Ken Kesey on trial: Allan Weisbecker's debate challenge

[Allancw]

Jerry,


I'm not going to debate technical issues about 9/11 here except to say that anyone can do some googling about frame rate and shutter speed in off-the-shelf video cameras and then do the math to calculate how much motion blur there should be. I am not going to take the bait and waste everyone's time on a misdirection back and forth, on a detail about a subject matter better dealt with elsewhere. I’d be happy to start a separate thread about 9/11. In fact, I’d love to do that. I’d love for everyone to see my Walter Iooss Interview and then your reaction to it. So, please do open a thread.

[Editor's note: New thread has been opened, under the title 'Allan Weisbecker 911 discussion thread'.]

Make of the above paragraph what you will, how I'm this or that; knock yourself out. What I want to talk about is the debate challenge I made to Joe Atwill re his accusations against Ken Kesey. You claim I'm not 'logical' enough to be a worthy debate opponent. This post is meant partially to answer that claim.

On Gnosticmedia.com, Joe Atwill and Jan Irvin posted two podcasts on Ken Kesey, one being titled ‘The Trial of Ken Kesey.’ Here’s my opinion of that:

Joe, you have accused a wonderful, maybe great writer -- who is no longer here to defend himself -- of the worst crime a writer can commit: Writing in order to cause damage to his reader. (Ditto Salinger, by the way.)

It was dishonest to call it a 'trial.' If no defense is present, you have to call your accusations something else.

As I’ve said elsewhere, in his ‘topological analysis’ of Cuckoo’s Nest, Joe could not even get the title right: He gave Kesey ‘Gospel’ and Masonic/occult-related motives, too convoluted to reproduce here.

The real derivation is plain as day, right in the opening epigraph:

One flew east,

One few west,

One flew over the cuckoos nest

The Cuckoo bird, of course, represents looney behavior (referring, of course, to an asylum. The real origin of the title could not be more obvious.

Further proof that there is nothing sinister or occult in the title is that Kesey does the same thing in his next book, Sometimes a Great Notion: He puts the origin of the title in the epigraph:

Sometimes I lives in the country

Sometimes I lives in town

Sometimes I take a great notion

To jump into the river and drown

Do you understand the importance of Kesey’s doing the same thing in ‘Notion’? I hope so. If Joe wants to stand by his bizarre interpretation, I hope he has some ‘outside’ evidence: If he’s going to ‘prove’ that the motive here is ‘occult’ because the book is ‘occult,’ he’ll be begging the question.

We have to take one ‘passage’ at a time and show how it has a ‘Masonic’ and occult and genocidal (yes, Joe says this) derivation. Starting with the title…

I asked Joe to read my book, Cosmic Banditos, so he could analyze it in the same manner as he did Cuckoo’s Nest and Catcher. He agreed, gave me his address and I sent him the book. (It’s also available on Kindle at Amazon.)

I did this as a challenge -- I wanted to see what sort of 'topological analysis’ he'd have to say about me -- my book is sort of a 'Catcher in the Rye from hell'. Given that Atwill accused Salinger of the same crimes as he did Kesey, Atwill would be in an untenable position for him - dealing with a living writer who can point out how mistaken he is, the subtext being that he very well could be mistaken with his other 'theories'. (He seems only to do 'topological analyses' of writers who are deceased and unable to point out his logical fallacies. Unable to defend themselves.)

Atwill/Irvin’s titling of the Gnosticmedia podcast 'The Trial of Ken Kesey' was – aside from unfair -- a tactical mistake, since it gives me (or anyone who cares about truth) the right to put on a defense that cannot be continuously interrupted (as Jan Irvin would surely do).

Point being: I would have an equal amount of uninterrupted time -- then they could respond and the 'debate' could start.

Jerry, you wrote me: ‘My personal preference would be to say — if Allan has any problem with your critical thinking or facts or the lack of them, let’s try to get a handle on the issues by email first.’

I understand why you feel this way: In an email exchange you can decide whether to answer a question or not, or concoct a straw man argument, as you have done many times in our exchanges. For example, you write:

Furthermore -- it tells me something very deep about the quality of your logic and analysis, if you sincerely believe that you can convict Corbett of being "dirty" based on the emails you exchanged, or if you think you can prove that O'Neill is still alive based solely on the premise that one person's grammatical faux pas represents guilty knowledge (rather than being possibly a meaningless mind-fart) -- and yet you believe that Ken Kesey is innocent.

This is a good example of why I say you ‘write like a shill.’ This paragraph is pure straw man, as anyone reading my observations on the two topics would see. But it takes time and attention. Many folks would just nod (at your paragraph) and say, ‘Sounds like Allan has his head up his ass.’

Here’s the truth of the matter. Re O’Neill:

http://www.banditobooks.com/essay/content/3.php

Re James Corbett:

http://blog.banditobooks.com/an-open-letter-to-james-corbett/

Anyone who takes the time to read these essays will see how utterly dishonest your paragraph is. But they have to actually take the time to read my stuff.

This is why – after I saw your shill-style of argument - I refused to open emails and asked that Joe deal with me, which as of now he still has not done. (Yeah, he’s in Mexico but he’s answering your emails…)

Jerry, this is from one of your emails:

Message body

I just noticed this.

The only way to 'debate' this sort of thing is in real time, [my line]

Why is it that such a debate would need to be in real time? Perhaps because the goal would be grandstanding to the audience, rather than a search for understanding?

No, Jerry, for the same reason as above: So straw man and other logical fallacies can be immediately pointed out. I also expect to have uninterrupted time to make my defense, as Atwill/Irvin had in their accusations.

They made their accusations in a public venue and I want to answer the same way.

Have I made my Point?

Will I ever hear from Atwill?

Allan



Right back at you, Allan.[/QUOTE]

 

[Jerry Russell]

Hello Allan,

It turns out that Joe was sick in bed with tourista's flu yesterday. Yes, he took a few moments out of his busy schedule on Wednesday, and from his sick bed yesterday, to give me some quick guidance on how to answer you. I don't know why he didn't cc: you, it might be because he's working with a new ipad and he might not understand the user interface for all I know.

I have to go to a meeting now, I will answer some of the above later.

 

[Allancw]

Finally heard from Joe:

Hi Allan
I am in Mexico with limited internet access. I have no idea if your material arrived. There is no chance I will look at it any time soon as I too many projects ahead in the queue. Perhaps in two months.
Looking forward to our chat.
Joe

He's too busy... Can't find an hour of time to answer my very serious charges re his credibility and honesty. Why then, I wonder, did he tell me to send the book? (This was before I made it plain that I had some 'disagreements' with him.)

But okay. Let's set a date.

It turns out that Joe was sick in bed with tourista's flu yesterday. Yes, he took a few moments out of his busy schedule on Wednesday, and from his sick bed yesterday, to give me some quick guidance on how to answer you. I don't know why he didn't cc: you, it might be because he's working with a new ipad and he might not understand the user interface for all I know.

I have to go to a meeting now, I will answer some of the above later.[/QUOTE]

 

[Jerry Russell]

Hello Allan,

I'm glad we straightened out that I was not lying about Joe's position. I'll be more cautious about speaking for him in the future.

And with the caveat that I don't speak for Joe, I would like to respond to a couple of points above (which I'm sure you'll agree is my prerogative, since I'm the admin here):

anyone can do some googling about frame rate and shutter speed in off-the-shelf video cameras and then do the math to calculate how much motion blur there should be.

That's what I did, and 1/500 shutter speed is what I came up with as a typical value. I also trust that anyone else can do the same.

The Cuckoo bird, of course, represents looney behavior (referring, of course, to an asylum.

Surely you've heard of the double entendre? And furthermore, if Kesey was talking about a "looney bird" why didn't he say so? Ironically, the looney is a fictional bird, named after Thomas Looney, inventor of the Oxford Shakespeare authorship theory. Any resemblance between a Looney and a Loon is, of course, purely coincidental?

However, the cuckoo bird's ancient archetypal association with cuckoldry is pretty well known. Obviously I'm not a neutral judge, but I score this point for Joe.

Sometimes I take a great notion

To jump into the river and drown

Nothing sinister at all in an idle suicide threat, eh?

We have to take one ‘passage’ at a time and show how it has a ‘Masonic’ and occult and genocidal (yes, Joe says this) derivation.

I think it's more a matter of taking the work in its entirety, and seeing how much evidence can be amassed for a particular interpretation.

In an email exchange you can decide whether to answer a question or not, or concoct a straw man argument, as you have done many times in our exchanges. For example, you write:

Furthermore -- it tells me something very deep about the quality of your logic and analysis, if you sincerely believe that you can convict Corbett of being "dirty" based on the emails you exchanged, or if you think you can prove that O'Neill is still alive based solely on the premise that one person's grammatical faux pas represents guilty knowledge (rather than being possibly a meaningless mind-fart) -- and yet you believe that Ken Kesey is innocent.

This is a good example of why I say you ‘write like a shill.’ This paragraph is pure straw man, as anyone reading my observations on the two topics would see. But it takes time and attention. Many folks would just nod (at your paragraph) and say, ‘Sounds like Allan has his head up his ass.’

The paragraph you quoted was not answering any question, nor was it making a logical argument. It was a summary, an expression of my opinion after reading some of your stuff. That's why I put it in a private email.

Anyone who takes the time to read these essays will see how utterly dishonest your paragraph is.

By "dishonest" you mean that I'm really awestruck by the truth of your arguments, but I'm just lying to mislead the readers? What would be the point of that, when the note was addressed to you? Sorry Allan, that paragraph was my honest and true opinion.

In an email exchange you can decide whether to answer a question or not

Are you saying that in a live venue, it's impossible to dodge a question? I wish somebody would tell that to our national presidential candidates.

 

[Allancw]

Is anyone but the two of us actually reading this? I'd really love to hear some 3rd party opinions about our above exchange, notwithstanding that the readers here might be a bit biased... might be... let's wait and see what pops up here from the folks who follow this forum.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Hi Allan,

All this name-calling and shill-outing gets pretty boring after awhile, especially when there's so little beef. It's probably just you and me down here.

 

[Allancw]

How do you pay your rent, then?

 

[Jerry Russell]

My wife and I live modestly, and grow a lot of our own food. More importantly, we were fortunate enough to invest in California real estate in the 1970's and 1980's, tech in the '90's, and gold and silver in the decade from 2000 to 2010. Another big boost was that my wife selected her ancestors wisely: they were dentists and other professionals serving the stars in Hollywood in the first half of the twentieth century, and they invested the proceeds in Procter & Gamble and other fine American corporations.

Right now we're betting heavily on Oregon farmland.

During my career I did have some brushes with the military-industrial complex and the CIA. For example, I worked for Aptex division of Hecht-Neilsen Neurocomputer from 1996 to 2000, and learned that their AI technology for natural language processing had been originally developed by the CIA. We used the technology for ad serving, and for a dating service, during that early rough-and-tumble period of the Internet. Aptex eventually got folded back into HNC, which then was acquired by Fair Isaac.

From 1991 to '96 and 2001 to 2011, I worked for Electrical Geodesics (www.egi.com). Our brain wave monitors were mostly used in psychology labs and medical research. But we weren't above looking for military contracts when they could get them; for example, we had a deal going with DARPA for awhile on a scheme to verify that soldiers working boring surveillance jobs would stay awake. And another one looking for pictures of tanks in satellite photos. Those pissed me off, which is mostly why I quit.

Taking all this together, Allan: I'd say that if you're looking for somebody as pure as the driven snow, you'd have to find somebody else. But as a "man of independent means" at this point, I'm free to speak my mind, believe it or not.

 

[Mike Dexter]

I read the threads to which Allancw contributed. That makes 3 of us. I do not plan to follow any future discussions on these threads.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Hi Allan,

You say topology and we say typology? Perhaps one might take the 'flying over the Cuckoo's Nest' as a cryptic inference that the Apollo moon program was legit and the landings therefore likely did really occur, or would that have to be topologically [sic] 'flying onto the Cuckoo's Nest'? All this from your logically equating 'cuckoo' with 'looney' .. and your passionate interest in the Apollo business?

That said, and such as from 'that said', I am uncomfortable with the extent to which Joe goes to in some of these analyses. I am on record here multiple times as to just what the apex of American kulture was, and represents, and is thus under assault by. And by just whom? Should I go back to church, or what? What would the 'natives' think about all this after all?

I never got any response one way or the other from either Joe ... or you. Only from Jerry. In case you haven't noticed it, Jerry and I (exclusively) have a rather different, and apparently unpopular, contextual take, here, on the entire structure of Western Civilization, but does that make us evil or good in your eyes? That is, separately from all our other heresies in your eyes? I didn't think you were evil for your contextually reductionist approach to JFK and Vietnam in your otherwise excellent video production. But of course, you aren't evil, only we are. But one might think you were some kind of apologist for Cardinal Spellman, Lady Fatima, or something.

I have to admit that I was a little 'spooked' by your intro, as Jerry's and my early 9/11 introduction to Jim Hoffman began by his odd sympathy spiel on "Justice for Woody" (his alleged friend allegedly railroaded by The Man). Later we found out that Jim worked on DoD projects, then allegedly got fired for his 9/11 postings, then we found out he quickly got rehired. Must have been too good at math. Except that his famous depiction of a 757 flying into the Pentagon really had the dimensions of a 767, as I pointed out to him. He eventually took that down, last time I looked. He also eventually took down the picture of glowing metal in the WTC Bathtub, after I pointed out to him that the glowing molten metal was really winter snow, from the 1960's before the buildings went up. And then after Rasputina, his girlfriend (and my moniker for her BTW), became his spokesgal, he refused to speak to us, or anybody else.

That said, I have admitted in another thread that I made a mistake in supporting such a broad focus for the site, including issues like the Apollo moon landing. All very interesting, but one has to prioritize, as you have just admitted. As such, Jerry and I have made far more progress on our main research interest than I could have ever imagined, and as we discovered with our 9/11 'years' this has turned into spending more time arguing with people who should theoretically have been our friends than anybody else. But such is the planned nature of such mega-events. But now, we proceed at a snail's pace.

But, to demonstrate the contradicting complexities of life the billions of unevictable, squatting demons in my head these days too frequently force me away from being consciously productive, and thus I managed to recline and passively watch the documentary, Huxley on Huxley, recently. It seems to me, that besides some issues that some people like to 'trigger' their interpretations upon, that, considering his widest views and work, that he seems rather benign to me. But, all 'warnings' (e.g. Brave New World) must necessarily be Predictive Programming apparently.

In any case, one interesting aspect of the documentary was where it was stated that he thought such as LSD should be quietly limited to the elites in contrast to Leary's populist approach. Wow, how to interpret that?

BTW, how is our novel coming along?

 

[Jerry Russell]

News flash: Joe arrived back in town, and we offered to debate Allan on our Revolution Radio podcast. But he turned us down, insisting that he wanted Unspun as a venue. So, Alan says he's going to do his own thing, make a video defending Kesey, and post it on you-tube.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Subsequent to Vin's remarks, I edited my last post to delete an unkind remark about Allan. I hope he'll change his mind, and come on our podcast after he finishes his video defense of Kesey.

 

[Jerry Russell]

By way of a further minor correction: in my email to Allan, I stated that his belief that O'Neill survived 9/11 was based "solely on the premise" of a passing remark by Mark Rossini, that O'Neill "is" (rather than "was") a "great guy".

But beyond that, Allan also makes the argument that O'Neill was a mastermind of the 9/11 plot, and therefore he should have been smart enough to avoid getting killed. There's some logic in that, and we've often speculated here about the "hidden resort" and whether such luminaries as JFK, John Lennon, or Julius Caesar might have found their way there.

But in this case (like all the others) I don't find the evidence compelling. The 9/11 op might have been highly compartmentalized. O'Neill was tasked with managing the hijackers, but might not have known that the buildings would be collapsing. In fact, he might have known "too much", and as a result, his death might have suited the goals of the higher-level perpetrators.

As far as actual evidence is concerned, I stand by my earlier position that Mark Rossini's remark is all that Allan's got.

 

[Allancw]

Joe (and Jan),


While working on my defense of Kesey it is more and more occurring to me that you and Jan are not much interested in the actual truth of the matter but rather consumed with ‘being right.’ This is obvious in many ways – one being your answer to my observation that the famous cross country bus trip (in 1964) did not involve giving out LSD to ‘civilians’ (folks they met on the road). You answered with a link about the movie ‘The Magic Trip,’ which contained a line saying they took acid at ‘the party,’ referring to when they got stuck in the mud in Arizona. Anyone who watched the movie (or even just reading the line) would know that no one other than the Pranksters was even there (until a tractor came to pull them out), let alone took acid. Since you are an intelligent person I have to consider this a ‘lie.’ Here is the quote you alluded to and the URL:


http://www.theguardian.com/film/2011/aug/06/lsd-ken-kesey-pranksters-film

After Cassady drove the bus off the road in Arizona, Kesey dosed the party with LSD. They tipped model paint into a stream, then dipped a T-shirt in it to create the tie-dyed effect that would become associated with San Francisco's incipient Haight-Ashbury hippy scene. Throughout, Kesey guides the action like a ringmaster, participating but also directing. "Dad would say acid is not for everybody but if you can handle it there are things to be learnt," says Zane. [If Kesey was part of the GCDDC, why would he say that LSD isn’t for everyone? – a minor point, but there it is.]


I repeat: There is no evidence that Kesey gave out acid during the famous trip in ’64. If you have any, provide it or detract you accusation.


The fact that nowhere in your various articles and podcasts do you mention the movie ‘The Magic Trip’ is further evidence that truth is not really your agenda (although much truth does come out in your stuff). Possibly your reticence in mentioning the movie is related (in part) to my above observation re Kesey not giving ‘civilians’ (non pranksters) acid on the trip. Again, no evidence in the film or anywhere else that he did this.


The movie also clearly shows who was on the trip: Not a help in fingering Kesey as a CIA asset, since you cannot show any of the bus folks as dirty. (If you consider Cassady dirty, please provide a primary citation of some sort.) If you’re going to claim that the filmmakers cleverly avoided showing who was on the bus or whether they handed out LSD, please provide a motive that makes sense.


The ‘Kesey tape’ you used in your ‘trial’ is another example of your cavalier attitude toward truth – you somehow failed to mention the provenance of the tape or the fact that since Kesey had been deceased for 10 years when the movie came out (2011). You admitted in an email that you didn’t even try to find out if the voice on the tape is even Kesey’s. I tried to find out but Alex Gibney (director) has not answered my query. Whether it is Kesey on the tape or not is not the point. You didn’t try to find out the truth and didn’t reveal the facts behind that tape. You eviscerated Kesey for a clip that he had nothing to do with.


How would this have gone at a real trial, with a defense?


In your recent Unspun 20 you do mention that Leary says ‘pastel colored’ in referring to ‘the buses’ that ran around the country. I had not noticed this before. I now have to agree that Leary was referring to Kesey, which means Leary may have considered Kesey as an asset to the Grand Conspiracy to Debase and Damage Culture (GCDDC).


What you fail to understand is that in an op of this kind, it is meant to take on a life of its own by creating ‘assets’ who are merely living their lives in the context of the emerging culture. Proof of this is your repeated comment that ‘If there was a GCDDC then Kesey is automatically guilty (of being a CIA/Masonic/whatever operative),’ meaning a conscious asset and a ‘lifetime actor.’ (This oft repeated term is useless or rather redundant in that all CIA agents are living ‘a lie’ throughout their daily lives. This is what ‘spies’ of all sorts do. So ‘lifetime actor’ imparts no new information.)


Kesey may have been ‘an asset’ as far as Leary was concerned, but as I will point out (in my ‘defense’), there is no real evidence that Kesey was a ‘conscious’ asset. Or rather, the only ‘evidence’ you have is your analysis of Cuckoo’s Nest – which I will deal with in my defense, when it is ready. Your inaccurate (if not dishonest) analysis of the provenance of the title is only one example:


One flew east,

One flew west,

One flew over the Cuckoo’s nest.

Childhood rhyme


This is the opening epigraph of Nest. Kesey does the same in his next book, Sometimes a Great Notion, i.e., use an epigraph as the title derivation. Your ‘Gospels’- related analysis does not mention the possibility that the title came from the reference that Kesey says it does – the kid’s rhyme – or explain why this is incorrect.


Again, just one example from my upcoming defense.


To repeat: Kesey was an asset only in the same sense that I was an asset (to the GCDDC) in my pot smuggling days. This observation is related to my request that you read my book, Cosmic Banditos (an autobiographical novel). You should also read my memoir, In Search of Captain Zero, which details my smuggling days and my hob-knobbing with various spooks and international criminals (in Panama in 1978, during the Canal Treaty fiasco, for example, when I hung with Noriega before the CIA killed Torrijos and he took over).


You would also find it interesting (as written about in Zero) that I went from Learjet flying smuggler and international vagabond (a ‘counterculture anti-hero) to successful screenwriter virtually overnight – after scuttling a sailboat with 10,000 pounds of pot, I checked into the spook-laden U.N. Plaza hotel, wrote a screenplay, flew out to Hollywood and that day had a deal for the script.


Your accusations toward various people often include how ‘absurd’ and ‘ridiculous’ their ‘life histories’ are: You simplify someone’s history then say that the only explanation is that he/she is funded or directed by MK ULTRA -- or the Masons or whatever. Is my history not just as ridiculous?


Between my instant transition to successful H-wood writer and the ‘culturally damaging’ story I wrote in Cosmic Banditos and given the reasons behind your accusations re Kesey (and Salinger, for that matter), you would have to define me as ‘automatically’ being as guilty as Kesey is. Go ahead and accuse me of being a traitor to my generation and of trying to damage my readers. Go ahead. See if it flies.


Your refusal to read my book(s) is evidence that truth is not your main agenda. (I offered and you asked for a copy, which I signed and sent you. Now you and Jan are claiming it’s irrelevant.)


Okay. Enough for now. I am emailing this and also putting it in the comments section of Unspun 20 and Postflaviana.com. I want your site folks to know that I am creating a defense for Ken Kesey that I expect you and Jan to post as prominently as you did Kesey’s ‘trial.’


As I have said before (in emails), you have accused a wonderful writer who is not here to defend himself of committing the greatest sin a writer can commit: Consciously seeking to damage his reader. As I will clearly show, you have done this with one-sided and even bogus evidence.


That you called your accusations a ‘trial’ when no defense was included was a travesty. You should not have labeled it a ‘trial.’ Shame on you.


My defense will show an ongoing dishonesty via untruths by omission and outright untruths.


Allan Weisbecker


P.S. You have not (to my knowledge) explained when this GCDDC began. I don’t expect an exact date but how about a general one or at least a time frame?

 

[Jerry Russell]

There's a transcript of the 'Magic Trip' movie here:

http://www.allreadable.com/mv1b8feISdu

If this transcript is complete, then Allan is correct that Magic Trip includes no evidence that LSD was given to anyone except Pranksters on the bus. So we probably ought to retract that point.

 

[Allancw]

Here we go, folks. Jan Irvin has blocked the above from his comment section. Here was my next (blocked, I assume) post:

It's now been several hours and Jan has not posted my last comment, even though Jerry Russell has admitted (in the Postflaviana.com forum) that they should retract the claim that Kesey gave out LSD on the Bus trip. Surely, Jan, my your site folks deserve the info in my post. No?

Jan, I am also wondering if this should influence your opinion that I'm too 'stupid' to be worth debating the matter with you....

While I'm waiting, I have another question re 'The Magic Trip': Is this where you first got the idea that Kesey was part of the Grand Conspiracy to Debase and Damage Culture (GCDDC)? I ask because toward the end of the film Kesey is being interviewed and he says that Allen Ginsberg told him that the psychedelic revolution was a CIA plot to dumb down the kids. Mmmmm. Sounds familiar. Maybe you didn't recommend the film because it might seem odd that a major participant in the GCDDC would spill the beans about the op. (As you know, I agree with you that there was such a plot.)

While I'm thinking about it: You claim that Kesey must be dirty because he otherwise couldn't afford the Bus trip, all the acid (that he did not give away!) Well, maybe you forgot that he had two successful books in print, both having been bought for the movies, not to mention a Broadway play based on one of them. Aside from my other similarities to Kesey (hey, I'm living the cross country lifestyle now, in my RV!), I had two of my books bought for the movies (by Sean Penn and John Cusack). I made over $400,00 total, just on the movie deals.

Did you forget how much movie deals make an author or were you 'padding' you evidence with an outright untruth.

Allan

Jan, either post my stuff or send me the money I contributed to you. Use the Paypal at Banditobooks.com.

I'd love the opinion of the others on this forum, including Jerry, who showed class in admitting they were wrong.... those who understand Irvin's hypocrisy please email him in outrage.

 

[Joe Atwill]

Jerry,

Absolutely no retraction. The following statement is correct: "Thus, Kesey presented himself as a hip, spiritual seeker who drove across the country in a brightly colored bus, engaged in free love, and purportedly used LSD to expand his mind. America’s youth trusted Kesey’s motivations, and were thus tempted to copy Kesey and his ‘Merry Pranksters’ and take the LSD they gave away."
Alan is trying to use the 1964 cross country trip as the basis for the statement, which in fact is describing the numerous 'Acid Tests' in LA, Portland and the SF area where it is public knowledge that Kesey "gave away" LSD. The idea that Kesey did not give away LSD at the Acid Tests is ridiculous.

Joe

 

[Jerry Russell]

Hi Joe,

I agree that there's no need to retract your statements in your article, and that there's plenty of evidence that Kesey did give acid to the general public at the 'Acid Tests'.

Allan and I were addressing the question, whether LSD was given to the general public on the Further bus trip. I really have no way of knowing. All I can say is that I couldn’t find the evidence in the 'Magic Trip' transcript, which is where I earlier thought I remembered seeing it. I don't know or remember what might have been said about this on the podcasts.

Allan:

Supposing it were true that Kesey didn't start giving away LSD to the general public until the 'Acid Test' period, what difference would it make?

 

[Allancw]

My god, is there anyone who does NOT see the deceit in the above posts by Atwill and Russell? Do you not see the misdirection? Atwill claims that Kesey gave people (folks they ran into) acid DURING THE BUS TRIP. This stuff about the Acid Tests is changing the subject, i.e., misdirection. Even Russell admitted that until he was - i assume - told to change his tune.

Russell says:
'Supposing it were true that Kesey didn't start giving away LSD to the general public until the 'Acid Test' period, what difference would it make?'

The difference is that Atwill was spouting untruths when he claimed that Kesey gave away acid during the famous Bus trip. If you don't understand the implications re Atwill's honesty, then... please wake up.

You all might also notice that Atwill did not answer any of my observations from the post that his cohort Irvin BLOCKED. How about some 'third' opinions here, folks!

 

[Jerry Russell]

Allan,

The difference is that Atwill was spouting untruths when he claimed that Kesey gave away acid during the famous Bus trip.

You are beating a dead horse, we are all in agreement here that there's no evidence Kesey "gave people (folks they ran into) acid DURING THE BUS TRIP".

I can't even find any evidence Atwill ever claimed to the contrary, searching through the email record. On May 2, he wrote:

I see your position that the Watts ‘Acid Test’ should be excluded from the “cross country trip" as a distinction without a difference but, if you wish, I will henceforth change “cross country” to Watts Acid test.

And subsequently:

Allan
Kessey dosed party in Arizona with LSD
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2011/aug/06/lsd-ken-kesey-pranksters-film

You want to read that latter quote as a claim that Kesey gave LSD to some folks he ran into on the road, but Joe didn't actually say that, now, did he?? In context, I can see how you might have taken it that way, and even that Joe might have misread the article, but there's really nothing here except a lack of clarity.

Nobody here has told any lies, and nobody is trying to hide anything. And I make my own decisions about when to change my tune -- in this case, because Joe pointed out that he never made this claim (at least not in writing) in the first place, so there's nothing to retract.

On the other hand, it should also be noted that neither Joe nor I can make any concessions for Jan. He actually has the most in-depth knowledge of the literature on this topic. For all I know, he might have some evidence to share with us about whether Kesey gave acid to any 3rd parties during the bus trip. All we can say is, we don't have any evidence to that effect -- and never claimed that we did, at least not in writing.

You all might also notice that Atwill did not answer any of my observations from the post that his cohort Irvin BLOCKED. How about some 'third' opinions here, folks!

I can't conjure up 'third' opinions, but I have some time available now, so I can give you my views on some of your topics:

"Dad would say acid is not for everybody but if you can handle it there are things to be learnt," says Zane. [If Kesey was part of the GCDDC, why would he say that LSD isn’t for everyone? – a minor point, but there it is.]

I would take that Kesey quote as a macho challenge: "are you MAN enough for ACID"? I think there was a similar cigarette ad campaign at the time.

The fact that nowhere in your various articles and podcasts do you mention the movie ‘The Magic Trip’ is further evidence that truth is not really your agenda

I'm not sure Joe had even watched the movie at the time the podcasts were made.

The ‘Kesey tape’ you used in your ‘trial’ is another example of your cavalier attitude toward truth – you somehow failed to mention the provenance of the tape or the fact that since Kesey had been deceased for 10 years when the movie came out (2011).

We found the 'Kesey tape' on you-tube. I was definitely aware that it was from 'Magic Trip', and if that wasn't mentioned on the podcast where the tape was discussed, it's a regrettable omission.

You eviscerated Kesey for a clip that he had nothing to do with.

Now you're the one jumping to conclusions. The provenance of the tape is an interesting question, but I remember seeing claims on the Internet that the audio tape had been found in an old barn. It might be completely genuine, or completely fraudulent, or somewhere in between.

How would this have gone at a real trial, with a defense?

Shouldn't it be obvious that this isn't a real trial? In addition to lacking a defense attorney -- There are also no live witnesses, no cross-examination, and many if not most of the key players are dead. We're looking at a predominance-of-evidence question, for purposes of historical research.

In your recent Unspun 20 you do mention that Leary says ‘pastel colored’ in referring to ‘the buses’ that ran around the country. I had not noticed this before. I now have to agree that Leary was referring to Kesey, which means Leary may have considered Kesey as an asset to the Grand Conspiracy to Debase and Damage Culture (GCDDC).

Now I have to wonder if you're being ironic? I thought you had a pretty good point about the "buses" -- that it was impossible to prove Leary was talking about Kesey. I wouldn't have called the "further" bus "pastel" and I didn't know Leary said that. I wish there was a transcript somewhere of the "Conversation about LSD".

the only ‘evidence’ you have is your analysis of Cuckoo’s Nest

I definitely can't speak for Jan here, but I agree with you about this. The best evidence is Cuckoo's Nest. Everything else is just weak circumstantial evidence and guilt by association.

I don't consider the analysis of Cuckoo's nest to be ironclad either, but it's good enough that it makes me really uncomfortable trying to defend Kesey.

Your ‘Gospels’- related analysis does not mention the possibility that the title came from the reference that Kesey says it does – the kid’s rhyme – or explain why this is incorrect.

Already answered once before: we believe the title supports an interpretation as a double entendre. Our audience is, of course, free to draw their own conclusions.

Your refusal to read my book(s) is evidence that truth is not your main agenda.

Could it possibly be that it's just evidence that we're busy? I would like to find time to read your book. But I agree with Joe, that however interesting your story might be, it's not going to prove anything about Kesey.

Let's imagine, for the sake of argument, Joe reads your book and finds that it's chock full of Freemason symbolism and FU death threats and pedophilia, like Salinger. On that basis, suppose Joe concludes that you are, indeed, just as "dirty". So your response would be, "that's not going to fly with my fans"? I mean, who is this Allan Weisbecker guy anyhow, and how are we supposed to know?

You could save us some time here. Is your book, in fact, oozing with Illuminati symbolism? If so, why? Or if not, then why is there so much of that stuff in Kesey and Salinger?

I have another question re 'The Magic Trip': Is this where you first got the idea that Kesey was part of the Grand Conspiracy to Debase and Damage Culture (GCDDC)? I ask because toward the end of the film Kesey is being interviewed and he says that Allen Ginsberg told him that the psychedelic revolution was a CIA plot to dumb down the kids. Mmmmm. Sounds familiar. Maybe you didn't recommend the film because it might seem odd that a major participant in the GCDDC would spill the beans about the op.

This is a really good point -- Kesey's accusation in the film "that the psychedelic revolution was a CIA plot" is crystal clear. It could possibly be viewed as a "limited hangout" or maybe even a misdirection, blaming the CIA for what was ultimately a Freemason/Illuminati/Banker/[add your favorite culprit here] plot. But I would tend to view it as possibly an exhonerating factor for Kesey. (Ginsberg is another fascinating case BTW.)

You have not (to my knowledge) explained when this GCDDC began. I don’t expect an exact date but how about a general one or at least a time frame?

My guess? Goes all the way back to the Indo-European conquest of the Fertile Crescent, circa 3000 BCE.