we are PISSED at Wasson!! Wasson, you SCOUNDREL!! you FRAUD! you DELIBERATE DECEIVER!! you PHONY!!
You deliberately impeded and deliberately censored and deliberately withheld Panofsky’s two-times strong recommendation of Brincmann’s 1906 Book tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings which is the single only treatment of art historian’s on the subject of mushrooms
actually I believe there are more; we need to find the list of CITATIONS NEEDED!!
scour the bibliography of Sam Marini’s plane crawled Article 1997
and SamArrhenius Mushroom Trees Article 1998 which is incomplete-; he fails he makes mistakes and he fails to include some items that he sites in the body but forgets to add in the bibliography list like Clark Heinrich 1994 for example book strange fruit
and also scour the bibliography of brown and brown 2017 the psychedelic Gospels book
and scour the bibliography Brown and Brown 2019 article in journal of psychedelic studies Special and Issue on entheogens and Psychedelics in world history
right where I was yelling at Wasson or Panofsky in 2006 “where in the hell is the citations, we would of course obviously love to see these alleged numerous verbose and detailed exhaustive thorough treatments of debates of all possible positions by the art historians; where in the hell are they?!”
you , Wasson , intentionally, deliberately and multiple times, censored out Panofsky strong 2x recommendation that the world needs to look at Brinkman’s book.
but Wasson , you chose – multiple, multiple times , deliberately – this was no accident; you republished selective censored excerpts of Panofsky’s letter multiple times, and every time, you chose – you consciously, deliberately, knowingly chose to omit Brincmanns book citation that Panofsky strongly and repeatedly recommended that people read.
You are proven guilty, in your own handwriting , or equivalently your secretary / your wife, whatever – doesn’t matter
you are guilty of knowingly, deliberately deceiving everybody by censoring and deliberately withholding Panofsky’s two times strong recommendation of Brinkman’s book
right where with Jan Irvin’s later added research in 2006, I researched in my copy of Wassons book soma which I have photographs of my hand written notes on my copy, photos at egodeath.com ,
and in 2006, in fact ever since 2006-2022 (when finally Brown and Brown revealed wassons a hittin cover-up Secret the photograph of the Panofsky letter in full published in 2019 which revealed the truth that Wason was hiding deliberately from us all that where their worst… Was in fact the much demanded citation needed
When I wrote my Plaincourault article for Robert M price’s journal of higher criticism, I was especially above all frustrated: where in the hell is the citation; CITATION WANTED / CITATION NEEDED!! in Panofsky’s letter to Wasson all there is is…… ellipses, Right where I demand (of course like everybody) demand a citation
citation needed citation needed please please please give us a damn citation for the alleged supposed claim that art historians have covered this matter of the problem the problematic problem that’s a problem for the lying fabricating art historian’s of how are we going to cover up all of our hundreds and thousands of mushroom trees where did they discuss which lie they are going to agree to tell are they going to agree to tell the lie of Italian Pines like Panofsky says and recommends or are they going to agree to tell the lie that Wassen later fabricates of so-called vague and hazy mythical so-called “Palestine tree type”?
this is what I am looking for where exactly did the art historians discuss among themselves in print to reach agreement on what fabricated false deceiving lie they are going to fabricate and agree to so that all employed art historians all agree as a Panofsky points out that if Wason asks all art historian who are employed all of them will give their opinion that there are no mushroom trees represented by the thousands of mushroom trees and furthermore the ramifications which are always present on every mushroom tree prove that mushroom trees are not mushroom trees
because they are trees with added ramifications beyond Mushrooms and Mushroom Trees have ramifications beyond just mushrooms say the art historian and therefore they do not mean mushrooms because there are more ramifications than merely an indicator of mushrooms and this is why it is important that we art historians thoroughly in detail publish copious numerous many many books and many many articles thoroughly discussing an exhaustive detail just like Panofsky wrote Tsawwassen in 1952 twice as brown exposes in the full light of truth in 2019 in the journal of psychedelics
Brown revealed that this exhaustive writings and many many books and many many articles where are historians have thoroughly analyzed and completely debated all possible debate positions regarding every aspect of mushroom trees and every ramification of every last tree and this long list of citations hidden behind Wisen ‘s… Cover-up… Cover up the abominable wassons abominable cover-up operation and what’s behind it all the list of citations consists of one book only and Wassen make sure to censor out that loan single book in which art historians have thoroughly exhaustively
debated every Single ramification of every single mushroom tree among the hundreds (which means thousands and countless thousands) of instances of mushroom trees, which Panofsky describes as “so universal” that its not just the tree of knowledge subset, but Pulaski in a second letter says that there are just far too many mushroom trees to allow the public to know that planecrawled fresco Means Mushrooms, with added ramifications
if they have covered the matter than dammit where in the hell can I see the coverage of this matter
and how does walls and help?
Wassen helps
and how does Wassen help advance the field of entheogens Scholarship?
answer: he helps by deliberately, multiple times censoring out the citation, right where we are yelling “please give us a citation for the alleged art historians’ discussions of mushroom trees” because Panofsky says every single art historian is entirely, thoroughly aware of all of these hundreds and hundreds (which means thousands and thousands) of mushroom trees, & Mushroom imagery of all kinds, that entirely is found all throughout Christian art and I retorted in 2006 in my article, if the art historians have allegedly thoroughly become familiar and have completely discussed in great exhaustive detail these hundreds and hundreds of mushroom trees, then for Christ’s sake, give us a goddamn citation!!
and what does Wason do to help out here? he replaces Panofsky’s two-times strong recommendation of Brinkman’s book by INFAMOUS “…” DOT DOT DOT deliberately
and that is after he has his secretary or his scholar wife or himself (same diff) goes to the trouble to write out Brinkman’s name in full, full middle name, and completely, accurately write out the actual title of Brinkman’s book in his own hand (for all practical purposes; his secretaries hand, his wife’s hand, whatever ; doesn’t make any difference at all) Wasson is guilty – in his own hand!
Guilty, guilty, guilty!
“why is there no citation here?! ” I yelled to the sky in 2006 when I wrote the article Wasson and Allegro and Plaincourault fresco – and the answer is that Wasson got rid of the citation, deliberately withholding it, which Panofsky two-times recommended, both via typewriter in the first letter, AND via hand writing on the second letter, Added, urging Wasson at the very end at the bottom of the second letter, his final word to Wasson was see Brinkman’s book, I strongly, strongly, highly recommend Brinckmann’s book
because it’s the only thing literally the only thing that we have that art historians have treated ,
The one and only single loan place (book or article) where we art historians have explicitly taken up the matter and admitted that the problem 🍄 exists, this problem this great problem for us that we have to struggle to cover while actually covering it up and covering it over, that we have to cover it so as to prevent anybody from seeing
here is the book in which we announce how we will conduct our cover-up operation to fabricate our lie about art history.
psychedelic historian = professional fabricator of cover up operations to try to remove Psilocybin Mushrooms from the Eucharist what a great achievement you should be proud of your false lying fabrication in your cover-up operation to corrupt the Eucharistic flash of Christ through which we are saved the only means by which we are saved the Eucharist the Psilocybin Mushroom let’s strive and struggle and work hard to create and fabricate a cover-up pseudo-History and sell us sell ourselves as historians when we are actually fabricators of pseudo history who are
deeply committed against the so-called those whom we dub dogmatist in the Article dogmatist debacle like Dr. Brown we shall disparage them disparage the people who are committed to asserting and perceiving and publishing Mushrooms all throughout Christian history and art and the word Eucharist everywhere is mushrooms mushrooms and more mushrooms and the people who are guilty of seeing mushrooms everywhere which Dr. Brown disparages and distanced himself from, as ARDENT ADVOCATES & DOGMATISTS (= Jan Irvin a John Rush and Egodeath.com; same paragraph; see Browns 2019 )
[dup para? I ended up dammit deleting the paragraph above, which was a mistake so I’m keeping this following; dammit I think I lost one or two sentences]:
professional fabricator of cover up operations to try to remove Psilocybin Mushrooms from the Eucharist what a great achievement you should be proud of your false lying fabrication in your cover-up operation to corrupt the Eucharistic flesh of Christ through which we are saved, the only means by which we are saved , the Eucharist; the Psilocybin Mushroom
let’s strive and struggle and work hard to create and fabricate a cover-up pseudo-History and sell us sell ourselves as historians when we are actually fabricators of pseudo history who are deeply Committed against those who are committed to asserting Mushrooms in the Eucharist and therefore everywhere ubiquitously throughout Christian history in contrast we are at historians are deeply committed and we psychedelic deliriant pushing Witches and “psychedelic historians” ( which means fabricator and cover up operator of inventing fake history, for which we get rewarded by being flunkies and complicit servile obedient puppy dog proponents of prohibition good fucking job leveraging your fake history studies to assist in Psilocybe in Prohibition a Prohibition compliant servile flunky and henchmen the witches are in cahoots with the pope the salvation Salesmen pope those who sell fraudulent substitute for the bona fide Psilocybin
Eucharistic sacrament through which we are saved
because we sure are not in lightened by mandrake and scopolamine and false art history lies and fabrications thanks to our Panofsky leveraging the one and only book in which art historians have ever admitted the problem of mushrooms and explicitly discussed their lying cover-up operation, cover story, bedtime just so tale, just so story.
Panofsky assures Wasson that if he asks any (employed) art historian (who toes the line and agrees to the fake cover-up story), they all agree that, in their “opinion” , Mushroom Trees- with added ramifications – do not mean mushroom 🍄 trees, and please stop asking questions
and you will find that all (*employed*) art historians agree with me (and all *employed* Christianity scholars agree that Jesus existed)
in other words, the conclusions of all Christianity scholars and the conclusions of all art historian scholars on this matter are completely worthless, totally worthless, because their opinions are coerced, COERCED, and they have no option except that they have to toe the damned party line and lie.
all of them are liars ; they are all coerced into lying and denying that obviously mushroom trees, with added ramifications obviously mean mushroom trees with added ramifications and cut branching possibility, which is mystic-state metaphorical analogy describing the mushroom altered state, obviously, as the ego death theory explains in full detail and clarity.
http://egodeath.com 2007
& https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com 2020-2022 re Added branching ramifications, the added ramifications of branching and non-Branching;
and http://EgodeathYahooGroup.wordpress.com Yahoo group postings June 2001 through December / November 2020 as I recall when they shut down the service.
the Egodeath theory = experiential mental model of {Analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control}, instead of {literalist ordinary State possibilism with autonomous control}, transformed mental model in the loose cognitive association binding state from re-dosing Psilocybin mushrooms as represented in the countless thousands of mushroom imagery all throughout Christian Art as slightly barely studied by art historians in one loan isolated book by Brinkman written Way back in 1906 covering only something like four Paintings of Mushroom trees, out of the many hundreds – which means countless thousands of instances
the easiest thing in the world is for people to find more images Of mushroom imagery in Christian Art and upload them to the World Wide Web; do it now.
ignore the accursed lying art historians, professional inventors and fabricators of history is their job as “extremely ignorant craftsmen” , to
throw back Panofsky’s words at him , defaming the Plaincourault Mushroom tree painter who deliberately retained the added ramifications Branching that are shown in Pulaski’s false, phony, made up lying invention of the alleged “distorted templates”, which did not exist.
this whole “distorted templates” bedtime just so story cover-up lying fabrication by the (unfortunately) most influential art Scholar Erwin Panofsky, professional liar about history – unfortunately, the most influential art historian, which means: the most influential fabricator of false, lying history
“distorted templates” my ass! you liar, there’s no distorted templates
you’re making sht up , you liar
distorted templates my ass
there’s no such thing ; you fabricated it as a cover story to protect the Salvation Salesmen, who fraudulently replace the genuine bona fide Eucharist, which has always been understood as Psilocybin Mushrooms, represented by announcement new point early morning about 6 AM this morning April 28, 2022 note I note this morning the idea vividly occurs to me and strikes me this morning I received this message observe this observation the size and physical mass and size of amanita I have seen it I have photographed it I have uploaded to the World Wide Web my own personal specimen photograph of the double holy grail 10:10 AM on 1010 2010 October 10, 2010 photograph and I’m not making that up I literally photographed these whole set of 12 group of 12 and they were clusters all over the place and I photographed the double holy grail fountains in the rain with ripples very large my point that I am announcing is it they are very large and very massive much bigger than psilocybin 100 times bigger jumbo huge gigantic Mushrooms Amanita is far far 100 times bigger incise and mass then tiny little psilocybin mushrooms and this is why I am Anita is the face of psilocybin ingesting and amanita will always be the billboard advertising Psilocybin Mushrooms use and knowledge and this is why eat wine in the Canterbury Psalter page 1 shows God is creator of sacred plants which are not opium brown correctly objects and I think maybe Brown helped me to get my thinking clear on this matter of identifying the four plants because probably James Arthur and probably people like Chris Bennett wrongly asserted miss identified the four plants which God creates according to Eid wine who is the best top mushroom tree artist and what Eid wine intended to depict is not opium or cannabis like Chris Bennett incorrectly identifies or that sort of thing those kinds of miss identification it does not mean different categories this image by Ed wine in the Canterbury Psalter does not intend to depict four different types of psychoactive families but here is why Brown and his version number two version two gets closer but Dr. Brown is still incorrect and he still miss identifies but he is closer what Jerry Brown gets correct in his attempt
Version one of identifying the four plants people like James Arthur maybe or people like Chris Bennett incorrectly said that the plants are different families of psychoactive such as opium and cannabis in this panel or the next panel which both show for mushroom plants the correct identification is closer to version to which Dr. Jerry Brown gives he is closer to correct identification because he identifies it as for groups of mushrooms for types or classes or categories but my explanation is better and or uniform I agree with Jerry Brown that the for mushrooms plants or mushrooms and not cannabis or opium but Brown gives a garbled and vague and overlapping messy classification scheme and my classification scheme is actually orderly and coherent and uniform level of specificity I identify in this version three identification I finally get it right unlike the scholars before me according to eat wine the correct set of four sacred plants which God created R, from memory, left to right yes my memory I remember vividly it goes number one in Panaeolus number two liberty cap number three Cubensis number for amanita this is not the faded pastel image but the more vivid image which probably James Arthur used on his book cover and which I’m looking at right now the cover of the psychedelic Gospels book 2016 by brown and brown
Brown incorrectly identifies the IV Mushrooms Plainc Sacred Plants which he shows on the front cover of his book I correctly identify it more specifically and in a more coherent orderly way than Jerry Brown and Brown Julie
they take a step in the correct direction
just like the Saint holding the vial, where I showed exactly how Jan Irvin is correct that the Saint holds Amanita
in addition to , I explain exactly how Brown and Brown are correct, that the saint holds a vial
I solve the problem and reconcile that the saint holds a vial which is deliberately designed to look like amanita features, although the proportions are those of a vial, and not of an amanita specimen. la
The amanita-shaped vessel which the saint holds in the tapestry identified positively as Amanita by the serrated bass
The base is larger, and the cap is smaller, so that the vial can function as an effective vial container, with a relatively large body and relatively small cap, compared to the natural proportions of an actual Amanita specimen in its early-stage developmental form.
similarly, brown and brown are on the right track to make steps towards improvements of identification & interpretation of msh in Christian art, after I add my corrections of their direction, and
I am the one who correctly identified around November 2020 at this website Egodeaththeory.wordpress.com :
I correctly and specifically, art-appropriately identify, unlike brown and brown, the four mushroom plants which God creates on the cover of their book, left to right, based on my 75 mushroom trees plants inventory of the Canterbury Psalter. I remind you that inventory in the character there are so very many mushrooms in the Canterbury Psalter that it took me a year long project from maybe February 2021 to February 2022 to resume and get back to the exhausting major project of writing to webpages one of them about every relevant seen every relevant picture and then the second derivative webpage catalog database of art specimens art instances and I even made a third version not published of every single Of every mushroom zoomed and cropped that I am withholding for some reason because it is too scientific and mood and character but my second webpage which I did publish is derivative from the year long exhausting cataloging process because there are just too many mushroom trees the system can’t handle it the website is simply not designed This platform can’t handle the overload of too many mushrooms throughout Christian Art it’s run out of space there’s just not enough space to contain the thousands and thousands of instances the easiest thing in the world is to find and upload additional instances of mushroom imagery in Christian Art to the World Wide Web its child’s play as a Panofsky says mushroom trees are “so universally” present that it is impossible for him to believe that the one single instance of plain corralled fresco cannot possibly be a mushroom because there are so universally ubiquitous Mushroom trees everywhere in Christian Art that therefore we cannot permit this one instance to be interpreted as Mushrooms because he says that we would be forced he implicitly says and he does not explicitly explain his emotion driven argument it’s all implicit it’s all kept on the down low and implicit but evidently what he’s thinking is that it is impossible for us to admit that plane crawl fresco is a mushroom because there exists hundreds of this type which means countless thousands of this type of mushroom tree everywhere so universally he says he writes Mushroom Trees are so universal and not only limited just to the subset of the tree of knowledge but are used for general purpose ubiquitously universally everywhere all throughout Christian art and therefore it is impermissible to admit that the plane crawl fresco is amanita because therefore he implicitly argues, we would be forced to admit that all of the countless thousands of mushroom imagery ubiquitous universally everywhere all throughout Christian Mark Art is all Means too many ramifications of too many branching mushroom trees everywhere and therefore we must concoct any lying fabricated history cover-up story we can dream of dredge up to cover the fact the Mushroom Trees with added ramifications me and Mushrooms because of the ramifications are too many and besides,
he argues in his second letter which fortunately Brown and Brown published in the light of day against the scheming deceiver or Gordon Wasson who worked hard to deceive and stunt and retard and impede the field of visionary Plainc Scholarship visionary Plants Panofsky second letter March 12, 1952 shortly after March 2 1952 first letter in both letters Panofsky urged our Gordon Wasson
be sure to read Albert E Brinckmann’s book tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings 1906 the one and only place where we public relations propagandist Liars cover up artist and fabricators of fake and phony History have a greed on what our cover story is so it is important that you read Brinkmann’s book because this is where we are at historians art historians have established are funny cover-up story iPhone our phony fake cover-up story is laid out
Brinckmann book and therefore as one cover-up public relations artist to another we have to coordinate our lying cover-up story and this is why in both of my letters I am strongly urging you that you must obtain Albert Brinckmann is 1906 book so that we get on the same page of our painting a false picture cover up story of our lying fabricated so-called distorted templates malarkey fabrication
so that you can tell the same story as the popes hired henchmen Brinckmann about the supposed distorted templates yeah that’s the ticket templates so be sure to have your secretary right in her need to cursive knit cursive writing the accurate name of the book and the full spelled out authors name so that U can get on board with R ex
With our explanation of why on earth, why in gods name, mushroom tree artists in England would have desired to depict a southern Italy Mushroom looking Italian umbrella pine. The story that we have decided among ourselves the cover-up story we have a greed on agreed on is distorted templates yeah that’s the ticket distorted templates and accidental it is the fake lying story that you are to tell is that it is “purely fortuitous “in other words completely a coincidence the mushroom trees look like mushrooms and also you can use this argument Wasson which the psychedelic which psychedelic historian Hatsis tells – or failed to tell, rather,
are proof that the final proof in the second letter from Panofsky to Wason is if the public doesn’t eat the shit up of our lying fabricated pseudo cover-up story then hit the public with this our final ultimate argument Mushroom Trees cannot mean mushrooms because of the added ramifications if mushroom artist wanted to paint mushrooms they would have omitted the added ramifications Hatsis I don’t think remembered it did not occur to hatch is this obvious objection as far as I know
why didn’t Thomas Hatsis make this specious dumb ass argument that Bryniarski makes as his final argument the ultimate reason why we know that mushroom tree artist did not intend to draw mushroom trees because if they had intended to draw Mushroom they would have omitted the added ramifications which are shown in the distorted alleged distorted templates the added Branching which is present on every single branching message mushroom trees is proof that our category that we call mushroom trees has nothing whatsoever
none
whatever to do with mushrooms and this is our cover-up story which we have published in the one and only place where we have admitted this big problem that we have of the bona fide genuine Eucharist being revealed together with metaphorical Revelation of nonbranching which is the one and only publication we have allowed to be published of art historians treating the matter of mushroom trees which is 1906 Albert Brinckmann book tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings so you need to get with the program and learn to tell our cover-up story of the
“distorted templates “of Italian “umbrella pine “here’s the cover-up story in my two letters together with a citation of 1906 Brinckmann book which lays out our lying fabricated cover story from one public relations fraud to another propagandist in-service of Salvation Salesmen in alliance with the psychedelic Witch Carlos Ginsberg psychedelic historian Thomas Hatsis who has absolutely proved wink wink confidence artist that witches witchcraft Witches which is used non-drug fertility cult methods which Hatsis totally fails to specify what the fuck he’s talking about of what exactly did Carlos Ginsberg excuse of how allegedly the fertility cult practices whatever the fuck that means against a Jan Irvin and I agree with you on Irving
John Irving who firmly asserts as a ardent advocate and a dogmatist and rightly so and necessarily so a counter dogmatist here we have Thomas Hatsis the dogmatist the anti-Mushroom demonize her he says that the pagans should have demonized Christians as ingesting Mushrooms because half this reveals that he believes Mushrooms are the kind of thing that you should smear and attack people for you
using how to takes it as if granted that all pagans held Mushrooms in very low esteem and this proves that Christians didn’t ingest Mushrooms because if Christians did and just mushrooms we know for sure that pagans would have condemned them and smeared and insulted them for being so low as to use despicable and a cursed Mushrooms and hear how this reveals his true feelings as a witch against Mushrooms he projects his own anti-Mushroom
values falsely and incorrectly he totally and absolutely miss reads the value system so much for being a historian he completely gets the value system entirely wrong because in fact as a Jan Irvin and Egodeath.com and John Rush who are all listed in brown section called ardent Advocates and who has his calls dogmatists as if he is not the biggest anti-Mushroom dogmatist of all let us talk about the dogmatists debacle and look in the mirror Mr. dogmatist Mr. anti-Mushroom dogmatist you dogmatic pusher of the Eucharist as deliriant scopolamine and you vigorous committed dogmatic Ardent advocate of removing Psilocybin from the Eucharist so as to disempower it and replace it by a mind scrambling Mandrake instead you dogmatist this is your debacle back in your face just like Panofsky his argument massively blows up in his face when he says we know that plane crawl fresco is not mushrooms because otherwise we would have to be forced to assert and
admit that all of the hundreds of mushroom trees which is to say all of the countless thousands of mushroom Trees and Mushroom Imagery the characterizes Christian Art as widespread as mixed wine in antiquity banqueting banqueting that all of them are mushrooms because we know and we don’t even need to spell it out explicitly in the two letters Tsawwassen to our Gordon Wasson that if we were to admit that plane crawl Frisco the single case this specific instance proxy
clearly the rules would be revealed the rules are you SERUSE RUSE would be revealed the jig would be up and we would of course be forced to admit the ramifications branching out from there from that one instance we would be forced to admit the truth about history God for bid art historian should be forced to admit the truth about history Thomas Hatsis is doing everything possible to help out cover-up history and fabricate a false history because we receive our orders from the Salvation Salesmen
and they have ordered you are Gordon Wasson banker for the pope you are to stop investigating Mushroom trees and you are to follow Brinkman’s lead in the one and only art historian publication where we know thoroughly well we are completely intimate with mushroom trees and here is our fabricated funny cover-up story funny cover-up story you need to read Brinkman’s book and get on board with our propaganda cover up lie which is published in only one publication the name of the citation is 1906, Tree Stylizations in Medieval Paintings.
be sure to have your secretary hand write in neat cursive the accurate title of the book and the full name of the author, Albert Eichart Brinckmann.
that book has just enough coverage examples of mushroom trees to specify our lying, fabricated cover-up story.
be sure to omit this citation every time you repeat selected excerpts from this letter for public consumption.
Panaeolus, liberty cap, Cubensis, amanita.
Eadwine used my above categories; Eadwine did not use brown & brown’s categories, which are expressed inconsistently & too vaguely, in terms of “Psilocybin” & “Psilocybe”, as Brown & Brown incoherently and vaguely write in their book and article, 2016 & 2019.
dup para? be very careful bc deleting = data loss!!! … opium or cannabis like Chris Bennett incorrectly identifies or that sort of thing those kinds of misidentification it does not mean different categories this image by Ed wine in the Canterbury Psalter does not intend to depict four different types of psychoactive families but here is why Brown and his version number two version two gets closer but Dr. Brown is still incorrect and he still miss identifies but he is closer what Jerry Brown gets correct in his attempt
You lying professional liar fabricating falls history inventing and fabricating your tall tale bedtime story of distorted templates there were no templates there were no templates there were no distorted templates you made shit up you fake fabricator of history professional unfortunately most influential art historian Erwin Panofsky professional fabricator of lying false history cover up operation distorted templates my ass liar fraud, phony, actor, Fessional fabricator of false pseudo-History propagandist head of public relations
so we have the head of public relations of false establishment cover up operation “art history ” , Department of Fake History, writing on the letterhead of the institution of lying about art Princeton Department of fabricated falsified history, Institute for advanced lying & fabrication of study
and he is advising another head of lying propaganda public relations bullsh*t , Wasson , and telling Wasson “here’s how you are to pretend to try to cover up the truth about mushrooms in our own Christian history”
and which his wife wrote a neat handwriting diligently looked up the title and we don’t know at present weather Wasson ever looked at the book what we know he deliberately refrained and withheld when everybody would demand a citation in 2006 I complained about this I said of course we are all very interested when we saw Panofsky’s letter in the book soma of course we all wanted more information about these art historians discussions there are many many detail discussions because art historians know about these mushroom trees so very intimately well and that every first semester flunking out art student is perfectly aware of hundreds of these mushroom trees
THEN WHERE IS THE GODDAM CITATIONS?!
Answer: Wasson deliberately, multiple times, not just once but multiple times, deliberately censored out Panofsky’s two- times, type written and hand written, urging of Wasson please be sure to see this book by 1906 Albert Brinckmann
and then where does Wason help us out by pointing us all to Brinkman’s book so that we can follow up on the very interesting claims that art historians have treated this matter of mushroom trees?
but right where we need Wasson to help us research the matter Dr. Brown calls this Wisen’s paradox Wasson suddenly turns into the obstructionist deliberately maliciously
Wasson was malicious
Wasson was deceptive
Wasson was evil and a jerk for deliberately intentionally censoring out Pulaski’s two times recommendation that we all must see Brinckmann’s book
Wasson is definitely – verdict: proven guilty guilty guilty
wasson you jerk , you enemy of entheogen scholarship
Wasson shame shame evil awful terrible person Wason
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2022/03/09/idea-development-page-13/#Brinckmann-3-times
dup voice transc.: andWassons book soma which I have photographs of my hand written notes on my copieregodeath.com and I was especially above all frustrated where in the hell is the citation needed in Panofsky’s letter Tsawwassen all there is is…… Right where I demand of course like everybody demand a citation why is there no citation here I yelled to the sky in 2006 when I wrote the article Wasson and Allegro and Plaincourault fresco and the answer is that Walton got rid of the citation Witch Panofsky two times recommended and
Panofsky , Unfortunately the most influential parts it was most guilty for everybody being stupid, did not song Albert E Brinckmann name nor did he get the title accurate as he noted, In Panofsky’s first of two mentions of Brinkman name Panofsky mentioned Brinckmann in both letters even going to the trouble of hand writing at the termination of the second letter the final thing that Pulaski rights to Wasson is an emFattic strong recommendation again to look up brakeman’s book
and Wasson then went to the trouble to hand write Brinckmann’s full name or here’s a good gas here is a good guess employing my ESP Wasson secretary wrote please identify whether the handwriting belongs to Wason or Wasson secretary at the bank or wife or his wife Wasson handed Panofsky’s letter to wassons wife and in her neat handwriting she wrote the full name of Albert a Brinckmann and she wrote the full correct German title of Brinkman’s book what we need to know is Diaz Wasson on Brinckmann’s book did Wassen check out the book from the library did Wason have the library order the book or did Wason purchase the book for his personal library did Wason go any further than having his wife or secretary write in her neat cursive writing on Pulaski’s first letter did Panofsky finally read Brinkman’s book as Panofsky I meant to say did Wason finally read Brinkman’s book which Panofsky in Fattic Lee recommended to him twice and I am still mad at myself in 2006 why didn’t Jan Irving and I catch the three dots the ellipses where Wason censored out Panofsky citation a Brinckmann’s book because I’m emphasizing here I emphasize that my main
my main feeling about a Panofsky’s letter in 2006 was where in the hell is the citation every single person obviously would yell at Panofsky where is the damn citation citation needed dammit where the hell is the citation that was my main feeling reading Panofsky’s book because he claims that are historians have treated this matter of mushroom trees and I said wow I am extremely we are all extremely highly interested in art historians discussions please please please provide a citation where in the hell this is a damn citation that was my number one main feeling and frustration with Panofsky’s letter so why was I so stupid
that I failed to notice in my copy of Wason’s book soma where he put dots literally physically in the exact spot in the exact place physically right where I was yelling where oh where please somebody show me where the citation is and obviously right there is where the three dots are it is extremely obvious that the dots are hiding a citation because that is precisely where you would expect and everybody would demand of course a citation we are very interested Brown does a good job and Brown does a good job he even has a Section heading labelled wassons paradox
and Wason’s paradox defined by Jerry Brown and Brown is that he is reputed to be indefatigable in going to the ends of the earth to study Mushrooms and yet when panofsky two times strongly recommends Brinckmann’s book, Wassen then plays the part of the obstructionist! Wasson took measures and actively took steps to prevent progress in the field of Wasson absolutely is guilty pronounced verdict guilty definitely guilty Wasson is definitely definitely guilty of deliberately withholding Brinckmann citation right there in Wisen’s on hand (or exactly equivalent same I don’t care I don’t give a damn it’s the same thing it might as well be for all practical purposes it is Wisen’s own hand writing) on Pulaski’s first letter and he deliberately did not tell us !
he deliberately did not mention brinckmann!
wasson you jerk you -sshole
fcking Wassen fcking Wasson, you obstructionist fcker !
why in the hell is Wasson striving to prevent us from knowing about Brinkman’s book
what is your excuse you evil demonic liar Wason demon from hell you fraud you
phony you fake you liar you deception are R Gordon “deception” Wasson
Wasson equals deception
why is Wason trying to act deceptive
this is why Jan Irvin angrily exited the field
he said you guys are all deceivers your phonies actors
this is all a fraud
And Irving took his 100 interviews of 103 entheogen scholars and watered wadded them up into the trashcan and said you guys are lying fraudsters fraud phony deceivers this is a sham and a pretext and I a put on
you guys are fake and a fraud and phony deceivers
you’re not what you’re pretending publicly to be
your all actors liars and deceivers trying to deceive everybody
entheogens Scholars equals people who are out to deceive everybody
And Jan Irvin angrily stormed out of the field and exited and changed from gnostic media to logos media and said fck all of you evil phony fraudulent deceivers
dup voice trans.:
dup block? careful of data loss – are proof that the final proof in the second letter from Panofsky to Wason is if the public doesn’t eat the shit up of our lying fabricated pseudo cover-up story then hit the public with this our final ultimate argument Mushroom Trees cannot mean mushrooms because of the added ramifications if mushroom artist wanted to paint mushrooms they would have omitted the added ramifications Hatsis I don’t think remembered it did not occur to hatch is this obvious objection as far as I know
The Egodeath theory 