Past Postings

Previous William Thomas Sherman Info Page postings, quotes, observations, etc.

**************************************************************************************** *******************

Themselves thoroughly persuaded by and trusting in the might of the ghoul, what they then end up saying is "Yes, your power and stature is or may indeed be considerable. But that of the ghoul is supreme. Therefore without his permission we cannot aid or assist you. In view of which, it is your fault if you suffer, not ours, for thinking you could do without his protection. So you see, we would have helped. But you by your pride have simply made that impossible."


Although I did not originally intend to spend too much time on the subject, the JFK assassination upon closer examination proved such an intriguing mystery that I could not help myself in trying to seek a solution. The more then I have looked over or listened to various material, analyses, testimony and commentary the more convinced I am that there were multiple culprits involved in committing the crime, and these were ultimately actuated and their actions directed by a spirit person of some kind, presumably a ghost sorcerer (or at least such at this juncture would be as good a guess as any.) In support of this, we have the following:

* The open mike dictabelt recording of the Dallas Police Department motorcycle officer seem to leave little doubt that there were two shooters; since the last two of the four shots recorded come so near to each other in time that they could not possibly have been fired by the same person unless he was firing an automatic rifle (which the book depository gunman ostensibly was not.) [Later Note. This conclusion of mine assumes a trustworthiness to and or interpretation of the dictabelt recording which perhaps upon closer inspection (some would argue) is not so readily warranted. Upon reflection then, this possible weakness to my reasoning I, for the time being, concede.]

* That there were two head wounds to the President also confirms there being two gunman, and this case is well presented and made, and to which I would refer you, at:

* As we pointed out earlier, it is too absurd a coincidence to believe that Oswald just happened to be working at a tall building -- and which he could freely move about in without arousing suspicion -- located right along the route of the motorcade.

* The lapses in Secret Service security for the president are too numerous to be credited were not such clearly and undeniably established by the accepted record and evidence. And if those in charge of the Secret Service in Dallas in Nov. 1963 did not act with criminal intent at the very least they displayed mind-boggling incompetence.

* It is a bit strange that when Pres. Kennedy was first hit that he did not cry out or make a sound. Although I would not go so far yet to advocate this interpretation myself, one theory to account for this is that he was paralyzed by a dart fired by the "Umbrella Man." Here I will let others attempt to make the case, and which you can find at: I would, however, just remark that the nicety of silencing Kennedy before killing him would be perfect modus operandi if the crime actually were in some way witchcraft person related. On the other hand, even if no flechette was fired, the umbrella man is certainly a strange and confusing presence -- and, once again, the creating that sort of confusion is arguably symptomatic and in keeping with the sort of sophistication a ghost magician characteristically manifests in a performance.

* Among the most important questions that needs to be asked in order to understand the tragic event is what effect did JFK's death (and also subsequently MLK's and RFK's) end up having?

One immediate and later impact for many is that they were (and are) compelled to choose between faith and fear. In light of the President's death should we continue to hope or should we rather fear more? For many obviously the answer was and is to fear more, and to perhaps even come around to seeing that Kennedy's idealism -- as proven by his own instantaneous death -- was a useless pipe dream. To further bolster this pessimistic view, in the wake of the crime and its investigation more and more people became disillusioned with the government; either because the latter was acting with duplicity and or gross ineptitude in not preventing or solving the crime. Who then might we asked have sought these as ends? Hardly the purportedly mad loner Oswald -- presumably he would have been too mentally incapacitated to have calculated in advance such things. And while war profiteers might have desired wealth from escalating events in Vietnam, surely they would not have also deliberately sought to attack the government and the integrity of the government itself. No, the only one who would have such a grand motive as that would be one of these big-shot criminal spirit people I write about, and who would have the subtle expertise and comprehensive wherewithal to have weaved the actions of many separate and unassociated individuals into the perpetration of one joining and linking event. It would be a spirit person, in my opinion, who would have the hindsight to have the event take place and then so prompt and pose to people the frightening question -- "What, in light of this terrible occurrence, will you believe? Fear or idealism?" Indeed, who else would have it in them to be both so expertly knowledgeable as to have coordinated conspirators while also intentionally precipitating such a broad, grandiose -- and cosmic -- referendum?


It will come as no surprise for you to hear that devils are capable of pulling and utilizing little tricks as part of their taking advantage of you -- including such taking advantage that involves tormenting and beating you up, perhaps even for years and years on end. The question then is how is it possible for one to endure such tricks and such relentless abuse?

It is helpful to characterize what you are or might be dealing with in such a circumstance as a kind of military conflict. These people have in effect taken it upon themselves to formally declare war on you. As part of this policy they have various weapons, tactics, and strategies which they will use for that purpose; that is, if you refuse to compromise with or capitulate to them; some of which tactics, etc., needless to add, can be acutely harsh and ruthless.

What then can a person being so maliciously hounded and assailed do to protect them themselves? Of course, much depends on the particularities of your person, relationships, and living circumstances, including your level of intelligence and character; the number and quality of your friends; and the amount of material wealth at your disposal -- in this order of importance. The stronger you are in any or all of these areas the more formidable an opponent against them you are. If you are such a person whom they desire to target, it will not be at all unusual then for them to attempt to undermine and weaken each one of these strengths you do or might possess in advance of their carrying out their actual attack.

Naturally, one could speak -- and we ourselves have spoken -- at great length with respect to different methods one might adopt to withstand and defend oneself in the face of such excessively vicious and determined aggression. This said, some additional remarks perhaps for some are in order here.

Though they do everything they can to make it seem otherwise -- it is their problem -- not yours; and unless you yourself are depraved and so morally lax as to qualify as a seedy person, all that you ever and really need to beat them is to get rid of them from your life. If you can only do this, you will win in the way that most matters. The experience is a lot like running a very long race. Although all the running fatigues and wearies you, if you stop and pause for too long you only make yourself an easier target for your enemies. At the same time, your victory conditions are otherwise simple. Keep going till your enemy is forced to stop. Do this and in the long haul you cannot possibly lose. The obvious question though is "what if they won't stop?" Needless to say, there lies the rub. Yet leaving aside whether an opponent can be evaded or made to desist, if you do somehow survive him otherwise it is impossible for him to really beat you.

As before then -- try to behave yourself as best you can; reject as much as possible their perspective, philosophy and way of seeing things (and which they will ever strive to foist and inculcate on and into you); ever seek out, discern and detect their weaknesses; avoid letting your emotions (such as anger or desperation) get the better of you; refuse to let any spirit person (and irrespective of the form or guise they come in) who will not conduct themselves in a decent, honest, fair and civilized manner put on airs with you; remember always that it is the truth that matters most and what people think is always of itself and at best a secondary concern; remind yourself that the problem is ultimately and really theirs, and all that is actually necessary for you is to continue to comport your own self rightly (as best you are able) while ever looking toward separating yourself from them; be appreciative of their hell like doggedness and persistence and that you are capable of the same thing if only you, and with some self-discipline, adopt the right attitude yourself in this regard; be also alert to tricks designed to persuade and ensnare you, surprise and shock tactics, and, in sum, endeavor (while not failing to avail yourself of the almighty power of just reasoning) to identify, understand, and surmount the specific methods and strategies they employ to coerce you to their will -- and advance the realization of their self-serving ambitions generally.


Let's review what it is that makes certain spirit people the greatest force for evil, unnatural strife, sickness and unhappiness than any other in all the world; bearing in as usual that the spirit people I discuss belong to a certain class; are not merely imperfect beings but unabashed, career criminals; and I don't intend these remarks to refer to all spirit people; as by my sometimes generalizing some might mistakenly infer.

* They will at as if and pass themselves off as higher authority -- including God and Heaven itself -- when in actual point of fact they are and represent a form of criminality as or more malignant than any known disease.

* They have a power over people's thoughts and judgments that can be nothing short of staggering and overwhelming. A given person might, for example, not otherwise do a terribly wrong thing. However, if a spirit person tells them it is all right to do it the subject can be made to believe the wrong doing -- including even the most unconscionable evil -- is permissible. Moreover, not only does the ill deed become acceptable but evil itself then can be made to seem a positive good. In this way these spirit people screw up people's value judgments in such a way that the latter will trade or hand over persons and things of high value in exchange for rubbish and good for nothings with invariably exceedingly painful, if not tragic, consequences to themselves, not to mention others.

* They plant irrational dissension, separation and unrest among peoples using the divide and conquer method for the purposes of enslaving them.

* They are stupefyingly sadistic, and often times will forgo the more practical criminal advantages of mere murder, robbery and or unjust imprisonment in preference to making someone suffer in agony merely for the sake of their suffering in agony -- perhaps even treating them this way for years, decades, or even longer.

* Although probably the greatest benefit personal and business intercourse with them has conferred on humanity at large is in the way of the fantasy, ghost, and fairy stories they have made possible in literature, films and elsewhere, their actual benefit they offer is by and large, otherwise, and for the most part very small. And yet they seek nothing less than control and possession of the largest share of the public wealth, power and monies, and which, as it turns out, is in point of fact their own as much, if not more so, than anyone other single group of private individual's thanks to the proficiency and high effectiveness of their "warcraft."

Others, as you already know, have their own and divergent views on this same topic. In the interest then of equal a time and without further ado, here is sequence from the musical "Wicked" that I think as well as any I have heard or read elsewhere argues the justice of my opposition's philosophical position -- at least in a manner that more ordinary people, as opposed to intellectuals and scientists, can grasp and understand -- and to that extent is not without its merit, as well as being fun and well performed taken only musically. It may help, by the way, to imagine this song being sung by the ghoulish magician to better further convey my own understanding of him and how he sees himself.


As we often make it a point to bring to our readers' attention good music that they either don't know of or else perhaps forgot about, one piece of such desription is the terrific violin melody, "Transylvanian Lullaby," from the soundtrack to Mel Brooks' "Young Frankenstein" film. Although not available at mp3 downloads, it is I discovered to be had at Rhapsody at this link: (scroll down to and click on the individual track unless you want to purchase the whole City of Prague Philharmonic album.) If you never or else haven't used Rhapsody in a long while (as was my case), you can evidently as of not so long ago now buy individual song tracks without having to sign up for a special membership as previously (very good news to me for one.)


(Gulp) Perhaps I was mistaken about President Bush after all. Just listen to what someone posting on YouTube dug up not long ago.

(Seriously though, I noticed in continuing to look into and examine the JFK slaying case that there are what appear to be some hoax documentaries, such as "The Men Who Killed Kennedy, The Final Chapter" [or "TMWKK;" not to be confused with the original and sober -- if less than perfect given the complex character of the topic addressed -- History Channel presentation, "The Men Who Killed Kennedy."] If then you are in the habit of viewing and following such programs [and if you don’t know already] be prepared for the possibility of fraud, put-ons, and "warcraft" while endeavoring -- as always -- to arrive at your own conclusions with care -- which is to say rationally, skeptically and impartially. No less absurd than the above "secret speech" of Pres. Bush, by the way, are claims that Pres. Johnson sought to have Pres. Kennedy gunned down -- made just as laughable as the YouTube piece when juxtaposed with actual and historical footage of John F. Kennedy during the 1960 presidential campaign expressing his affection and admiration for Johnson before huge crowds.)


The Lesson

In your mind, stay ahead
Of whatever's being said,
And predict the effect
So as to not disrespect
Either what is right and true
Or whom you're speaking to.

No need great heights to reach;
Come warmly with honest speech.
For a palace is bare
If no one can much live there;
Far better a cheery home
Where no one feels alone.

Though wrought
Into a glorious state,
Useless words we hate.
Speak to us then
Only from the heart;
That our own
May be made silent
Come the time you part.


One of the difficulties I noticed that frequently arises with those who attempt to identify and, in effect, accuse certain individuals of being behind a given conspiratorial plot is that it is difficult to get at what is supposed to be that individual's primary motive for their actions. For example, there is an interesting (if at times childishly irrelevant given the subject matter) documentary on Google video titled "JFK II" that pursues the hypothesis that George Bush, senior was at the nexus of a group of persons tied in with the slaying of Pres. Kennedy. Now even if we grant, for the sake of argument, the theory being essentially correct, it would not necessarily follow that Bush acted with significant (as opposed to petty or misdemeanor) mens rea. It is possible that such a person being positioned as he is alleged to have been could assist the main body of criminals merely through his being deceived into doing the wrong thing. What an orchestrator of sophisticated criminals plots does is arrange his players to act their separate roles -- without their necessarily even knowing what they are a part of, or what parts others are playing, or even that there is any centralized plot at all. This can be achieved without requiring that the subject have serious criminal intent in order to fulfill and carry out their assigned role. Indeed, some persons can be got to do something very wrong because they think they are doing something very right. Others will excuse doing wrong saying it is forced necessity, and they otherwise would not think of doing it was not such extreme and highly unusual pressure placed upon them.

A true higher up in a grand conspiracy then plans in advance how to tailor each potential participant (whether knowing, unknowing, or partly knowing) in the role he wants them to play; concerning himself with different (and mutual) motives and or weaknesses of whose involved, and which then can be manipulated and directed according to the higher end or purpose sought. He then factors in how much it will cost to get that person to play that role, and so in this manner budgets his resources accordingly.

A cover-up therefore, say in the case of the Warren Commission Report, was not then necessarily prompted by government investigators seeking to conceal Kennedy's assassins. All that might be necessary (and to give just one conjectured instance) might be to get them to believe that the President's killers (due to such and such circumstances) are beyond being apprehended by the law. Yet if the real criminals (albeit unintentionally otherwise) are not covered up for, these others who do mean well and who only became involved through pardonable incompetence should not have their personal lives and careers ruined by implicating them unfairly with something they were only connected to due to an in and of itself small, but even so ultimately devastating in its effect, error and mistake. And, needless to add, many and other scenarios, combinations, and explanations are possible; where historians and scholars are potentially led astray by red herrings, decoys, scapegoats, and second and third banana characters -- as intended.


There are still a number of songs left over from the "Soul, Rockin' and Obscure" collection which I hope to post further here at some as yet undetermined future date. Meantime, here's at least one additional track, Mac Curtis' "Gulf Stream Line"

Later Note. I wasn't aware at the time I first added the above that this song is available at .mp3 downloads; consequently the now adjusted link will take you there (instead of to a direct download of the song from as was the case originally.)


Mark well the doctrine (not to mention the teaching.)

The Son of Man crucified was to be made a healing force like the bronze serpent Moses held up in the desert. The idea, so it appears, is that the image helps you to better and more clearly identify what is ailing you, and thus better empower you to deal with whatever it is. A major difference, however, is while Moses overtly referred to a serpent, with the cross the "serpent" (itself to be taken as a symbol or label rather than literally) must be inferred by his deeds. Among other points that might be mentioned then, the cross teaches the more medically sophisticated perspective of seeking the identity of a sickness by its effects rather than automatically assume it can only be readily and immediately perceived by the senses if seen at all.


"The poor you will always have with you."
~ Matthew 26:11

America was particularly admired in colonial times and the early days of the Republic because the very poor in this country were not nearly so bad off compared to their European counterparts. What accounted for this being so? My own view and a part of the explanation is to be found in that the ways of autocratic spirit people (outside certain locations in Central and South America) had not yet taken very deep root in this country; so there had not yet arisen that need and market for human sacrifices that made the class and strata of wretchedly impoverished people in Europe necessary (i.e. to feed the benevolent "gods," so to speak.)


I'm Lovin' It

Call it conspiracy theory or what you will but the fact is if an individual is seriously tied in with the Monster gang -- that is that gang which locally, nationally, and or internationally makes a living off of doing the wrong thing (even and including assassination) -- it speaks for itself as to the kind of mixed up person they are, and without our having to prove further anything whatsoever. For either they shudder and do feel badly about those most dreadful crimes and acts of gratuitous violence (at least if they stop and think about them) or they don't; and this difference is decisive in casting or impressing in the minds of others the fundamental nature of their character; so much so that material wealth or seeming public opinion can't or don't really count all that much in either the present or final analysis in establishing what he actually is and what he's actually worth.

And on a personal note another thing -- you know how they hounded those poets and artists such that the latter were finally driven to take their own lives? Well, in my case, I don't care if this ghoulish magician is a larger than life Russ Troll; I'm not going to put up with it and he's the one who is going to commit suicide this time around -- not me. He is the one, when all is said and done, who will inflict the fatal self shot, quaff the poisoned vial, take the precipitous dive -- in glad and encouraging anticipation of which I in the meanwhile will sing "Starry, Starry Night" to him every now and then.


They were a very good looking couple -- don't you think?


Just to show you what a genuine child of the 60's I was (and am), below are some snaps I just got through scanning from my photo album.

Taken in probably early 1962.

This shot is actually marked: "June 1964." (My older brother Ken is on the right.)

"Let's Go Mets" - apparently '65. (I'm on the left; my younger brother Brian to the right.)


To a significant extent and medically speaking, the well-being of your physical heart lies in the well-being of your soul. (Now what, if anything, we can do with this same notion poetry-wise is another matter.)


For years now they have been winking and nodding at evil, and yet have you seen how messed up some of those young and older women are that are used for sex? Really, these are some of the saddest and most heart breaking sights you could ever see. Such women are not merely the "nigger of the world," as John Lennon said, but also literal sacrificial victims to that same stone idol that has been responsible for some of the more fantastic fortunes of recent decades. For who do you think is most chargeable for messing these women up? Not, in my opinion, (so called) pornography or prostitution per se. Rather, the far greater and substantial blame lies with that part of society that made an overt Faustian bargain to gain money and would-be security for themselves -- that is, aside, of course, from the heavenly and criminal spirit people whom the latter consorted or made a de facto pact with -- and against and in opposition to honesty, truth and reason which together and in unison the above named culprits so vehemently mock, proscribe, and suppress. For, in view of all circumstances, are not the greatest abusers and murderers among us also the greatest liars and protectors of secrets?


Or let's put it this way. Even if we can't help putting up with the ghoulish horror from beyond and his crypto-heaven (in whose employee and sanctification he’s in), you can't be using brain torture radios, for cryin' out loud -- it's just too cheap. That's just common sense. And if you cannot comprehend why this is so there is obviously something very wrong with you.


If Benedict Arnold (at least for the sake of argument) acted out of love for his beautiful wife, how well then did his love end up serving her? (Specifically, of course, the answer rests with Peggy Shippen. Yet we as philosophers can still pose the more general question.)


He's rich, wise, really funny, a real ladies man, and is helping people -- only he dare not speak the truth too often. Now to you, he's the one (aside from spirit people, of course) who is and should be running things. But to me, he's just a coward, a traitor -- and an asshole.

Later Note to Posterity. The reason the above post was considered particularly funny in its day was especially due to its being literally true; that is, the person in question actually was, and is, an asshole, and to not understand this would be to miss out almost entirely on the humor of the jest.


If there is not harmony and peace it must be because there is continuing war going on with someone; nor is this war merely humanity's chance counter desires conflicting. Rather the preeminent and persistent strife we encounter in life is invariably the direct result of a deliberate effort by someone to degrade and abuse everyone else, and this someone is, as well as are his immediate followers, a spirit person.

Whether rich or poor, life is always in some ways hard for most anyone. There are always great challenges, if not extraneous and unwelcome difficulties otherwise, to face. All the more reason then to hate these meddling, busy body, arrogant, self-serving, and unaccountable spirit people who pretend to be the world's rulers. So and so starves for what such and such has plenty, and vice versa. Why? Because certain spirit people don't want to see either of them too empowered -- and it is this interference which keeps us all poorer than we otherwise would be were these same spirit people ejected entirely from being able to participate in our lives, or, if not that, legally identified, recognized (or not recognized), and strictly governed and regulated in the extent of their involvement in our affairs. And no, that they exist is not sufficient grounds in and of itself that they should be among and have sway with us. In sum, don't make a god of a disease, and we'll all live much better and longer for it.


No longer a deity, now he belongs to the archeologists.


And at the end of the day,
heavy is the weight
and sorrowful is the burden and fate
of demonism.

(Later Note. He's like King Kong or Godzilla; so you'll need to use some extra heavy chains on him.)


Did you forget so soon? Oh well, if so here's "Brian's Song" played by the composer himself, Michel Legrand, at .mp3 downloads.


"Covey Cub is not someone you want to know."

* If they are so great, why is it I don't even care about them?
* If I am not important, why have they spent and are they spending so much to bother me?
* Yet if I am important, why am I so alone with this?

And to this day I have never received a truly straight and forthright answer as to why, after fifteen years, all this is going on, who exactly is doing it, or why it is people cannot or will not even talk to me about it.

I claim to be attacked by ghosts and contend that brain torture radios are being used on me. But I ask you, in all honesty, who is or are the crazy ones here?


How should I be surprised to hear the economy is failing when just the other day they told me themselves that even the fish don't want to live anymore (i.e. thanks to the de facto reign of "Speelburg," these totalitarian spirit people, and their criminal and parasitical ilk?) And when, I'd like to know, will people finally come to see that true wealth stems from hard work (meaning morals), fair competition, equal basic justice, free trade, and efficient spending and investment -- not piratical billionaires and con-artists, war-craft and artificial monopolies; ruthless, dirty trick tactics, and the reckless waste and squandering of money and resources (on, for example, junk movies and merchandise, hoaxsters and drone enterprises [e.g. “club” membership and gambling]?)


How should I be surprised to hear the economy is failing when just the other day they told me themselves that even the fish don't want to live anymore (i.e. thanks to the defacto reign of "Speelberg," these totalitarian spirit people, and their criminal and parasitical ilk?)


I have just spent a number of weeks now having the opportunity to pour through the voluminous exchange contained in The Campaign in Virginia, 1781 : an exact reprint of six rare pamphlets on the Clinton-Cornwallis Controversy with very numerous important unpublished manuscript notes by Sir Henry Clinton, and the omitted and hitherto unpublished portions of the letters in their appendixes added from the original manuscripts; with a supplement containing extracts from the Journals of the House of Lords, a French translation of papers laid before the House and a catalogue of the additional correspondence of Clinton and of Cornwallis, 1780-81, about 3456 papers relating to the Controversy or bearing on affairs in America, with biographical notices in a copious index (edited by Benjamin Franklin Stevens, London, 1888) and found at and vol. 2 at The sense I have arrived at of the extended and somewhat baffling debate is this.

First, we might ask what prompted the controversy between the two generals? Presumably their intent was to persuade public opinion and history to their own interpretation of the military events that had transpired. In this, Clinton seems the more belligerent -- both due to the fact that he was mostly right but also in part because people in Britain generally sympathized more with Cornwallis than himself. Yet if Clinton was mostly right, why was he so contentious? There is a certain mania to his criticism; such that he so pursues small arguments while making it less possible to separate them from what are the larger and more decisive ones. In sum, Cornwallis as Clinton avows (and along with Cornwallis, the Admiralty and Germain's Ministry) did make most of the pivotal mistakes. But Clinton's belabored criticism of Cornwallis notwithstanding makes Clinton himself look the worse in the disputation; only to further render more cloudy and make more indistinguishable his many good arguments from his more minor and trivial ones.

Leaving aside whether he should have even invaded North Carolina in February 1781, one of the most challenged of Cornwallis' judgments was his moving into Virginia. His own idea was that by cutting off Virginia from the Carolinas the latter would more easily fall. While subsequent raids and movements by the British in Virginia did seriously end up weakening Greene's army after Guilford Court House, Greene's dilemma, as it turned out, was largely alleviated by the robust partisans and militias in the Carolinas, and Carolinians and Georgians themselves who volunteered or were drafted as Continentals. Not so much and in a manner Greene felt was desirable, but enough to offset and mitigate the disadvantage brought about by Virginia's own crisis and preoccupation. The advantage then of cutting off Virginia from the Carolinas was in a sense realized and accomplished, yet the overall benefit was relatively small and far too costly.

Clinton himself did not want to conquer Virginia, and thought it too ambitious an undertaking. All he sought, as far as that state went, was a naval station in the Chesapeake, with perhaps some minor interdiction. Cornwallis was not needed in Virginia to establish the naval station, nor did he settle clearly with Clinton whether or not Virginia should be the primary target for an offensive. In other words, Cornwallis in entering Virginia embarked upon its conquest -- even though if pronounced that way openly to Clinton the latter would probably have said it was too risky and problematical a venture. Cornwallis was doing what he wanted, and Clinton let him do it though without being informed that the complete subjugation of Virginia was his intent. For were that not his intent, he had no need really to be in Virginia; and even if Clinton was confused, Cornwallis ought to have made plain with him what the primary aim was supposed to be if he was going to keep so many men with him there.

In the midst of all this the loss of North Carolina seems hardly worth a mention in the generals' controversy. And yet in coming to assume as Cornwallis did that that state was too excessively hostile and irredeemable could be said to have been the defining moment of defeat and the actual beginning of most of the subsequent misapprehensions and muddling of purposes; because it was from there he made the decision to march to and wage war in Virginia.


Although in many ways quite charming, delightful in its sets and clever as well in the "kineman" animation techniques used, one of the strangest films you are ever likely to see is the 1954 RKO film "Hansel and Gretel," based on Englebert Humperdinck's 1893 opera, and directed by Michale Myerburg. It is fascinating on a number of levels and the animation so believable that it can even spook and amaze real spirit people who watch it. Yet I wanted to post a clip from it here to give you an idea of the kind of moods, visions, and wonders that certain skilled spirit person magicians and sorcerers can create (whether to the inward and or outward eye, and sans any sound except perhaps a person speaking to you [ala "Yogi" communicating to Chandu]), and which then by dazzling and awing the subject gets them to trade real value (say, with respect to their morals) for what is nothing more than a grand show. The economics of this are simple. The spirit person provides you with a stupendous and exhilarating show or a trick, and you in turn hand over your trust, your honesty, your thinking, and or your good conduct over to them based on the idea that the marvels they show themselves capable of are proof of both their good will and integrity. (Go figure.)

Later Note. Here, via .mp3 downloads, is the same orchestral portion contained in the above, but performed by Charles Mackerras and the Philharmonia Orchestra. There is an original soundtrack LP to the 1954 "Opera Fantasy" H&G film, but unfortunately no one to my knowledge has yet put it out on CD.
Even Later. Here's this same video sequence above transferred to mp3 (zipped at 9.3 MBs) -- to download, click here.


It, as of just the other day (13 Sept.), being the 150th anniversary of the reported appearance of the Virgin Mary to St. Bernadette at Lourdes, some remarks, given my theories and explanations of spirit people, are perhaps appropriate. My reaction to the other-worldly visitation is that it was genuine. Bernadette honestly believed what she saw and heard -- but it was not actually the Virgin Mary. Witchcraft spirit people would have far more motive in using an impersonator to pull such a stunt (than could be justified by truth, faith or morality otherwise); not least of which in venturing to make fools of various witnesses, believers, including the church itself; while at the same time getting those latter to place their confidence in secretive, personally unaccountable and undependable spirit people. It does not follow, however, that Bernadette is not or does not qualify as a saint; and indeed, it might even be said that she herself was being crucified with a falsehood, and when she herself was not only blameless, but very pious, devoted and well meaning also.