, 2019
"A Hatful Of Rain" starring Don Murray, Anthony Franciosa, Eva Marie Saint and Lloyd Nolan
Tonight's movie was called "A Hatful Of Rain" (1957), another heavyweight drama, this time set in New York City. Don Murray plays Johnny, a young man in his late 20s who seems to have a good life. He is married to Eva Marie Saint, they have a baby on the way, and they live in a modest but nicely furnished apartment at the edge of Manhattan. But we soon see this is only a facade, and it starts to unravel the minute Johnny's father (Lloyd Nolan) shows up unannounced at their doorstep. "Pop", as Johnny calls him, is friendly enough, though boisterous. He inquires about Johnny's brother Polo, who works as a bouncer at a local bar. Johnny was his father's favorite. Nolan considers Polo a "bum", even though it is Polo who is employed and Johnny who is only pretending to lead a normal life. But Johnny is starting to break down, and soon it will become difficult for him to maintain his composure.
Johnny is a junkie, addicted to heroin. When he has his fix, he can appear to be his everyday self, but it is becoming hard for him to score because he owes his dealer (Henry Silva) a ton of dough. Silva and his two cronies keep showing up at Johnny's door at the most inopportune moments - like when his Dad is there - and they want their money. Silva threatens to put Johnny in the hospital if he doesn't pay.
Johnny is a mess by now, trying to keep his addiction secret from his father and his wife, who knows something is wrong but thinks it has to do with another woman. His brother Polo knows all about Johnny's problem; he has gone broke from loaning Johnny money to pay for his dope.
His dealer Henry Silva has gone so far as providing Johnny with a pistol so he can rob someone in order to have the cash to pay his drug debt. But Johnny can't bring himself to do it. He is now in the bind of his life, as his pregnant wife is threatening to leave him and his domineering Dad is demanding to know what is wrong, as Johnny stays out night after night without coming home. He is going through the throes of withdrawal, he needs a fix, he has no money and his dealer is gonna kill him.
Man, was this ever a great "New York Movie". I discovered it during my "Fox Cinema Archives" search, and I was a little worried that it was gonna be one of those overly melodramatic, ultra method acted movies from the late 50s and early 60s that dealt with previously taboo subjects like drug addiction or schizophrenia. But to my pleasant surprise, the acting and script were realistic, about as close as you could get to a real life scenario. I would bet that Martin Scorcese is a fan of this movie, as it presages everything he would try to do in films like "Mean Streets" and "Taxi Driver", to use the city as a canvas on which to paint the lives of real people. In a "New York" movie, the concrete jungle is itself a character, and I have remarked that - having seen so many NYC films, I feel as if I know the neighborhoods even though I've never been there.
As with last night's picture "The Moon Is Down", we once again have an all-star cast in "A Hatful Of Rain". This is New York Actor's Studio progeny at their finest : Don Murray, who has had a sixty year career and who turned up at age 88 in a major role in the 2017 reboot of "Twin Peaks"; Eva Marie Saint, a legend who had worked with Kazan and Hitchcock; Tony Franciosa, who was nominated for an Academy Award for his role as "Polo", and Lloyd Nolan, known to my generation for his TV work in the 1960s, but who had a lengthy film career prior to that.
This is the kind of film, and direction (by Fred Zinneman), that set the stage for the gritty New York realism of the 1970s.
The story of heroin addiction is told without cliche and there is nuance in the characters. For instance, the dealer is more interested in getting his money than in killing Johnny. In a lesser film, the violence would win out. Also nuanced is Lloyd Nolan's Dad character. Yes, he shows impersonal bonhomie to his sons, treating them as if they were still twelve years old. But we also see that he has done the best he could as a single father, and that in his repressed way he loves his sons in spite of his damaged psychology.
Big knockout performances abound, especially Don Murray and Tony Franciosa as the brothers. Really though, there is not a lesser role in the film, in what is likely a landmark in drug addiction movies.
Two Huge Thumbs Up for "A Hatful Of Rain", a giant success on every level, for it's acting, it's direction, it's NYC location of the city at it's grittiest, and for it's expert black and white photography. One caveat : the dvd I watched, from Fox Cinema Archives, is presented in full frame, whereas the movie itself was shot in Cinemascope, i.e. widescreen. Hopefully, Criterion will one day get ahold of it and release it in it's original format, but until then don't let the full frame dissuade you.
See "A Hatful Of Rain", a tremendous motion picture and highly recommended.
That's all for tonight. See you in the morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxooxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Johnny is a junkie, addicted to heroin. When he has his fix, he can appear to be his everyday self, but it is becoming hard for him to score because he owes his dealer (Henry Silva) a ton of dough. Silva and his two cronies keep showing up at Johnny's door at the most inopportune moments - like when his Dad is there - and they want their money. Silva threatens to put Johnny in the hospital if he doesn't pay.
Johnny is a mess by now, trying to keep his addiction secret from his father and his wife, who knows something is wrong but thinks it has to do with another woman. His brother Polo knows all about Johnny's problem; he has gone broke from loaning Johnny money to pay for his dope.
His dealer Henry Silva has gone so far as providing Johnny with a pistol so he can rob someone in order to have the cash to pay his drug debt. But Johnny can't bring himself to do it. He is now in the bind of his life, as his pregnant wife is threatening to leave him and his domineering Dad is demanding to know what is wrong, as Johnny stays out night after night without coming home. He is going through the throes of withdrawal, he needs a fix, he has no money and his dealer is gonna kill him.
Man, was this ever a great "New York Movie". I discovered it during my "Fox Cinema Archives" search, and I was a little worried that it was gonna be one of those overly melodramatic, ultra method acted movies from the late 50s and early 60s that dealt with previously taboo subjects like drug addiction or schizophrenia. But to my pleasant surprise, the acting and script were realistic, about as close as you could get to a real life scenario. I would bet that Martin Scorcese is a fan of this movie, as it presages everything he would try to do in films like "Mean Streets" and "Taxi Driver", to use the city as a canvas on which to paint the lives of real people. In a "New York" movie, the concrete jungle is itself a character, and I have remarked that - having seen so many NYC films, I feel as if I know the neighborhoods even though I've never been there.
As with last night's picture "The Moon Is Down", we once again have an all-star cast in "A Hatful Of Rain". This is New York Actor's Studio progeny at their finest : Don Murray, who has had a sixty year career and who turned up at age 88 in a major role in the 2017 reboot of "Twin Peaks"; Eva Marie Saint, a legend who had worked with Kazan and Hitchcock; Tony Franciosa, who was nominated for an Academy Award for his role as "Polo", and Lloyd Nolan, known to my generation for his TV work in the 1960s, but who had a lengthy film career prior to that.
This is the kind of film, and direction (by Fred Zinneman), that set the stage for the gritty New York realism of the 1970s.
The story of heroin addiction is told without cliche and there is nuance in the characters. For instance, the dealer is more interested in getting his money than in killing Johnny. In a lesser film, the violence would win out. Also nuanced is Lloyd Nolan's Dad character. Yes, he shows impersonal bonhomie to his sons, treating them as if they were still twelve years old. But we also see that he has done the best he could as a single father, and that in his repressed way he loves his sons in spite of his damaged psychology.
Big knockout performances abound, especially Don Murray and Tony Franciosa as the brothers. Really though, there is not a lesser role in the film, in what is likely a landmark in drug addiction movies.
Two Huge Thumbs Up for "A Hatful Of Rain", a giant success on every level, for it's acting, it's direction, it's NYC location of the city at it's grittiest, and for it's expert black and white photography. One caveat : the dvd I watched, from Fox Cinema Archives, is presented in full frame, whereas the movie itself was shot in Cinemascope, i.e. widescreen. Hopefully, Criterion will one day get ahold of it and release it in it's original format, but until then don't let the full frame dissuade you.
See "A Hatful Of Rain", a tremendous motion picture and highly recommended.
That's all for tonight. See you in the morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxooxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Tuesday, September 17, 2019
"The Moon Is Down" starring Cedric Hardwicke, Henry Travers & Lee J Cobb + Rendlesham
Tonight I watched a film called "The Moon Is Down", set in a small mining town in Norway during World War Two. The movie opens with the German invasion of that country, and at first, they try to portray themselves as benevolent conquerors. "We are here because we need your iron, but we are also your protectors so you need not fear". The Nazi Colonel (the great Cedric Hardwicke) tries to sell the town's Mayor on this line of hogwash, hoping to use him to placate the townspeople, but he resists, telling the Colonel that, unlike the Germans of that time, the Norwegians are a free people and will therefore never accept the presence of an invading force, no matter how benevolent they pretend to be. The Colonel then informs the Mayor that there is another way he can achieve compliance : through threats and force. He hopes to be able to maintain the peace, but the Mayor lets him know this is futile.
There is no way the miners will act as slaves for the German cause. Soon, they rebel. The German retaliation is swift and severe. Several miners are shot as an example. Then the rebellion goes underground. A sabotage effort is begun using covert means.
This is not a typical action oriented war movie, however. There are no battle scenes because the conflict is between soldiers and civilians. Instead, the plot is based upon the heavy dramatic tension between the occupying German soldiers and the Norwegian townspeople who don't want them there. The officers have the high hand and make no effort to be friendly, but it is not so easy for the regular soldiers, who have to interact with the people. A major thread involves a lieutenant who has given up on the Nazi cause. He knows Hitler is crazy and just wants to go home, but he is stuck in this town as an overseer, and everyone hates him, even though he tries hard to be friendly. There are other similar themes having to do with the psychology of the dominator wanting to be understood, to not be hated. Sir Cedric Hardwicke as the Colonel goes to great lengths to work with the Mayor to avoid violence, but the Mayor (played by the great Henry Travers) tries to explain to him that violence is inevitable, so long as the occupying forces remain in his country. The Colonel seems to understand this, but he is over a barrel due to the devil's knot the Nazis were tied in, where any disloyalty to Hitler might be reported back, and the dissenter then shot and disposed of. Hardwicke cannot show kindness nor cooperation toward the Mayor, lest one of his underlings see it and tattle on him.
The movie is a heavy drama about these wartime dilemmas, and about the immorality and futility of fascism. The script is based on a book of the same name by John Steinbeck, so the writing is as good as it gets, a treatise on basic human nature in the face of oppression. The cast is incredible, also featuring the noted character actor Peter van Eyck as the troubled lieutenant, and Lee J. Cobb as the town doctor. In one scene near the end, Cobb was onscreen with Sir Cedric Hardwicke and Henry Travers, who among other roles played the angel "Clarence" in "It's A Wonderful Life. The three were stuck in a room, playing a fatalistic scene where Hardwick, the Colonel was quietly trying to sympathise with Cobb and Travers, the two Norwegians. I was in the scene, too, as the viewer, and I was sitting there thinking, "man, that is a heavyweight group up there on the screen". You could feel the majesty dripping from the pixels..... :)
I give "The Moon Is Down" Two Solid Thumbs Up. It's a philosophical anti-war film rather than a battle picture, but there is still enough standard intrigue to recommend it to fans of regular WW2 films.
I hadn't heard of it until last week, when I did my library search of "Fox Cinema Archives". I am glad the studios keep releasing these lost gems discovered in their vaults, and I hope they have hundreds more to keep me supplied for the future. I am on pace to watch upwards of 250 movies this year, almost all of them from decades past, and I do worry about the day when I run out, and my searches produce nothingmore. :)
I am still off work, and I had a nice hike today out at Santa Susana. It was nothing fancy, just meandering around the park with no climbing, but I had the place to myself and the vibe out there is always steady and restorative, thanks to it's Native American history and the Great Spirit that watches over the place. I recommend going there so you can see for yourself. :):)
That's basically all for today. I am still working my way through the almost 700 pages of Jim Penniston's "Rendlesham Enigma" book, and I have already mentioned how much it is blowing my mind, but there are also certain parallels to my own story that have to do with containment - i.e. the way in which agencies from the government act to put the brakes on a developing story about a classified experience - and I must say that there are details in Jim's story that line up exactly with mine, such as his being subjected to drug induced hypnosis and given sodium pentothal, also known as "truth serum". He may have also had part of his memory erased - and I recommend you read up on the Rendlesham Forest Incident to see what I am talking about - and the way Sgt. Penniston describes it, his experience in that regard is very similar to mine. /////
That is all I know for today. See you in the morning.
Tons of love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
There is no way the miners will act as slaves for the German cause. Soon, they rebel. The German retaliation is swift and severe. Several miners are shot as an example. Then the rebellion goes underground. A sabotage effort is begun using covert means.
This is not a typical action oriented war movie, however. There are no battle scenes because the conflict is between soldiers and civilians. Instead, the plot is based upon the heavy dramatic tension between the occupying German soldiers and the Norwegian townspeople who don't want them there. The officers have the high hand and make no effort to be friendly, but it is not so easy for the regular soldiers, who have to interact with the people. A major thread involves a lieutenant who has given up on the Nazi cause. He knows Hitler is crazy and just wants to go home, but he is stuck in this town as an overseer, and everyone hates him, even though he tries hard to be friendly. There are other similar themes having to do with the psychology of the dominator wanting to be understood, to not be hated. Sir Cedric Hardwicke as the Colonel goes to great lengths to work with the Mayor to avoid violence, but the Mayor (played by the great Henry Travers) tries to explain to him that violence is inevitable, so long as the occupying forces remain in his country. The Colonel seems to understand this, but he is over a barrel due to the devil's knot the Nazis were tied in, where any disloyalty to Hitler might be reported back, and the dissenter then shot and disposed of. Hardwicke cannot show kindness nor cooperation toward the Mayor, lest one of his underlings see it and tattle on him.
The movie is a heavy drama about these wartime dilemmas, and about the immorality and futility of fascism. The script is based on a book of the same name by John Steinbeck, so the writing is as good as it gets, a treatise on basic human nature in the face of oppression. The cast is incredible, also featuring the noted character actor Peter van Eyck as the troubled lieutenant, and Lee J. Cobb as the town doctor. In one scene near the end, Cobb was onscreen with Sir Cedric Hardwicke and Henry Travers, who among other roles played the angel "Clarence" in "It's A Wonderful Life. The three were stuck in a room, playing a fatalistic scene where Hardwick, the Colonel was quietly trying to sympathise with Cobb and Travers, the two Norwegians. I was in the scene, too, as the viewer, and I was sitting there thinking, "man, that is a heavyweight group up there on the screen". You could feel the majesty dripping from the pixels..... :)
I give "The Moon Is Down" Two Solid Thumbs Up. It's a philosophical anti-war film rather than a battle picture, but there is still enough standard intrigue to recommend it to fans of regular WW2 films.
I hadn't heard of it until last week, when I did my library search of "Fox Cinema Archives". I am glad the studios keep releasing these lost gems discovered in their vaults, and I hope they have hundreds more to keep me supplied for the future. I am on pace to watch upwards of 250 movies this year, almost all of them from decades past, and I do worry about the day when I run out, and my searches produce nothingmore. :)
I am still off work, and I had a nice hike today out at Santa Susana. It was nothing fancy, just meandering around the park with no climbing, but I had the place to myself and the vibe out there is always steady and restorative, thanks to it's Native American history and the Great Spirit that watches over the place. I recommend going there so you can see for yourself. :):)
That's basically all for today. I am still working my way through the almost 700 pages of Jim Penniston's "Rendlesham Enigma" book, and I have already mentioned how much it is blowing my mind, but there are also certain parallels to my own story that have to do with containment - i.e. the way in which agencies from the government act to put the brakes on a developing story about a classified experience - and I must say that there are details in Jim's story that line up exactly with mine, such as his being subjected to drug induced hypnosis and given sodium pentothal, also known as "truth serum". He may have also had part of his memory erased - and I recommend you read up on the Rendlesham Forest Incident to see what I am talking about - and the way Sgt. Penniston describes it, his experience in that regard is very similar to mine. /////
That is all I know for today. See you in the morning.
Tons of love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Monday, September 16, 2019
Hey Elizabeth! (huge congratulations) + Odds & Ends
Hey Elizabeth! Wow, super big-time congratulations on the Versus Me billboard! I saw the band photos of James and the drummer a couple of weeks ago on your FB, and I assumed it was your latest photo shoot for them, but I didn't know it was gonna be part of a promo campaign! Is your photo also gonna be the album cover? Wow again, and triple wow. That makes two Septembers in a row that you have had your work displayed outdoors on a large format surface. I just think it's great and as always I am super happy for you! I am glad you've kept your association with James and Versus Me and I remember the funny posts he would make a few years ago when you first started working with them.
Great work, Elizabeth. As you said in your recent FB post about your photo of the Barry sisters, "how time flies", and it's amazing to think that was seven years ago this week, and now here you are with your work on a billboard. That's the kind of thing I mean when I talk about looking at the big picture in life, and seeing how things add up over time. That is how you see your intent at work, over a period of time. I can remember when you did that photo session with the sisters, because you had mentioned to me that you were going to photograph two redheads. That was the Summer of 2012, and I know I was badgering you at the time (remember the Agalloch show?) about finishing another cover song to follow up "Autre Temps", and you were thinking about changing your major at UW, and then you said you knew these two sisters you were gonna photograph......that was a fun summer.
And think of all that has happened since then. :):)
Well again, congratulations, and I predict more good things to come. I've been right so far. :):)
I've been watching a lot of movies lately, as usual. Notable was a French comedy from the early 1930s called "Le Million", which was an absolute gem, highest recommendation. I also finished "Taken", the 2002 Steven Spielberg miniseries about Alien Abduction, which was mindblowing for the most part, but I was disappointed - just a tad - in the direction the show took in the final few episodes, and in the overblown philosophical ending. I felt as if the writer - Leslie Bohem - used his lead character in order to voice his own philosophical beliefs, which I disagreed with wholeheartedly. I still give the 15 hour epic an 8/10 rating overall, and two huge thumbs up and a high recommendation, but I also felt, near the end, that Bohem the writer should have kept his ego out of the script, as his pronouncements were not half as brilliant as he may have thought.
Now you are going, "man, I've gotta watch 'Taken', so I can see what Ad is talking about"!
And you should watch it, because it is mostly amazing. I wish it had concentrated more on the nuts and bolts of the abductions - which it started out to do - instead of getting sidetracked by the various plot devices involving lead characters from the FBI and the military, and their warring desires to gain control over the hoped for Alien capture scenario. I'll stop harping on it, but I hate when New Agers try to take over legitimate UFO phenomenology i.e. things that have really happened, and turn it into a big, shapeless feel good mush.
Well, now I'm probably over criticizing the show, because it really has a ton of awesome stuff, but those last couple of episodes were a bit of a let down, not because of the plot but because of the voice-overs of Leslie Bohem's philosophy.
Well, the hell with it Ad! The second season of "Project Blue Book" is coming up, so stick with that.
Yeah, you're right. That show has been aces in every episode.
Rams won today, big time over Saints, and even though Brees got knocked out with a hand injury early on, it wouldn't have made much difference had he played the entire game, so quit bitching, Saints fans. Rams are looking badass so far.
We had good singing in church this morning, too.
I hope you had a nice weekend. I've still got a few things to catch up on, and I am reading "Growing Things" by Paul Tremblay too. I call him "The Trembler", and I think he is the closest thing to Stephen King since Stephen King. Man is he great.
See you in the morning with truckloads of love in between. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Great work, Elizabeth. As you said in your recent FB post about your photo of the Barry sisters, "how time flies", and it's amazing to think that was seven years ago this week, and now here you are with your work on a billboard. That's the kind of thing I mean when I talk about looking at the big picture in life, and seeing how things add up over time. That is how you see your intent at work, over a period of time. I can remember when you did that photo session with the sisters, because you had mentioned to me that you were going to photograph two redheads. That was the Summer of 2012, and I know I was badgering you at the time (remember the Agalloch show?) about finishing another cover song to follow up "Autre Temps", and you were thinking about changing your major at UW, and then you said you knew these two sisters you were gonna photograph......that was a fun summer.
And think of all that has happened since then. :):)
Well again, congratulations, and I predict more good things to come. I've been right so far. :):)
I've been watching a lot of movies lately, as usual. Notable was a French comedy from the early 1930s called "Le Million", which was an absolute gem, highest recommendation. I also finished "Taken", the 2002 Steven Spielberg miniseries about Alien Abduction, which was mindblowing for the most part, but I was disappointed - just a tad - in the direction the show took in the final few episodes, and in the overblown philosophical ending. I felt as if the writer - Leslie Bohem - used his lead character in order to voice his own philosophical beliefs, which I disagreed with wholeheartedly. I still give the 15 hour epic an 8/10 rating overall, and two huge thumbs up and a high recommendation, but I also felt, near the end, that Bohem the writer should have kept his ego out of the script, as his pronouncements were not half as brilliant as he may have thought.
Now you are going, "man, I've gotta watch 'Taken', so I can see what Ad is talking about"!
And you should watch it, because it is mostly amazing. I wish it had concentrated more on the nuts and bolts of the abductions - which it started out to do - instead of getting sidetracked by the various plot devices involving lead characters from the FBI and the military, and their warring desires to gain control over the hoped for Alien capture scenario. I'll stop harping on it, but I hate when New Agers try to take over legitimate UFO phenomenology i.e. things that have really happened, and turn it into a big, shapeless feel good mush.
Well, now I'm probably over criticizing the show, because it really has a ton of awesome stuff, but those last couple of episodes were a bit of a let down, not because of the plot but because of the voice-overs of Leslie Bohem's philosophy.
Well, the hell with it Ad! The second season of "Project Blue Book" is coming up, so stick with that.
Yeah, you're right. That show has been aces in every episode.
Rams won today, big time over Saints, and even though Brees got knocked out with a hand injury early on, it wouldn't have made much difference had he played the entire game, so quit bitching, Saints fans. Rams are looking badass so far.
We had good singing in church this morning, too.
I hope you had a nice weekend. I've still got a few things to catch up on, and I am reading "Growing Things" by Paul Tremblay too. I call him "The Trembler", and I think he is the closest thing to Stephen King since Stephen King. Man is he great.
See you in the morning with truckloads of love in between. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Sunday, September 15, 2019
Placerita + "The Day Mars Invaded Earth"
This afternoon I drove out to Placerita Canyon. I hadn't been there since 2017, and today was only my second visit since the Spring of 2016. A few months after that, in July, a terrible wildfire raged through the area and destroyed part of the park, including a lot of the main trail, known as the Canyon Trail. Before the fire, I used to go to Placerita on a regular basis, as you may remember if you saw my numerous photographic posts on FB in the years 2014-15. Back then, the two mile Canyon Trail leading from Placerita to Walker Ranch was one of my favorite hikes. It was such a peaceful and beautiful trail with gorgeous oaks and sycamore trees. The trail has been closed since July 2016, so I just wandered around the rest of the park without going on an actual hike, but the good news is that after three long years, the funds have been approved to repair the Canyon Trail, and according to their website, it should be ready to re-open by next Spring. I can't wait, but in the meantime it was just good to be at the park anyway, especially cause it was 100 degrees outside, haha.... :)
I haven't been doing as many Hundred Degree Hikes as I used to, but today was a day off, so nothing could stop me. :):)
After Placerita, I stopped off at Aliso on my way home, so I could do an actual hike and get some daily mileage in.
This eve I watched a weird little sci-fi called "The Day Mars Invaded Earth" (1962). I'd never heard of this one, and was expecting flying saucers and bug-eyed aliens, but what I got was more like an extended episode of "Outer Limits" crossed with "Playhouse 90". A scientist working on a Mars probe down at Cape Canaveral is stunned, along with the rest of his team, when the rover they have landed catches fire and explodes.
Yes, this movie shows an early Mars Rover in 1962! But it explodes just as it is transmitting a message, which the NASA team never receives. The mission is over, the scientist (Kent Taylor) is dismayed, so he heads back to California to his wife (Marie Windsor) who was just about to divorce him because he is never home.
When he returns, she isn't home either, but is staying at the gigantic mansion of her in-laws, who have asked her to house sit while they are away. So far, this doesn't sound like much of an Alien Invasion story, right? Well, the place she is house sitting is the famous Greystone Mansion in Beverly Hills. The filmmakers must've spent 9/10s of their budget renting the joint out, but they make great use of their time on the property, because the movie then locks down at that location and becomes about keeping the Martians out.
But wait! It's hard to tell who the Martians are, because they look just like the scientist and his wife, and their two children. Think "Invasion of The Body Snatchers" once again, but with a psychological bent, because the scientist gets into a debate with the Martian Him about what the motive is for taking over our planet. I won't bother trying to explain it, but it's a whole lot weirder than it sounds, and best of all, the movie is shot in rich black and white and the photography is excellent, making full use of the geometry of Greystone's architecture. This is one of those types of isolated character plots that I love, where the entire cast consists of only a handful of people, and they are cut off from the rest of the world, and have no other option but to solve the problem on their own. Here, they are stuck on the grounds of the immense Greystone Mansion, which has a spooky history in real life, and they are fighting aliens from Mars who don't resemble ants but are actually forms of energy who are able to take the shape of humans and impersonate them.
This is well made, low budget, high production value stuff. It's all about the drama, and using your imagination to fill in the gaps. It's Pasadena Playhouse with Greystone Mansion as the stage.
I give "The Day Mars Invaded Earth" Two Thumbs Up. It clocks in at a wiry 70 minutes, no time is wasted and every scene leads into the next in a linear fashion. And, it's weird. And isolated.
Sci-Fi fans will not go wrong by looking for it. I discovered it myself in a library database search for "Fox Cinema Archives".
That's basically my story for today and I'm sticking to it. Before I cash in my chips for the night, I want to once again mention the book I am reading, which is called "The Rendlesham Enigma".
If you are a UFO buff, or if you simply want to know what is going on in this world, you should read this book. I think it is obvious to say that the biggest revelation that could come out of the news media, short of the return of Jesus, would be that there was proof that Planet Earth had been visited by an intelligence from another world.
This is what happened in Rendlesham Forest in December 1980, and the book "The Rendlesham Enigma" gives an extremely detailed, 675 page account of the entire affair.
It is a book I take very much to heart, given my own experience. Read it if you were involved in 1989.
That's all I know for tonight. See you tomorrow morning in church.
Tons of love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoox :):)
I haven't been doing as many Hundred Degree Hikes as I used to, but today was a day off, so nothing could stop me. :):)
After Placerita, I stopped off at Aliso on my way home, so I could do an actual hike and get some daily mileage in.
This eve I watched a weird little sci-fi called "The Day Mars Invaded Earth" (1962). I'd never heard of this one, and was expecting flying saucers and bug-eyed aliens, but what I got was more like an extended episode of "Outer Limits" crossed with "Playhouse 90". A scientist working on a Mars probe down at Cape Canaveral is stunned, along with the rest of his team, when the rover they have landed catches fire and explodes.
Yes, this movie shows an early Mars Rover in 1962! But it explodes just as it is transmitting a message, which the NASA team never receives. The mission is over, the scientist (Kent Taylor) is dismayed, so he heads back to California to his wife (Marie Windsor) who was just about to divorce him because he is never home.
When he returns, she isn't home either, but is staying at the gigantic mansion of her in-laws, who have asked her to house sit while they are away. So far, this doesn't sound like much of an Alien Invasion story, right? Well, the place she is house sitting is the famous Greystone Mansion in Beverly Hills. The filmmakers must've spent 9/10s of their budget renting the joint out, but they make great use of their time on the property, because the movie then locks down at that location and becomes about keeping the Martians out.
But wait! It's hard to tell who the Martians are, because they look just like the scientist and his wife, and their two children. Think "Invasion of The Body Snatchers" once again, but with a psychological bent, because the scientist gets into a debate with the Martian Him about what the motive is for taking over our planet. I won't bother trying to explain it, but it's a whole lot weirder than it sounds, and best of all, the movie is shot in rich black and white and the photography is excellent, making full use of the geometry of Greystone's architecture. This is one of those types of isolated character plots that I love, where the entire cast consists of only a handful of people, and they are cut off from the rest of the world, and have no other option but to solve the problem on their own. Here, they are stuck on the grounds of the immense Greystone Mansion, which has a spooky history in real life, and they are fighting aliens from Mars who don't resemble ants but are actually forms of energy who are able to take the shape of humans and impersonate them.
This is well made, low budget, high production value stuff. It's all about the drama, and using your imagination to fill in the gaps. It's Pasadena Playhouse with Greystone Mansion as the stage.
I give "The Day Mars Invaded Earth" Two Thumbs Up. It clocks in at a wiry 70 minutes, no time is wasted and every scene leads into the next in a linear fashion. And, it's weird. And isolated.
Sci-Fi fans will not go wrong by looking for it. I discovered it myself in a library database search for "Fox Cinema Archives".
That's basically my story for today and I'm sticking to it. Before I cash in my chips for the night, I want to once again mention the book I am reading, which is called "The Rendlesham Enigma".
If you are a UFO buff, or if you simply want to know what is going on in this world, you should read this book. I think it is obvious to say that the biggest revelation that could come out of the news media, short of the return of Jesus, would be that there was proof that Planet Earth had been visited by an intelligence from another world.
This is what happened in Rendlesham Forest in December 1980, and the book "The Rendlesham Enigma" gives an extremely detailed, 675 page account of the entire affair.
It is a book I take very much to heart, given my own experience. Read it if you were involved in 1989.
That's all I know for tonight. See you tomorrow morning in church.
Tons of love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoox :):)
Saturday, September 14, 2019
I'm Back! + "It : Chapter Two"
I'm back. I hope you enjoyed reading "Dear Ann", though "enjoyed" is not the proper word. I guess I should say that if you read it - "you" being the General You - I hope you found it informative and enlightening, I hope you got something positive out of it. I spent a lot of time each night really thinking about what I wanted to say, and then transferring those thoughts into precise sentences, because I didn't want to ramble on or repeat myself. I also went back and edited each night's work the following day, to ensure that everything was articulated in the way I intended. Writing is so much different than speaking, and with writing, the author's meaning can be misconstrued if each sentence isn't properly constructed. I wanted "Dear Ann" to read as if it had been written down on paper and sent to Ann as a real letter, and in reading it back myself, I was very pleased with the results. I said everything I wanted to say, and who knows, maybe one day Ann will read it herself, if not in the near future then maybe at least in my lifetime.
Because the writing process went so well, I have thought about continuing the story, and it must be kept in mind that it is a true story and one that is very important for me to resolve. Were I to continue, the next segment would be very graphic and unpleasant - far worse than anything you read in "Dear Ann - and so that factor is something I will really have to consider before making a decision on whether or not to write it down online. I am talking about the Rappaport kidnapping incident, which occurred on the night of September 2nd 1989, and while I wrote about it once before, in 2006 on Myspace, I feel that my writing ability has advanced enough that I could now give it the descriptive quality it deserves. I have also recollected a few details since 2006 that are very important to the story, but it would in no way be easy reading material, because Mr. Rappaport was (and I assume still is) a sick son-of-a-bitch.
I will think about it for a couple of days, and if suddenly you see a blog continuing the story, then there it will be. :)
For now, I'll just tell you what's been going on in the meantime, since I began "Dear Ann". Today was Friday the 13th, and because I had the day off I figured it was the perfect time to go see "It : Chapter Two". I drove up to the Granada Hills Regency at 3pm, and to my surprise and good fortune I had the theater almost to myself. I sat up close and settled in; "It" Part One had blown me off the map when it was released two years ago, and I was plenty pumped up for this movie, which is not a sequel but rather the second half of the whole story. Stephen King's book is 1100 pages long, which is why it took two movies totaling over five hours in length to properly depict it on screen. Anyhow, I was ready, because "It" is not only my favorite SK book, but one of my favorite books period. There is so much feeling and truth in it, about childhood and friendship and our transition into adulthood and the way in which our secrets and fears both bond us and keep us apart.
Sound familiar?
Yeah, well anyway, King wrote "It" in 1986, before anything happened to me, and when I read it, it resonated so deeply that I must have stored it away someplace inside my emotional center. SK touched a nerve in so many of us with that book, not just because of the horror but because of the understanding and the love. King understood childhood in a way that has rarely been captured, including the horrors kids face when thrust into the adult world.
I was very much looking forward to the first movie when it was announced, because the first version of "It", which was made for television in 1990 or thereabouts, was okay and even good in places but fell far short overall in delivering the goods from King's book.
And as we all know, director Andy Muschietti knocked "It : Chapter One" so far out of the park that it became the biggest grossing horror film of all time.
And I am pleased to report that "It : Chapter Two" is also a masterpiece. The movie runs nearly three hours, which seems to be challenging for some fans according to the reviews I've seen, but trust me, there is no way the story could have been completed in a shorter format, and - despite a couple of slowdowns caused by breaks in continuity - nearly every moment of the film is filled with so much story and action and mindblowing set pieces that I hardly know where to start because I am still absorbing what I saw. What stood out above all, however, was the acting. You normally don't expect great acting from a horror movie, right? But you get it here, especially from James McAvoy and Bill Hader, but also the rest of the actors that make up the adult Losers from the story. The other thing that makes this movie a "10" in my opinion is it's heart. The message behind all the horror - which continues almost non-stop - is that it is love and loyalty to one another that get us through life. This is portrayed in brief moments that are powerful enough to leave a tear in your eye. The end of the movie, and of the "It" saga, will resonate with you for a long time.
I call "It" - both movies put together - one of the greatest achievements in horror history, in addition to being humanistic and beautiful. Gigantic kudos to director Muschietti and his team.
"It : Chapter Two"" is a must see, and because I spent more time describing the movie than I thought I would, I must now postpone the other stuff I was gonna add about the movies I've watched in the past two weeks, and the books I've been reading. But I'll catch you up, so don't worry. I am off work tomorrow, too, and for the next several days.
See you in the morning. Tons of love! xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Because the writing process went so well, I have thought about continuing the story, and it must be kept in mind that it is a true story and one that is very important for me to resolve. Were I to continue, the next segment would be very graphic and unpleasant - far worse than anything you read in "Dear Ann - and so that factor is something I will really have to consider before making a decision on whether or not to write it down online. I am talking about the Rappaport kidnapping incident, which occurred on the night of September 2nd 1989, and while I wrote about it once before, in 2006 on Myspace, I feel that my writing ability has advanced enough that I could now give it the descriptive quality it deserves. I have also recollected a few details since 2006 that are very important to the story, but it would in no way be easy reading material, because Mr. Rappaport was (and I assume still is) a sick son-of-a-bitch.
I will think about it for a couple of days, and if suddenly you see a blog continuing the story, then there it will be. :)
For now, I'll just tell you what's been going on in the meantime, since I began "Dear Ann". Today was Friday the 13th, and because I had the day off I figured it was the perfect time to go see "It : Chapter Two". I drove up to the Granada Hills Regency at 3pm, and to my surprise and good fortune I had the theater almost to myself. I sat up close and settled in; "It" Part One had blown me off the map when it was released two years ago, and I was plenty pumped up for this movie, which is not a sequel but rather the second half of the whole story. Stephen King's book is 1100 pages long, which is why it took two movies totaling over five hours in length to properly depict it on screen. Anyhow, I was ready, because "It" is not only my favorite SK book, but one of my favorite books period. There is so much feeling and truth in it, about childhood and friendship and our transition into adulthood and the way in which our secrets and fears both bond us and keep us apart.
Sound familiar?
Yeah, well anyway, King wrote "It" in 1986, before anything happened to me, and when I read it, it resonated so deeply that I must have stored it away someplace inside my emotional center. SK touched a nerve in so many of us with that book, not just because of the horror but because of the understanding and the love. King understood childhood in a way that has rarely been captured, including the horrors kids face when thrust into the adult world.
I was very much looking forward to the first movie when it was announced, because the first version of "It", which was made for television in 1990 or thereabouts, was okay and even good in places but fell far short overall in delivering the goods from King's book.
And as we all know, director Andy Muschietti knocked "It : Chapter One" so far out of the park that it became the biggest grossing horror film of all time.
And I am pleased to report that "It : Chapter Two" is also a masterpiece. The movie runs nearly three hours, which seems to be challenging for some fans according to the reviews I've seen, but trust me, there is no way the story could have been completed in a shorter format, and - despite a couple of slowdowns caused by breaks in continuity - nearly every moment of the film is filled with so much story and action and mindblowing set pieces that I hardly know where to start because I am still absorbing what I saw. What stood out above all, however, was the acting. You normally don't expect great acting from a horror movie, right? But you get it here, especially from James McAvoy and Bill Hader, but also the rest of the actors that make up the adult Losers from the story. The other thing that makes this movie a "10" in my opinion is it's heart. The message behind all the horror - which continues almost non-stop - is that it is love and loyalty to one another that get us through life. This is portrayed in brief moments that are powerful enough to leave a tear in your eye. The end of the movie, and of the "It" saga, will resonate with you for a long time.
I call "It" - both movies put together - one of the greatest achievements in horror history, in addition to being humanistic and beautiful. Gigantic kudos to director Muschietti and his team.
"It : Chapter Two"" is a must see, and because I spent more time describing the movie than I thought I would, I must now postpone the other stuff I was gonna add about the movies I've watched in the past two weeks, and the books I've been reading. But I'll catch you up, so don't worry. I am off work tomorrow, too, and for the next several days.
See you in the morning. Tons of love! xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Thursday, September 12, 2019
Dear Ann (Part Ten, the conclusion)
Dear Ann, Part Ten :
And so, Ann, what I want to ask you is this - would you consider talking to me about what you remember from that night? It wouldn't have to be in person, or even over the phone, though those would be the best ways. But if you aren't comfortable with direct communication, you could write me a letter similar to the one I've written you. You could even send it by email. I know how difficult this subject is, believe me, and I am only asking you because I have no one else to turn to. For over twenty years I have tried to get answers about what happened to me between the dates of September 1 and September 12, 1989, but my queries have been met with a wall of silence. I have tried and tried and tried, but not only has no one ever been willing to talk to me, no one including those I know were present has ever even acknowledged that something out of the ordinary happened to all of us.
I know you are aware of my attempts to contact your sister in the mid-90s. That was a fiasco of my own making. I've apologized for it, and paid for it, and though I do not feel I deserved the response that was meted out to me, I've accepted responsibility for my actions at that time. I was only wanting to know what it was that I was remembering. That was why I tried so relentlessly to get Lillian to talk to me in 1995. My memories were just then coming back to me in force, but they were fragmented and I couldn't make sense of them. I knew something enormous had happened, but I didn't know what. In short, I was confused. When my life became stable, I used to send your sister a Christmas card every year, from about 1999 until 2015. I stopped after that year because I discovered on Facebook that she was now married. But in my Christmas cards and letters, I would very often allude to 1989, not in a blunt way but just by making suggestions that, in my opinion, it was very important that we not forget the truth of what happened to us, and that it was equally important that we tell that truth.
I sent Lillian a Christmas card for about 15 years in a row, give or take, but she never responded. I knew how incredibly difficult it would have been for her to gather the courage to talk to me, but I always hoped that one day it might happen. Once I saw that she was married, I stopped writing, and while I haven't given up hope that Lilly may one day talk about what she knows, I no longer harbor any expectations. As for her participation in the September 1989 event, I did not see her after she was placed in the back of an ambulance in the parking lot of Northridge Hospital, after she was attacked by Howard Schaller on the first night of September 1. I do have a vague memory of seeing her at the Wilbur Wash event, which took place many days later, but at the current time I cannot be certain of it's veracity. My guess is that she knows a lot more about what happened than I do, and while I feel that her continued silence is profoundly wrong for a number of reasons, I have also considered the possibility that, like me, she may have signed a non-disclosure oath all those years ago, but unlike me, she may have not had amnesia and was therefore aware of the gravity of her oath all along.
I have also considered, Ann, that over the years she may have been intimidated into silence by one faction or another.
Please know - and I hope Lillian knows - that I have never blamed her for what happened. Without going into a long explanation, it is sufficient to say that whatever the mystery behind the overall event, it involved a whole lot more than a domestic dispute in a Reseda apartment. My opinion of Lilly has never changed, nor have my feelings toward her.
But Ann, I also need to know what happened to me, and I will interject once again to say that it didn't just happen to me, but to all of us who were present. But speaking for myself, I can only say that it has been monumentally hard for me, not to know the entirety of the event, and most importantly why it happened. I have struggled mightily for all these years, hoping to recover another sliver of memory, but the stream more or less dried up around 2008, excepting the handful of revelations I have mentioned that returned to me since then.
The truth is that I live with this every day of my life, and every day I wonder what it was all about. This can be very debilitating at times, because it never goes away. It's there when I wake up in the morning, and it's there when I go to sleep at night. I cannot pretend it didn't happen, as certain friends and family members do even though they know better. I know it happened and so do they, and for that matter so does Lillian and so do you, I am sure.
So I am asking, very simply, if you will talk to me. If you do not wish to, that is fine, I understand and I will not bother you again. But if you decide that you are willing to write to me, in addition to asking for your memories of that night and the next day (in their entirety) I'd also like to ask you the following questions. I will ask them in the order of the incidents they correspond to :
1) Do you know why that "security thug" showed up at the door to Terry's apartment? I realize you wouldn't have direct knowledge as you weren't involved in any of the proceedings prior to arriving after the fact, but I ask because of the possibility that this information might have been told to you by someone else.
2) Do you have any idea why Mary Sean Young was present? I know that, on the surface, it sounds absurd for me to say that she was there, and that we rode in her car. But we did. And she was there. I have no idea why she was there, but I saw her with my own eyes, and she also has an unmistakable voice. I was, and still am, a fan of hers. Lillian and I saw her in several movies. After I joined Facebook in 2008, I saw that Mary was also a member and I sent her a friend request, which she accepted. At around the same time, give or take a year, I had obtained her email address (I don't recall how), and I sent her an email with a synopsis of her participation in the events on the night of September 1st, 1989. I was polite, in no way accusatory, and I gave a thorough explanation, but I assured her I knew she was there and that she had driven me to the hospital that night, along with others, meaning you, Ann, and Lys. To my surprise, Mary emailed me back. She stated that she "didn't think it was her", and that "people often mistake me for someone else". She was very nice in her reply, wished me well in my quest, but basically disavowed her presence on that night.
Mary is an interesting person, a "conspiracy theorist" in her own right, and I do not mean that in a derogatory way. As I mentioned, her Hollywood career began it's downward slide after 1989, and she had been a star on the rise prior to that. Nowdays, she rails on Twitter in support of Donald Trump. In Mary's defense, regarding her denial of having been at Concord Square, I should mention that I have observed the same honest seeming "denial phenomenon" in other people who I know for a fact were present at one or more of the events in the twelve day sequence. I have said to others, including those close to me : "I know you were there (at such and such a location), and there is no doubt about it", and in certain cases I have gotten an honestly baffled response, where I do not think the person is lying to me but rather is not remembering the experience. But that happened to me, too. I remembered none of my experience for four years, so I suppose it's possible that others to this day do not remember, or remember in only a vague way that is frightening for them to think about. In Mary's case, because she is a bit of a strange person, I am not sure what to make of her denial.
I only know for certain that she was there. What's more, she wasn't the only well-known person who would become a participant as the days went on. So, Ann, I am asking you if you know why she was there. She appeared on the scene very quickly, within an hour of the arrival of the paramedics, and likely sooner. Someone must have called her, though I can't imagine it was anyone I know.
In any event, if you have any information about Mary's presence that night, I would be grateful if you could relate it to me. Thanks, Ann.
3) Do you know why Howard Schaller was waiting for us at Northridge Hospital? I have given you the only possibility I have been able to deduce, which involved a drug deal that went bad and included your sister. To repeat, she would have had no way of knowing or ever meeting Howard if not for my late friend Dave S., so it is likely my conclusion about a drug deal is on the mark. However, I know nothing about the specifics of this arrangement, or how it came about. All I know is that I was utterly shocked to see Howard suddenly attacking our car, totally out of the blue, and then I was doubly shocked to see that Lillian was his target. Because she is your sister, I can understand if you don't wish to answer this question. However, I would greatly appreciate it if you did. I repeat that it is very hard for me to wonder what happened that night, and why.
4) Do you know, Ann, why Federal agents were involved? In other words, do you know why a domestic argument between three people, which should have brought a police response, was instead responded to by a Federal agency, and with such urgency that a helicopter was landing in the street adjacent to Northridge Hospital within 30 to 45 minutes of the violence we experienced in the parking lot? There is something I have always wondered, Ann, about the events of that first night and consequently the overall twelve day experience.
I have asked myself : "What if I had not gone down to Concord Square that night, but instead stayed home. Would a similar situation have eventually presented itself (i.e. was something building up), or did I trigger the reactions of everyone involved by showing up and forcing a confrontation"? What I am asking has to do with not only the presence of the Federal agents but the swiftness of their response, which suggests to me that someone was under surveillance. I have even considered the possibility that Lillian was part of a sting operation, which once again seems absurd on the surface, but something has to account for the response of a Federal agency and for the fact that Howard Schaller knew who Lilly was.
Were agents keeping an eye on the situation prior to the night of September 1st? Or did they respond suddenly to an emergency, brought about by the unexpected confrontation in Terry's apartment, and the fact that an "apple cart" of some sort had been upset?
I don't know the answer to any of these questions, Ann, but perhaps you do. At any rate, after all these years I finally decided to go directly to who I thought might be the source. In 2017, I filed an FOIA and Privacy Act request with the CIA, asking for any and all documents pertaining to my name. I listed the specifics of the situation in brief form. And I got back what is known as a "Glomar" response, in which the CIA told me they can "neither confirm nor deny" that "there is an association" between myself and the Agency. The letter they sent me is written in legalese, and so it must be parsed several times in order to glean what they are getting at. But they list the official reasons why my request for information about myself was denied, and - in short - it was denied because, though they can't confirm or deny it, the information is classified and is protected by an ordinance that prohibits the release of National Security information.
I have read over my letter from the CIA again and again, and also a second letter I got from them in response to my letter of appeal regarding their denial, and I have come to the conclusion that we were involved in a highly classified National Security event.
I have been writing about 1989 for many years, Ann, and I often refer to the twelve day experience as "The Biggest Secret In America". I say that because it has never even been acknowledged. I mean, Roswell was acknowledged and is now part of UFO folklore. Everybody has heard of Area 51, and even the bizarre story of the Skinwalker Ranch. There are conspiracy books about 9/11 and the Kennedys, and nothing seems off limits in the age of post X-Files awareness.
But for some reason, here we are thirty years after our experience in September 1989, and no one but myself has ever even mentioned it, or spoken a single word about it in acknowledgment.
To me, that means that - for some people - it is imperative that information about the experience be kept secret even to this day. I ask myself, why this experience over all others?
And I have my theories, but I still don't know the actual answer.
That is why I am asking for your help. I know this story has frightened a lot of people, not least your sister. But it doesn't have to be frightening if we bring it out into the open. It is only the prolonged secrecy that makes it worse and exaggerates the fear people have. If you signed an oath, and you feel you must abide by it even thirty years later, I respect that. However, there might still be something you could tell me that would be of help. I myself signed an oath, as I noted, but I have never respected it because I didn't remember signing it until 2015. My memory of the entire twelve day event was deliberately taken away from me by induced hypnotic amnesia, and I have so little respect for anyone who would do that do a person - who would take away a person's memory without their consent - that the oath I signed means nothing to me.
My life was basically stolen away by the people who induced my amnesia, and so I write what I want when I want to. I have talked about our experiences whenever I have felt like it, to no consequence thus far. Believe it or not, I hold no grudges, and even like to think of the CIA as my friends.
All of this is to say, Ann, that - in my opinion - if you decided to talk to me, I am certain that no one would care, not at this late date. That goes for Lillian, too. The men who oversaw the events would all be in their mid-70s now. Some would be deceased. So if you were to write me a simple letter, I know no one would object.
Ann, I want to thank you for reading this very lengthy letter, and for even opening it, considering that you saw my name on the envelope. I want to reassure you once again that this will be the only time you will hear from me, unless you decide to respond, and even then I will always be cordial and polite in any further communication.
Peace be with you and your family, and with your sister always.
Adam
And so, Ann, what I want to ask you is this - would you consider talking to me about what you remember from that night? It wouldn't have to be in person, or even over the phone, though those would be the best ways. But if you aren't comfortable with direct communication, you could write me a letter similar to the one I've written you. You could even send it by email. I know how difficult this subject is, believe me, and I am only asking you because I have no one else to turn to. For over twenty years I have tried to get answers about what happened to me between the dates of September 1 and September 12, 1989, but my queries have been met with a wall of silence. I have tried and tried and tried, but not only has no one ever been willing to talk to me, no one including those I know were present has ever even acknowledged that something out of the ordinary happened to all of us.
I know you are aware of my attempts to contact your sister in the mid-90s. That was a fiasco of my own making. I've apologized for it, and paid for it, and though I do not feel I deserved the response that was meted out to me, I've accepted responsibility for my actions at that time. I was only wanting to know what it was that I was remembering. That was why I tried so relentlessly to get Lillian to talk to me in 1995. My memories were just then coming back to me in force, but they were fragmented and I couldn't make sense of them. I knew something enormous had happened, but I didn't know what. In short, I was confused. When my life became stable, I used to send your sister a Christmas card every year, from about 1999 until 2015. I stopped after that year because I discovered on Facebook that she was now married. But in my Christmas cards and letters, I would very often allude to 1989, not in a blunt way but just by making suggestions that, in my opinion, it was very important that we not forget the truth of what happened to us, and that it was equally important that we tell that truth.
I sent Lillian a Christmas card for about 15 years in a row, give or take, but she never responded. I knew how incredibly difficult it would have been for her to gather the courage to talk to me, but I always hoped that one day it might happen. Once I saw that she was married, I stopped writing, and while I haven't given up hope that Lilly may one day talk about what she knows, I no longer harbor any expectations. As for her participation in the September 1989 event, I did not see her after she was placed in the back of an ambulance in the parking lot of Northridge Hospital, after she was attacked by Howard Schaller on the first night of September 1. I do have a vague memory of seeing her at the Wilbur Wash event, which took place many days later, but at the current time I cannot be certain of it's veracity. My guess is that she knows a lot more about what happened than I do, and while I feel that her continued silence is profoundly wrong for a number of reasons, I have also considered the possibility that, like me, she may have signed a non-disclosure oath all those years ago, but unlike me, she may have not had amnesia and was therefore aware of the gravity of her oath all along.
I have also considered, Ann, that over the years she may have been intimidated into silence by one faction or another.
Please know - and I hope Lillian knows - that I have never blamed her for what happened. Without going into a long explanation, it is sufficient to say that whatever the mystery behind the overall event, it involved a whole lot more than a domestic dispute in a Reseda apartment. My opinion of Lilly has never changed, nor have my feelings toward her.
But Ann, I also need to know what happened to me, and I will interject once again to say that it didn't just happen to me, but to all of us who were present. But speaking for myself, I can only say that it has been monumentally hard for me, not to know the entirety of the event, and most importantly why it happened. I have struggled mightily for all these years, hoping to recover another sliver of memory, but the stream more or less dried up around 2008, excepting the handful of revelations I have mentioned that returned to me since then.
The truth is that I live with this every day of my life, and every day I wonder what it was all about. This can be very debilitating at times, because it never goes away. It's there when I wake up in the morning, and it's there when I go to sleep at night. I cannot pretend it didn't happen, as certain friends and family members do even though they know better. I know it happened and so do they, and for that matter so does Lillian and so do you, I am sure.
So I am asking, very simply, if you will talk to me. If you do not wish to, that is fine, I understand and I will not bother you again. But if you decide that you are willing to write to me, in addition to asking for your memories of that night and the next day (in their entirety) I'd also like to ask you the following questions. I will ask them in the order of the incidents they correspond to :
1) Do you know why that "security thug" showed up at the door to Terry's apartment? I realize you wouldn't have direct knowledge as you weren't involved in any of the proceedings prior to arriving after the fact, but I ask because of the possibility that this information might have been told to you by someone else.
2) Do you have any idea why Mary Sean Young was present? I know that, on the surface, it sounds absurd for me to say that she was there, and that we rode in her car. But we did. And she was there. I have no idea why she was there, but I saw her with my own eyes, and she also has an unmistakable voice. I was, and still am, a fan of hers. Lillian and I saw her in several movies. After I joined Facebook in 2008, I saw that Mary was also a member and I sent her a friend request, which she accepted. At around the same time, give or take a year, I had obtained her email address (I don't recall how), and I sent her an email with a synopsis of her participation in the events on the night of September 1st, 1989. I was polite, in no way accusatory, and I gave a thorough explanation, but I assured her I knew she was there and that she had driven me to the hospital that night, along with others, meaning you, Ann, and Lys. To my surprise, Mary emailed me back. She stated that she "didn't think it was her", and that "people often mistake me for someone else". She was very nice in her reply, wished me well in my quest, but basically disavowed her presence on that night.
Mary is an interesting person, a "conspiracy theorist" in her own right, and I do not mean that in a derogatory way. As I mentioned, her Hollywood career began it's downward slide after 1989, and she had been a star on the rise prior to that. Nowdays, she rails on Twitter in support of Donald Trump. In Mary's defense, regarding her denial of having been at Concord Square, I should mention that I have observed the same honest seeming "denial phenomenon" in other people who I know for a fact were present at one or more of the events in the twelve day sequence. I have said to others, including those close to me : "I know you were there (at such and such a location), and there is no doubt about it", and in certain cases I have gotten an honestly baffled response, where I do not think the person is lying to me but rather is not remembering the experience. But that happened to me, too. I remembered none of my experience for four years, so I suppose it's possible that others to this day do not remember, or remember in only a vague way that is frightening for them to think about. In Mary's case, because she is a bit of a strange person, I am not sure what to make of her denial.
I only know for certain that she was there. What's more, she wasn't the only well-known person who would become a participant as the days went on. So, Ann, I am asking you if you know why she was there. She appeared on the scene very quickly, within an hour of the arrival of the paramedics, and likely sooner. Someone must have called her, though I can't imagine it was anyone I know.
In any event, if you have any information about Mary's presence that night, I would be grateful if you could relate it to me. Thanks, Ann.
3) Do you know why Howard Schaller was waiting for us at Northridge Hospital? I have given you the only possibility I have been able to deduce, which involved a drug deal that went bad and included your sister. To repeat, she would have had no way of knowing or ever meeting Howard if not for my late friend Dave S., so it is likely my conclusion about a drug deal is on the mark. However, I know nothing about the specifics of this arrangement, or how it came about. All I know is that I was utterly shocked to see Howard suddenly attacking our car, totally out of the blue, and then I was doubly shocked to see that Lillian was his target. Because she is your sister, I can understand if you don't wish to answer this question. However, I would greatly appreciate it if you did. I repeat that it is very hard for me to wonder what happened that night, and why.
4) Do you know, Ann, why Federal agents were involved? In other words, do you know why a domestic argument between three people, which should have brought a police response, was instead responded to by a Federal agency, and with such urgency that a helicopter was landing in the street adjacent to Northridge Hospital within 30 to 45 minutes of the violence we experienced in the parking lot? There is something I have always wondered, Ann, about the events of that first night and consequently the overall twelve day experience.
I have asked myself : "What if I had not gone down to Concord Square that night, but instead stayed home. Would a similar situation have eventually presented itself (i.e. was something building up), or did I trigger the reactions of everyone involved by showing up and forcing a confrontation"? What I am asking has to do with not only the presence of the Federal agents but the swiftness of their response, which suggests to me that someone was under surveillance. I have even considered the possibility that Lillian was part of a sting operation, which once again seems absurd on the surface, but something has to account for the response of a Federal agency and for the fact that Howard Schaller knew who Lilly was.
Were agents keeping an eye on the situation prior to the night of September 1st? Or did they respond suddenly to an emergency, brought about by the unexpected confrontation in Terry's apartment, and the fact that an "apple cart" of some sort had been upset?
I don't know the answer to any of these questions, Ann, but perhaps you do. At any rate, after all these years I finally decided to go directly to who I thought might be the source. In 2017, I filed an FOIA and Privacy Act request with the CIA, asking for any and all documents pertaining to my name. I listed the specifics of the situation in brief form. And I got back what is known as a "Glomar" response, in which the CIA told me they can "neither confirm nor deny" that "there is an association" between myself and the Agency. The letter they sent me is written in legalese, and so it must be parsed several times in order to glean what they are getting at. But they list the official reasons why my request for information about myself was denied, and - in short - it was denied because, though they can't confirm or deny it, the information is classified and is protected by an ordinance that prohibits the release of National Security information.
I have read over my letter from the CIA again and again, and also a second letter I got from them in response to my letter of appeal regarding their denial, and I have come to the conclusion that we were involved in a highly classified National Security event.
I have been writing about 1989 for many years, Ann, and I often refer to the twelve day experience as "The Biggest Secret In America". I say that because it has never even been acknowledged. I mean, Roswell was acknowledged and is now part of UFO folklore. Everybody has heard of Area 51, and even the bizarre story of the Skinwalker Ranch. There are conspiracy books about 9/11 and the Kennedys, and nothing seems off limits in the age of post X-Files awareness.
But for some reason, here we are thirty years after our experience in September 1989, and no one but myself has ever even mentioned it, or spoken a single word about it in acknowledgment.
To me, that means that - for some people - it is imperative that information about the experience be kept secret even to this day. I ask myself, why this experience over all others?
And I have my theories, but I still don't know the actual answer.
That is why I am asking for your help. I know this story has frightened a lot of people, not least your sister. But it doesn't have to be frightening if we bring it out into the open. It is only the prolonged secrecy that makes it worse and exaggerates the fear people have. If you signed an oath, and you feel you must abide by it even thirty years later, I respect that. However, there might still be something you could tell me that would be of help. I myself signed an oath, as I noted, but I have never respected it because I didn't remember signing it until 2015. My memory of the entire twelve day event was deliberately taken away from me by induced hypnotic amnesia, and I have so little respect for anyone who would do that do a person - who would take away a person's memory without their consent - that the oath I signed means nothing to me.
My life was basically stolen away by the people who induced my amnesia, and so I write what I want when I want to. I have talked about our experiences whenever I have felt like it, to no consequence thus far. Believe it or not, I hold no grudges, and even like to think of the CIA as my friends.
All of this is to say, Ann, that - in my opinion - if you decided to talk to me, I am certain that no one would care, not at this late date. That goes for Lillian, too. The men who oversaw the events would all be in their mid-70s now. Some would be deceased. So if you were to write me a simple letter, I know no one would object.
Ann, I want to thank you for reading this very lengthy letter, and for even opening it, considering that you saw my name on the envelope. I want to reassure you once again that this will be the only time you will hear from me, unless you decide to respond, and even then I will always be cordial and polite in any further communication.
Peace be with you and your family, and with your sister always.
Adam
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)