Category: Uncategorized

_{Site Map > John Lash}

Contents:

• Lash Uploaded Leg-Dangling Mushroom Tree May-Aug 2008 (Feb. 14, 2023 Update)
• The Image Fragment
• Dangling -> Hanging -> Balancing
• Summary of Desired Truish Story
• I voice-dictated & created this post March 30, 2022 before ordering his book on April 11, 2022

Lash Uploaded Leg-Dangling Mushroom Tree May-Aug 2008

This section is a Feb. 14, 2023 Update, and I have inserted [notes] in this March 30, 2022 post/page.

I finally did sleuthing last week and settled this important date:

The first time I could possibly have seen the image was sometime between May and August 2008.

I now know the image was definitely provided by John Lash.

The Image Fragment

This highly cropped image is 13.3% of the entire image:

2/5 of 1 of 3 rows = (2 / 5) / 3 = 2/15 = 13.33%

yet I was able to spend hour and days productively decoding it, by applying my Christmas 2015 hypothesis that Dancing Man in the salamander bestiary image is {standing on right leg} = eternalism-thinking — thus providing the needed confirmation of my 2015 hypothesis 5 years later.

Around the milestone date of March 21, 2022, I finally applied the learnings from decoding the (fragment & then the full) Eadwine leg-balancing image, back to my familiar 2006 artworks.

John Lash Provided the Leg-Hanging Mushroom Tree Eadwine Image in 2008
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/02/01/john-lash-provided-the-leg-hanging-mushroom-tree-eadwine-image-in-2008/

I must have seen the image after my Egodeath.com 2006 gallery in support of Plaincourault article, because I certainly would have added that image, if I had seen it by Dec. 31, 2007.

It turns out, 5 to 8 months after my hiatus started, the image went online.

In Nov 2020 I felt sure I had seen the image before. That’s when I was writing Brown’s “compelling evidence & criteria of proof and for identifying mushroom imagery in Christian art” article:

Compelling Evidence & Proof of Explicit Psilocybin Mushrooms in Christian Art to Communicate Non-Branching Stable Control
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/defining-compelling-evidence-criteria-of-proof-for-mushrooms-in-christian-art/

It appears that the present page was my first webpage dedicated to John Lash, March 30, 2022.

I was then in the middle of a 10-day nonstop jackpot applying my Nov 2020 Eadwine initiation image decoding, to other, familiar art works.

That jackpot started March 21, 2022 when for the 3rd time, Browns’ passage from Marcia Kupfer was presented to me, reporting youths in trees cutting branches.

In the weeks (I suppose, based on some indicators) prior to March 21, 2022, I already had built up huge momentum, so that when I saw again that passage, an explosion of comprehension resulted for weeks.

Dangling -> Hanging -> Balancing

[10:02 p.m. February 13, 2023] it strikes me that “balancing” is truer characterization.

Just like I ironically use “dancing man” to make fun of failed entheogen scholars before me, when he’s actually {standing on right leg} (referring to eternalism-thinking as opposed to possibilism-thinking), the descriptor “dangling” here is kind of missing a potential opportunity to make a truer point: it’s a matter of balance.

Learning a new balance, a new way to walk, to exercise viable control.

Summary of Desired Truish Story

2004 Cybermonk reads Samorini article msh trees salamder b/w dancing man image

2006 Cybermonk main article incl msh trees. no “branch” word.

Nov 2006 confirmed: Lash visits psalter.
[todo: double check based on [Feb. 2023 article] https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2023/02/01/john-lash-provided-the-leg-hanging-mushroom-tree-eadwine-image-in-2008/ ]

2006 John Lash uploads yellow blurry cropped microfiche copy of tightly cropped msh tree 71[still numbered 71? yes], describes/recognizes it as the scholarly discovery of a lifetime.
See my [April 2022] page https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2022/04/11/john-lash-the-discovery-of-a-lifetime/
Tree 71 in the 75 inventory:
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/the-75-mushroom-trees-of-the-canterbury-psalter/#71

Nov. 29, 2013 Cybermonk decodes tree vs snake = possibilism vs eternalism

2014 Cybermonk sees Lash’s contextless blurry small version of tree 71 during routine sweep of web to expand his Christian msh image db [vague, which db? I wasn’t updating Egodeath.com then]

Christmas 2015 Cybermonk decodes roasting Hatsis salamander dancing man image [i recently linked to the Egodeath Yahoo Group archives w/ this post] but see whole thread, in archive 144, not only this post:
https://egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com/2021/01/09/egodeath-yahoo-group-digest-145/#message7459

2020 Cybermonk writes article requested by Brown defining compelling evidence and criteria for proof for interpreting all* of the mushroom trees/shapes in Christian art.

*For low-IQ readers[Carl Amanita Promoter Ruck]: The word ‘mushroom’ is not an exact synonym of ‘Amanita’; there do exist other psychoactive types, despite delirious witches high on henbane babbling the word ‘anachronistic’ incoherently.

2020 Cybermonk sees Lash’s uploaded microfiche image again, uses it to decode canterbury (tree, then Cyberdisciple finds the hi-res psalter, then Cybermonk decodes the tree more, then row 1, then the whole comic panel, then all the Eadwine pictures)

2022 Brown links to Lash page w tree 71

2022 Cybermonk comprehends “branching-message msh trees”

March 21, 2022 Brown provides Cybermonk image of beardless youths cutting msh branches

March 21-April ~13(?), 2022 Cybermonk completes hands & feet decoding.

The above dates are tentative and it appears that it is lash but I need to confirm the Lash uploaded that and I especially want to see how much focus does he put on tree number 71 in particular.

I voice-dictated & created this post March 30, 2022 before ordering his book on April 11, 2022

Voice Dictation

[i got his (2nd edition) book, purchased April 11, 2022: 12 days after the present post, received & read it after that]

Voice dictation was used to create this page.

I really hope that I will be able to tell the story

I love the story

I hope I can confirm the various points of the story

I would love it to be able to embrace [weird] brother John Lash [#1 Wasson fanboi] on this story.

Hypothesis:

John lash went to the library at Canterbury and made some microfiche copies (whatever that means) in color and he somehow uploaded specifically the cropped image of the leg Hanging Balancing Mushroom Tree number 71 from the Canterbury Psalter and he wrote several webpages about entheogens in Christianity. He’s Christian I think. [eh no, except Psilocybin mystical – when did i get his (2nd edition) book? purchased April 11, 2022: 12 days after the present post.]

including his blurry yellow overly cropped missing the context portion a small fraction of the comic panel which contains Mushroom tree number 71 with Balancing hanging and sword

then I know that I saw that picture a few some years ago some years ago I’d have to check do I have a copy of that picture at Egodeath.com that would be significant that is a significant question and if not I would question why not because obviously I was building my gallery of pictures around maybe 2005 which is such a valuable collection of pictures in support I know that I did that at least in support of my plane crawl article it is titled as a exhibit my egodeath.com webpage about the that is a gallery it is described as a gallery of images that is for the purpose of supporting my plane crawl article about Wassen and allegro and the scholarly slapfight that is in no way scholarly and is in no way a debate and is a disgrace of a refusal to engage in real handling the material and making actual rational argumentation about it

request a specific question here is does that gallery webpage a Egodeath.com include the leg Hanging Mushroom Tree I don’t think it does and if so why not the question here is when did I first see that tree and what was my reaction and what did I write when I first saw that leg hanging tree Mushroom tree when I would like to know when exactly did I for see it because if I recall correctly when I saw that picture at two websites I believe at two websites and I believe the John Lash I believe that

I believe that the web has before previous prior to my priority in EgodeathTheory.wordpress.com I believe that there were two copies to webpages containing that picture I believe and I hope that that picture was contributed and uploaded who uploaded that picture who uploaded that picture of the like blurry blurry yellow overly cropped leg Hanging Mushroom Tree who uploaded the picture when what year was it after I created my gallery webpage in support of my plain crop wasson article which was 2006

if the first time I copied that article into my web database was 2020 why such a late date because my memory tells me that that was not the first time that I saw the lake hanging mushroom tree my question here is why supposing that I supposing that that image was not new to me here is what I don’t understand and what does not make sense to me if I saw that picture before November 2020 why didn’t I upload that Picture that yellow blurry overly cropped image of the leg Hanging Mushroom Tree why didn’t I upload that to one of my websites a few years ago or 2006 was the article not of was that image not available on the web in 2006 and if 2020 was my second time of coming across coming across that image as my memory tells me why did why didn’t I put a great focus on the image let’s say hypothetically hypothetically let’s assume that the first time I saw that picture which was maybe I hope

contributed by uploaded by John Lash suppose hypothetically the first time I saw that picture was let’s say maybe one year after John Lash uploaded it and let’s say maybe he uploaded 2013 whatever we know the good thing I think I can determine I think I can determine what year he uploaded it let me also know that Dr. Brown I believe at Academia.edu you the copy of Brown’s retort letter to Hatteras Thomas Hatsis Dr. Brown’s retort article posted at Hancock Graham Hancock site but also a copy I think that in the comments may be in the comments

I think that may be in the comments at Academia.edu you Dr. Brown points to lash I know that somewhere doctor Dr. Brown has I think a comment posting with a link to John Lasch webpage which contains I think I have to fact check I have to double check everything here so let me try to tell the story and let it be understood that every aspect of the story is conjecture and hypothesis and this is it here is the story that I’m trying to tell here’s the sort of a story that I’m trying to tell below

In 2006 I made a gallery of all every image on the web that shows Mushrooms in christian art and this gallery of all web-findable images of msh in Christian art was in support of my article about Plaincourault Wassen and Allegro for the journal of hire criticism in 2006

hi it’s terrible I have to fact check everything I’m not sure if my gallery I’m not sure how many images I’m not sure if my gallery was at all in anyway intended to be comprehensive right now that I think about it I don’t think it was ever intended to to present all images of mushrooms in Christian art I don’t know maybe I have a separate webpage at Egodeath.com I know I always tried and attempted to upload lots of pictures but did I ever claim basically I know

I know that I attempted and desired consciously to upload to gather all such images but I don’t recall whether I ever claimed to have accomplished that and I never really felt that I had really accomplished that what I did what I do know for sure is it every few years every five or 10 years I would do another sweep of the web and gather up whatever I could find and there was always the feeling of all right well I’ve run out of new copies it’s all the same copies of the same images over again but the big question here is in which of my sweets

here is a great way to put it

suppose generally every five years I did a sweep of to find all newly available images of mushrooms in Christian art that are findable on the web then the question becomes what sweep in which year which of my sweeps first gathered and collected in and saw the image of the leg hanging mushroom tree because these were regular sweet so if that makes a little bit hard to pinpoint when did I first see it and then kind of the lesser question is when did I first copy it onto my own webpage

but one thing I feel certain about is that November 20 20 was not the first time I saw that picture my feeling when I did my sweep in November 2020 my feeling was oh yeah there’s that picture again I am familiar with that picture but now I have something I didn’t have before which is I have my 2016 hypothesis my hypothetical Decoding of the picture I got from Tom I did that I got through Tom Hatsis because first one number one Santorini black and white I believe copy of the dancing man salamander roasting image number two Chris Bennett publish that image in color I think I think that Tom Hatsis says that and then number three Jan Irvin publish something about that picture and then number four Thomas Hatsis wrote something about that salamander dancing man picture and then in 2016 I read half-sisters articles or 2015 actually and then in 2016 you can easily check this date you can get the exact date easily of my decoding my tentative hypothesis decoding the salamander dancing man at Egodeathyahoogroup.wordpress.com

so a good question is put these in the right sequence when did I first see the leg Hanging Mushroom Tree which was presumably uploaded by John lash which he discovered he described that as the discovery of a lifetime and I heartily agree with him and like hug him and shake his hand

congratulate him for his great earth shattering game changer discovery of a lifetime that he is a great hero at four he that I think I’m not sure but I think he provided the image to me another later step well that cyber disciple found the high-resolution official I will copy no Dr. Brown explained something in some of these comments are somewhere I bought about his article against Hatsis he explained that there are several copies several high resolution copies by a specialist, art art copying company where are several library’s have a high-resolution copy of the Canterbury psalter

so I still have some questions some basic fundamental basic simple questions about copies of the Canterbury Psalter the high-resolution images which cyber disciple found are those direct photographs of the Psalter what are what do we mean when we say what does Dr. Brown mean when he says that there are multiple professional copies or a facsimile reproductions like physical books in various library’s and then my question is or cyber disciples photographs of the Salter are they photographs of the original Psalter or are they photographs of copies probably they are photographs of the original Psalter but I would like confirmation of that because they look

they look like their photographs of gold gold ink illuminated manuscript which would have to be the original but maybe not maybe they’re photographs of photographs maybe their photographs of the of a facsimile of the Salter I need confirmation

so let me clarify a distinction is that the yellow blurry overly cropped image which was may be uploaded probably by John Lash and Dr. Brown’s comment I guess links to that John Lash page that contains that and did Brown point directly to that picture are there any other Canterbury pictures in that webpage from John Lash which Dr. Brown points to??

how old is that John lash article which Dr. Brown links to which contains the image the cropped image and that’s only a copy that’s not the same as the high resolution pictures which I later analyzed how does that John lash webpage compare to his deleted archive.org pages which I laughed and mocked because of his clumsy statement that everybody who writes about mushrooms and Christianity is there for a follower of Wassen including theories that completely disagree with wasson are also to be considered as followers of Boston and everybody in the world to write anything about connecting Mushroomshow old is that John lash article which Dr. Brown links to which contains the image the cropped image and that’s only a copy that’s not the same as the high resolution pictures which I later analyzed how does that John lash webpage compare to his deleted archive.org pages which I laughed and mocked because of his clumsy statement that everybody who writes about mushrooms and Christianity is there for a follower of Wassen including theories that completely disagree with wasson are also to be considered as followers of Boston and everybody in the world to write anything about connecting Mushrooms

And Christianity is by definition a full roof wasson except somehow magically exempting lash apparently because lash is doing the finger-pointing and accusing that automatically exempt him from being a follower of Wason he does not give his reasoning for why he is any different than the other schmucks who are writing on the subject and that he throws them into the garbage can called follower of Wason whereas Hatsis tries to make the same identical exact same move except arbitrarily Hatsis called his garbage can of his own making he labeled as followers of allegro not followers of wassom – same stupid arbitrary fallacious move in either case

so I am hoping to tell the stories that first I made a gallery of mushroom and Christian are images at Egodeath.com in specifically in support of my walls an article my plane crawl article in 2006 at which time the leg Hanging yellow blurry image was not uploaded yet to the web and then after that John lash travel to the library and made the discovery of a lifetime and made a microfiche copy of the cropped Mushroom tree number 41 and then lash uploaded that blurry image which I saw

so I am hoping to tell the stories that first I made a gallery of mushroom and Christian are images at Egodeath.com in specifically in support of my Wasson article; my Plaincourault article in 2006, at which time the leg-hanging yellow blurry image was not uploaded yet to the web

and then after that John lash traveled to the library and made “the discovery of a lifetime” and made a microfiche copy of the cropped Mushroom tree number 41 and then lash uploaded [I determined May-Aug 2008] that blurry image which I saw.

which I saw a few years somewhere in between 2006[no: Jan 1, 2008] and earlier than [Nov] 2020 and then

Dr. Brown saw whatever images I managed to gather in 2006 at Egodeath.com specifically in support of my Plaincourault fresco article and Brown’s book was published in 2016 citing my work but my gallery did not yet I guess maybe my gallery did not yet include that image then next in between my 2006 gallery which is cited in browns 2016 book and the year 2016 I’m guessing John lash during that. Uploaded that blurry image

and then I’m guessing maybe 2015 in one of my sweeps maybe I saw that blurry image then somehow in 2020 that image was not new to me

did I copy that image to one of my galleries prior to 2020?

I don’t know I could check

it would be pretty straightforward to check

Did I ever write check the Egodeath Yahoo Group?

[partial answer: I went on hiatus Jan 1, 2008; the image went online mid-2008, I didn’t post until Sep 2011 (hiatus)]

Did I ever say [Sep 2011 or later] Hey guys I found this one cool image of a mushroom in Christian Art where it has a guy balancing and the guy hanging and a sword

did I mention

is there any evidence is

that’s the big question

is there any evidence that I saw that blurry John lash image assuming it came from John Lash [confirmed it did]

and then I’m guessing maybe 2015 in one of my sweeps maybe I saw that blurry image

then somehow in 2020 that image was not new to me

did I copy that image to one of my galleries prior to 2020?

I don’t know I could check it would be pretty straightforward to check:

did I ever write check the Egodeath Yahoo Group

[dup text from buggy voice dictat.]

did I ever say hey guys I found this one cool image of a mushroom in Christian Art where it has a guy balancing and the guy hanging and a sword did I mention is there any evidence is that’s the big question is there any evidence that I saw that blurry John lash image assuming it came from John Lash

assuming that John lash is the person who uploaded that particular blurry image is there any evidence that I saw or even copied to a gallery that image before 2020 I believe that I saw the image and maybe added it to my private collection but perhaps did not upload it to any of my gallery pages so that’s just a question that’s bothering me that my question about who uploaded the blurry image is not bothering me but I would really love it if that was John last week

because I love what John lash said wrote what he wrote that it was the discovery of a lifetime what year did he write that statement what year did he upload that picture if indeed that blurry yellow picture comes from him that question is not bothering me that’s not the question that’s bothering me that is a question that is of great interest to me but it doesn’t bother me

The specific question that is that is bothering me is in 2020 when I saw that yellow blurry image I said oh there’s that familiar image which I saw before this image is not new to me however this time I possess my hypothesis of decoding the image that I got through Hatsis my hypothesis that the dancing man is standing on his right leg and that right leg means one mental model in the left leg means depending on your other mental model but standing on your right leg means depending on the one mental model rather than the other mental model of control in time and time and possibility Branching as it turns out

remember I decoded the formula tree versus snake equals possibility Branching model versus eternity model in Thanksgiving 2013 which was three years before my 2016 Decoding of the dancing man that I got through houses though it is pretty certain that I did see the black-and-white copy way back maybe 2005 when reading the Santorini articles Santorini articles

so in November 2020 I saw John lash yellow blurry image let’s say for the second time and let’s say that the first time I saw it I did not yet have my 2016 Decoding of left versus right leg that would suggest that I saw John lash yellow blurry photo maybe around 2013 possibly or probably a good bet is a couple of years after he wrote an article about it and about mushrooms in Canterbury

Psalterso in November 2020 I saw John lash yellow blurry image let’s say for the second time and let’s say that the first time I saw it I did not yet have my 2016 Decoding of left versus right leg that would suggest that I saw John lash yellow blurry photo maybe around 2013 possibly or probably a good bet is a couple of years after he wrote an article about it and about mushrooms in Canterbury Psalter

so I think I am now prepared to list hypothetical dates the date at which I read the Sam Marini article the date at which I wrote my gallery for my plane corralled article the date at which I decoded possibility Branching the date at which I saw John lash blurry yellow picture of leg Hanging Mushroom Tree the date at which I decoded the salamander dancing man image hyper to tentatively hypothetically let’s say tentatively as a hypothesis and I posted about that many of these dates

many of these dates are available and readily in quickly straightforwardly available then the day at which I saw the yellow blurry leg hanging image for the second time but this time I had in hand the decoding of the salamander dancing man image which I brought together with the leg hanging picture to be able to successfully decode the legging picture and I was having trouble interpreting the left blurry hand because it was so blurry it looked like the hand was pointing at the dangling foot I thought that the balancing man was drawing attention to the dangling foot of the red initiate

but that proved not at all to be the case as soon as cyber disciple found the high-resolution image which both added clarity on the mushroom tree portion of the image and added the entire image context as well as adding the broader context of all 75 mushroom trees the entire comic book all of the pages of the comic book instead of one blurry crop of one page of the comic book John Lash uploaded one blurry cropped portion of one page of the comic book but cyber disciple pointed me to the entire comic book and then high resolution it was

clear the pink Initiation Balancing in the tree was definitely not pointing at the dangling foot of the right read initiate Dingaling left foot of the red initiate but rather the left hand of the pink initiate is displayed as floating in mid air providing no purchase no stable foundation for control or even to read it my latest reading that he is he is exhibiting to us look I am not trying to rely on my left hand I am deliberately definitively saying and communicating I am not relying on my or even

he is signaling to us in his left hand I reject relying on possibility thinking branching thinking as my basis for personal control stability

then as I thoroughly documented Thanksgiving 2020 we analyze what does the pink initiate mean when he shows us his left hand what does the pink initiate mean when he grabs onto a definitively cut branch what does the pink initiate mean when he displays to us his right foot definitely on a cut branch providing him with stability stable purchase so that he can balance and what is the pink initiate signaling to us intentionally with his left foot by his deliberate placement of his left foot which you have to look carefully closely and critically to confirm that he is showing us his left foot asthen as I thoroughly documented Thanksgiving 2020 we analyze what does the pink initiate mean when he shows us his left hand what does the pink initiate mean when he grabs onto a definitively cut branch what does the pink initiate mean when he displays to us his right foot definitely on a cut branch providing him with stability stable purchase so that he can balance and what is the pink initiate signaling to us intentionally with his left foot by his deliberate placement of his left foot which you have to look carefully closely and critically to confirm that he is showing us his left foot as

The pink initiate is displaying to us his left foot being just dangling at the tree and not resting on any cut branch to give him a stable basis do the same repeat the above for the right initiate two hands and 2 feet the right initiate is displaying to us his right hand affirming the cut branch touching it his left hand cutting or being willing he is showing that he is willing to cut his left hand meaning again negating it so the fist the displayed left fist of the pink initiate is signaling the same message as the left hand of the hanging read initiate who is touching intentionallyThe pink initiate is displaying to us his left foot being just dangling at the tree and not resting on any cut branch to give him a stable basis do the same repeat the above for the right initiate two hands and 2 feet the right initiate is displaying to us his right hand affirming the cut branch touching it his left hand cutting or being willing he is showing that he is willing to cut his left hand meaning again negating it so the fist the displayed left fist of the pink initiate is signaling the same message as the left hand of the hanging read initiate who is touching intentionally

The sort of God indicating I cut this or I reject this so we have the right hand positively touching the cut branch saying I agree with cut and we have the left hand touching the sword again signaling I agree with cut cutting this possibility thinking or or intentionally indicating that I am not relying on it indicating that I am rejecting relying on the red initiates left foot is placed deliberately dangling the air he is acrobatic Lee demonstrating to us in order to signal and communicate to us look I am extremely not placing my dick

I am extremely not placing any dependents in fact I’m doing the exact extreme opposite here’s a new idea today it is 843 of whatever day March 30, 2022 new idea announcement priority of discovery scholarly official announcement of priority of discovery

New idea is the purpose of hanging upside down with the left foot way up in the air to the extreme is to communicate and this goes for the cyber side the sword the guy stabbing himself with a smile who is upside down and his foot is up in the air what is being indicated by both of those I am hereby announcing is the extreme of not depending on your left leg which means your foundation of stable control power based on possibility Branching model of time and control the purpose of being upside down and the purpose of the left leg being up in the air is the extremely emphasize the extreme opposite of depending on possibility Branching

To continue this morning’s earth shattering breakthrough of a bigger and girth your breakthrough than your breakthrough scholarly priority discovery con’t I should maybe switch to voice recording so you can have me doing a voice recording of brand new breakthrough here it’s just been it’s just playing out that same idea that’s not all I’m simply just playing out that idea that the right foot down please put down versus left foot floating up so let me switch the voice recording

Voice dictation expect bug jumbled double entry due to bugs because it’s too much trouble to dictate into a separate app and then paste into this buggy app

Ruck’s paradigm prevents us from ever succeeding at recognizing and telling the story the true story, that Christianity comes from mushrooms and that all mushroom trees mean big billboards of openly, explicitly – *not* secretly!!!! – fully re-incorporating psilocybin mushrooms into normal, real, mainstream Christianity, that counts much more than non-mushroom, pseudo-Christianity.

why the secrecy premise is the number one impediment to reconnecting Psilocybe and Mushrooms with Christianity.

by always taking the incoming Mushroom evidence and framing it a secret , call rock is setting up a big wall in between the mushroom evidence and normal real Christianity

by always taking the incoming Mushroom evidence and framing it a secret call rock is setting up a big wall in between the mushroom evidence and normal real Christianity his paradigm prevents us from ever succeeding at recognizing and telling the story the true story the Christianity comes from mushrooms and that all mushroom trees mean big billboards of openly explicitly not secretly fully incorporating Mushrooms into normal real main stream that counts much more than non-Mushroom, pseudo Christianity.

I have urged and emphasized the enemy number one you must to get past this impasse

to get past the impasse in the field of entheogen scholarship to reconnect Mushrooms to Christianity , the main thing that’s blocking that is the secrecy premise the number one impediment the number one barrier preventing entheogens scholarship for moving forward

by “forward”, I mean reconnecting psilocybin mushrooms with Christianity.

the main obstacle to reconnecting Psilocybe and Mushrooms with Christianity is the secrecy premise

either the secrecy premise wins or we win at reconnecting Psilocybe and Mushrooms to christianI have urged and emphasized the enemy number one you must to get past this impasse to get past the impasse in the field of entheogen scholarship to reconnect Mushrooms to Christianity

the main thing that’s blocking that is the secrecy premise the number one impediment the number one barrier preventing entheogens scholarship for moving forward and buy forward I mean reconnecting psilocybin mushrooms with Christianity the main obstacle to reconnecting Psilocybe and Mushrooms with Christianity is the secrecy premise either the secrecy premise wins or we win at reconnecting Psilocybe and Mushrooms to christian

as long as we hang on as long as we hold onto and retain the secrecy premise we will never succeed at reconnecting Psilocybe and Mushrooms with Christianity

The great historian Thomas Hatsis and I are fully allied on this point

we are both aiming are 90% of our fire power at the same target

it’s kind of a three-way deal

were “shooting” at each other on other aspects, but regarding this particular topic this particular enemy in this particular roadblock, we both agree:

Hatsis and I disagree about what it means to move the field Ford we disagree 180° we disagree about which direction is “Forward”

but we both agree definitely did the main thing that’s keeping the field for moving forward is the secrecy premise

our argumentation and framing of secrecy premise and why it is a problem is entirely different we are fighting I am fighting Tom Hatsis about why the secrecy premise is a problem we have an absolute disagreement about why the secrecy premise is a problem

but we both absolutely agree that the enemy number one where we both need to aim 90% of our fire power is against the secrecy premise

his his top mission his top critical mission is to take down the secrecy printmise

Thomas Hatsis is top mission critical target is he hast to take down the secrecy premise and he has his deluded reasons why he thinks he hast to take it down

my top mission , mission critical to accomplish the goal,

the goal is reconnect Christianity with Psilocybe Mushrooms

the number one target and critical mission is to take down the secrecy premise in order to accomplish my enlightened clear thinking goal

all situations have pros and cons

all positions have pros and cons

and you always must make the most of the pros whatever whatever advantages that the current situation happens to have you have to fully leverage those pros

The bad situation one one bad situation is the hats is his top goal his goal his goal is to show that there is no mushrooms in Christianity

my goal is the exact polar opposite

my goal is to show that there are mushrooms everywhere ubiquitously in Christianity

we could not be more opposed diametrically in our ultimate goal

my ultimate goal is the exact counter of hatsis’ goal.

we are fighting war against each other regarding the ultimate goal

however

at the level of the ultimate goal Hatsis and I are diametrically opposed enemies directly directly fighting against each other either I win and he completely loses or he wins and I completely lose that’s at the level of the ultimate goal but at the same time how can I relate this other opposite situation at the same time

Mission critical to his goal and also mission critical to my goal is that both of us have to take down first of all the secrecy premise so we have an interesting three-way situation it’s kind of that situation I said that you should avoid it and a war should have just two sides and then pick a side there are two sides pick a side but we have kind of a three sides there are three sides in this war

There is coral rock who is the greatest contributor in the greatest impediment the biggest retard in the field who is retarded in this field and he is using strategies whether he’s an idiot or a liar whether he’s just low IQ or whether he is malicious I don’t know to hear the words the words I’m looking for

coral rock is either a fool or is malicious the way he is fabricating the secrecy premise and thus preventing psilocybin mushrooms from being reconnected to Christianity

Even let’s see there are three sides to this war that seems a clear analogy

there are three sides to this war :Thomas Hatsis , Carl Ruck’s , and me

coral rock on this point is my enemy – it’s separate subject is that I need to have a word with Carl rock and persuade him to knock it off with his stupid obviously self-defeating secrecy purpose , but I’m just setting up the situation as it currently stands

I don’t know if it lost my bed acted like it lost his previous tax will have to see if it comes out of that text comes back I was saying I don’t know if Thomas had comprehend that 90% of the secrecy premise is coming from his good buddy Carl rock they are Besty’s best friends at least today until these 2/8 grade girls turn against each other tomorrow

well regardless of what has realizes consciously I’m going to describe the situation as it actually stands is that

Thomas Hatsis is inherently an enemy of coral rock because Carlbrook is the main source of the secrecy premise which Hatsis has identified as his number one target to take down

Carl rock is my number one enemy( in this analogy) because he is the source because( I know consciously) that he is the source of the secrecy premise, and I know that the secrecy premise is the number one obstacle preventing us from reconnecting Psilocybe Mushrooms to Christianity

so in a three-way war the inherent inherent in a three-way war is that every side of the war has a kind of an alliance with the other side to take down the third party

so we have a three-way war situation which inherently means that that I fight against Hatsis on the ultimate scale but on a partway strategy scale I ally with him to take down the third side in the war in this case who is going who is going to go down the side that is going to go down here’s my prophecy the side that is going to go down is the Carl Ruck secrecy purpose because the other two parties in this

Carl rock is going to lose and then ultimately I will win so first Carl rock will lose then Thomas Hatsis will lose then I will win to make that happen first in this analogy to explain the situation and strategy that everyone of us needs to understand clearly strategy these particular points of strategy I mean that call rock needs to understand the strategy and hats us needs to understand this and everybody needs to understand the strategy

after all don’t forget part of part of Thomas has his PR public relations marketing claims his branding his corporate branding he pretends to or he I believe the fact is the fact is Thomas Hatsis wants mushrooms in Christianity he also wants to become the famous historian but he is not lying when he says hope he’s being disingenuous but he’s not lying when he says that he wishes there were mushrooms in Christianity so ultimately Thomas how to school have a religious conversion from which to monk

but just a sort of play out the current situation the current situation will change when people read my work but the current relationship between us stands like this

FURST Thomas Hatsis and I will in this analogy when I don’t want to sound too personal we will destroy in this game in this game Thomas Hatsis and I will first work together to destroy Carl rock in this game because we both need to get rid of Carl rocks damned damned from hell awful terrible secrecy Prots premise and then after that in this game I will take down Thomas

then I will take down Thomas Hatsis first but first Thomas Hatsis and I will both simultaneously am 90% of our fire power in this game at Carl Ruck in this game so to speak specifically at rather we will aim more fire power at Carl rocks secrecy premise which is his brand his corporate brand we’re going to take down his corporate brand of the secrecy premise I Thomas Hatsis and I are united like that the hottest corporation in the Cyberman corporation are both going to take down the coral rock corporation with it secrecy premise trademark branding

and that’s true even though we have extremely different beliefs about reality in the ultimate goal that our motives for taking down the motives for Tom and I to aim 90% of our fire power at the rock secrecy permits are our motives are entirely different opposite our motives are opposite but we both agree for completely opposed reasons we both agree to each game or 90% of our fire power at the Carl rock corporate’s branding trademark patented secrecy premise it’s going down we’re both gonna take it down and then we will fight each other Tom and I will then fight each other

after that.

they actually it is much more boring I’ll send an email to Carl rock and then everyone realize I’m right and then came over from the deluded view then it will be game over in fact it is already game over I’ve already accomplished this game over

Workaround to Voice Transcription Double-Entry Bug

The awkward solution is to do the voice transcription in a note text app and then copy and paste into this wordpress editing app.

Bad News: The Entanglement of Yes Mushrooms and No Jesus

Bad news: the guy who is taking over the lead the guy who has taken the lead in the field of Entheogen scholarship (Cybermonk) unfortunately agrees with allegro that Jesus didn’t exist.

The Allegro Extreme Entanglement of Mushroom Taboo Scholarship and Ahistoricity Taboo Scholarship

Two Interlocked Exoteric Coerced Academic Positions: You Are Not Allowed to Say Yes Mushrooms and/or No Jesus, and ESPly Don’t Even THINK of Saying “Yes Msh and No Jesus” YOU HAVE COMMITTED THE ALLEGRO CRIME AND HE’s BEEN “DISCREDITED AND DISGRACED” ACCORDING TO THE VERY MOUTH/PEN OF DR. BROWN HIMSELF!!

look at this self-defeating strategy this again going to bring the field with age and scholarship to a brick wall screeching halt loudly screeching halt double screeching double tap a violation and here’s Dr. Brown helping to make the problem worse Dr. Brown heaps scorn on allegro Dr. Brown smears John allegro against Young Irvin an Jan Irvin will will defend a John Allegro of the solidity in the solid merit of doc of John allegros work and Jan Irvin wrote a book defending the merit and so did jackhammer jacklook at this self-defeating strategy this again going to bring the field with age and scholarship to a brick wall screeching halt loudly screeching halt double screeching double tap a violation and here’s Dr. Brown helping to make the problem worse Dr. Brown heaps scorn on allegro Dr. Brown smears John allegro against Young Irvin an Jan Irvin will will defend a John Allegro of the solidity in the solid merit of doc of John allegros work and Jan Irvin wrote a book defending the merit and so did jackhammer jackJack Herer researched every citation and John allegro’s book is solid John Allegro’s book stands up to intensive scrutiny so why does Dr. Brown smear Dr. smear John allegro trying to use the terrible words which I would have if I edited Brown’s article I would have said you can’t write this you can’t write d

o not write that John allegro has been disgraced and discredited what do you mean he’s been disgraced what are you saying are you going to kick you’re going to kick in John Allegro do you think this is a good strategy to move the field forward?

“Allegro Has Been Disgraced and Discredited” – Dr. Brown

Brown does have an out here he does not explicitly write allegro was wrong Brown can argue that he was merely describing Allegro’s reputation which in fact in a hazy sub scholarly way it is true that Allegra’s reputation is perceived as Disgraced and Discredited good thing Dr. Brown did not explicitly write allegro was wrong because Jack Herer and Young Irvin and I would all challenge Dr. Brown prove it prove Allegro was wrong

dr. Brown specifically where was the legroom in what way was Allegra wrong what assertion by allegro is false be specific you only wrote that Allegra sucks can you be more specific please Dr. Brown but fortunately fortunately Dr. Brown did not explicitly right John Allegro was wrong Dr. Brown merely described Allegro as being and this is so vague I don’t even I don’t even know what Dr. Brown is asserting what exactly do you mean when you say the allegro was disgraced and discredited what do you mean allegro was discredit

dr. Brown we need clarification where you wrote the allegro was disgraced in Discredited what exactly be specific what specifically are you asserting what exactly do you mean when you say the Allegro with Disgraced I don’t know what you mean by disgraced I don’t know what you mean by discredited what do you mean you make it sound as if the tone of your words make it sound as if allegro was found to be in error Dr. Brown are you saying that John allogroup was found to be in error could you be more specific like 1 million times more specific this is not proper writing to merely smear Allegro as by attaching the words by attaching the smear words disgraceddr. Brown we need clarification where you wrote the allegro was disgraced in Discredited what exactly be specific what specifically are you asserting what exactly do you mean when you say the Allegro with Disgraced I don’t know what you mean by disgraced I don’t know what you mean by discredited what do you mean you make it sound as if the tone of your words make it sound as if allegro was found to be in error Dr. Brown are you saying that John allogroup was found to be in error could you be more specific like 1 million times more specific this is not proper writing to merely smear Allegro as by attaching the words by attaching the smear words disgraced

this is not a properly this is not a proper scholarly move by Dr. Brown to attach the smear words to Dr. Brown is striving and trying to attach the smear words to defame and distance and disavow this is rhetoric Dr. Brown is providing rhetoric here at sea it’s a public relations move this is not a scholarship by Dr. Brown here this is this is a PR move by Dr. Brown here this is not a scholarly move to to label allegro as disgraced and discredited Dr. Brown is trying and striving to associate those words those words with allegro in order for Dr. Brown to shield and distance himself it is a rhetorical move it is not a scholar scholarly move

dr. Brown what the hell do you mean in what way this is a false statement it is a false statement to see the John Allegro is discredited how has John allegro been discredited

Jan Irvin wants to have a word with you

be specific Dr. Brown what are you asserting when you assert that “John Allegra has been discredited” what the hell do you mean what are you talking about

I dont think Cyberdisciple commits the error and makes a false assertion that John on the grill is wrong or that John allegro is disgraced or that John Allegro is discredited.

arc at this late date of my intensive commentary I still have failed to point out explicitly I’ve been implying it but I have not pointed out explicitly that it is stated Panofsky’s 1952 statement as a flaw we can we can exploit we need to exploit the huge flaw of Panofsky’s 1952 argument it’s the same fallacious argument as a Hatsis who says falsely that who wrote in his book psychedelic mystery traditions Hatsis falsely wrote a false statement that said that the reason people reject his sound tried and true historical criteria is simply only because people were not aware of what they are.

Naturally Hatsis does not help the situation by actually telling you what they are what an idiot but but it’s it’s delivered he deliberately it’s a sleazy strategy of already been doing he’s so sleazy bottom of the barrel that he he says you hold your position because you’re you are ignorant of fact X, – but I refuse to tell you what fact X is.

instead I’m gonna bluff and arm wave and make a vague Citation of my online amateur blogger articles

and this may I remind you this is in a $15 book this is this is what you get when you pay $15 and you get this

this is not off topic this is the opposite of off topic this is this question is exactly the most on-topic question of all

why does he fail to cover it in his book why does he only have a single page or two on this important subject where he makes a massive claim and only backs it up with this unsustainable argument that:

The ONLY reason you don’t agree with me is because you are [up to now] ignorant of fact X; that is, Hatsis’ list of sound, tried-and-true historical criteria that easily explain away mushrooms in Christian Art, criteria arguments which are contained somewhere (unspecified) in his online articles, but is not placed in this book (God only knows why not).

(but by the way I’m not going to tell you what fact X is)

But the single only reason you disagree with him is because of your ignorance of the criteria and he is not going to tell you here in this book on the subject it’s so centrally on topic he is not going to bother telling you what these criteria are but instead it’s going to make an amateur vague hardly a citation he gives you the titles of his online amateur blogger articles where you’re supposed to go dig up and supposed to go try to find what the hell he’s talking about when he claims to have sound tried and true historical criteria which he seems to be in articulate he seems to be evidently in capable of listing with these sound tried and true criteria are they are

they are so sound these criteria or so sound that he is not even capable of listing them in the spot where the most relevant thing in the world the most on topic thing in the world that he could do is to list what the hell these alleged criteria are that are so sound and true yet he’s in capable of stating what they are and he does a lousy job he’s doing more like hiding instead of citing his books where those specific criteria are listed instead of citing his amateur blogger articles properly he does it in the most absurd obfuscating he is trying to obfuscate and hide his own argument!

By not summarizing it right here, where that would be the most relevant thing in the world to do to support his gigantic claim that needs gigantic substantiation, and he just delivers a bunch of hot air big talk (these would be slam dunk super convincing arguments – if I were to tell them to you) but he doesn’t summarize his “sound tried and true historical criteria ” – and, furthermore, he doesn’t give a proper citation to his online amateur blogger articles That supposedly that contain his unconvincing right ups of his poor arguments which I read back when he publish them so it’s just a complete wall of falsehood and unsustainable arguments poor Scholarship failure to even summarize what his points are right in the most crucial page of the most relevant book on the subject where he makes these gigantic claims

this page (or two) in Psychedelic Mystery Traditions by Thomas Hatsis is nothing but a massive exhibit hall of how exactly not to write a history book.

at this late date of my intensive commentary I still have failed to point out explicitly I’ve been implying it but I have not pointed out explicitly that it is stated Panofsky’s 1952 statement as a flaw we can we can exploit we need to exploit the huge flaw of Panofsky’s 1952 argument it’s the same fallacious argument as a Hatsis who says falsely that who wrote in his book psychedelic mystery traditions Hatsis falsely wrote a false statement that said that the reason people reject his sound tried and true historical criteria is simply only because people were not aware of what

no he hasn’t he has not been discredited

what do you mean by specific be specific be specific what specifically are you saying when you claim the John allegro has been discredited what specifically Dr. Brown are you saying be specific when you say that John allegro has been disgraced what the hell are you asserting do you think the strategy is a good strategydr. Brown what the hell do you mean in what way this is a false statement it is a false statement to see the John Allegro is discredited how has John allegro been discredited John Irvin wants to have a word with you be specific Dr. Brown what are you asserting when you it’s a CERT when you assert that John Allegra has been discredited what the hell do you mean what are you talking about no he hasn’t he has not been discredited what do you mean by specific be specific be specific what specifically are you saying when you claim the John allegro has been discredited what specifically Dr. Brown are you saying be specific when you say that John allegro has been disgraced what the hell are you asserting do you think the strategy is a good strategy

Hatsis Hatsis falsely wrote that the only reason he literally wrote that the only reason people rejected his arguments is because people were not yet aware of his arguments and Pulaski we must exploit the same obvious short shelflife be fatal flaw of making this bunker fall fallacious argument is it has a very very short shelflife because as soon as it’s a false move that you can only make for five minutes it only last for five minutes it’s a bunk moved it only is good for only five minutes

Panofsky says he argues in 1952 literally that the only reason my colleges of 1925 the only reason that they say that the fresco means mushroom is because my colleges are not on where he says are in the present tense in the present tense he says that they are currently not aware of the existence of any other mushroom trees he says that he argues that wolf in 1925 was only aware of one single mushroom tree but the problem with the strategy Panofsky and Strategy and Tom Hatsis Strategy argue

The fatal flaw this is a fallacy called argument from ignorance in the fatal flaw with the argument from ignorance is that at the moment the moment that you communicate this argument it becomes false as soon as you say my college is simply need to learn the trivial fact that there are more mushroom trees well now you have just destroyed that situation because now the mycologist do they know do understand or with Tom Hatsis

in the case of Tom Hatsis this fallacious strategy dirty sleazy slimy argument technique of claiming that your opponent only needs the position simply due to ignorance of some point that you supposedly have somewhere in your articles improperly cited the reason why that sleazy argument strategy doesn’t work is it has a shelf life of zero days the moment you make the argument it becomes false it switches from true to force false as soon as you say it as soon as Tom Hatsis

imagine if Tom had to sit in his awful failure of a page of his book imagine what if he had actually done what a real scholar would do and list exactly what his alleged sound tried and true historical criteria were instead of his arm waving amateur sub amateur field amateur argument hazy arm waving but imagine if I had to add a higher IQ and he had actually listed in his book as he should’ve done obviously listed what his alleged sound and true crime tried and true history criteria are and then imagine if you had tried to say the only reason you’re not convinced by my argument is because you’reimagine if Tom had to sit in his awful failure of a page of his book imagine what if he had actually done what a real scholar would do and list exactly what his alleged sound tried and true historical criteria were instead of his arm waving amateur sub amateur field amateur argument hazy arm waving but imagine if I had to add a higher IQ and he had actually listed in his book as he should’ve done obviously listed what his alleged sound and true crime tried and true history criteria are and then imagine if you had tried to say the only reason you’re not convinced by my argument is because you’re

I’m not sure if it lost my point damn damn is unstable totally unstable app when trying to do voice transcription into this app

imagine if hats us had done what any real Scholar would do and when he said the only reason you disagree with me is because you are ignorant notice the present tense because you are ignorant of these points then on that same page imagine if he had delivered his points which he should have done well then you’ve just ruined your own argument because now because you have communicated these allegedly points of ignorance to your opponent now the opponent knows those points soon now the opponent no longer is ignorant of the points

I will have to do a voice recording of of this to play out to play out what’s wrong why this is a losing strategy of argumentation tactic this is not a popular tactic because it’s such a bad tactic it can’t work

it cannot be a successful argumentation tactic because it has a shelf life of like the moment that you put forth this tactical argument strategy move the moment you make this move it becomes false!

it’s it’s not only a fallacious argument it is a strategic missed stop this is bad tactic this is bad argumentation strategy tactic in addition to being a fallacious argument

and no coincidence but both Panofsky and Thomas Hatsis regarding same exact topic use the same exact fallacious bad tactic strategy that cannot work it has a shelf life of the moment that you deliver the argument it becomes self-defeating and this kind of explains why Thomas Hatsis the amateur history blogger sub amateur failed to even do what any real historian would have obviously done is he should’ve listed of course needless to say he should have listed what his sound tried-and-true criteria are this

this is how we recognize Tom Hatsis making a Felicia’s argument is because I mean that it’s pure rhetoric this is how you can tell this is empty rhetoric and is bluff and bluster and empty rhetoric it’s because he claims to have sound tried and true historical criteria but he deliberately refrains he deliberately intentionally refrain from saying what they are because he knows that as soon as he states what they are you can see that they are not in fact convincing it is only by refraining from listing his arguments only by refraining from making his argument can he claim that he allegedly has an argument that would be convincing if only you knew what it was but he’sthis is how we recognize Tom Hatsis making a Felicia’s argument is because I mean that it’s pure rhetoric this is how you can tell this is empty rhetoric and is bluff and bluster and empty rhetoric it’s because he claims to have sound tried and true historical criteria but he deliberately refrains he deliberately intentionally refrain from saying what they are because he knows that as soon as he states what they are you can see that they are not in fact convincing it is only by refraining from listing his arguments only by refraining from making his argument can he claim that he allegedly has an argument that would be convincing if only you knew what it was but he’s

But he’s not going to tell you what it is because he knows it would not in fact deliver the goods he knows that his argument would not in fact convince you if he were to provide present it that is exactly why that is the reason why he does not prove present his argument but he only present a claim that he *has* an argument that *would* be convincing if he were to tell you the argument!

we can call this unworkable argument tactic strategy which is used by Panofsky in 1952 on the exact same topic that Tom Hatsis tries to use the same unfeasible infeasible non-viable argument tactic we can call this tactic be it’s kind of a misstep it’s like an argumentation messed up it’s sort of desperate pseudo- argument that cannot work in practice it’s the argument from claiming that your opponent is merely ignorant of a certain fact this is the argument fallacy cold

arguing on the basis that your opponent only disagrees with you because your opponent is ignorant of a certain fact but the problem is as soon as you deliver the argument the opponent is no longer ignorant of that fact so your argument tactic is self-defeating it cannot be sustained it is an unsustainable argument my colleges maybe in 1925 certain specific Mushroom experts rules maybe it’s it is true that wolf was not aware of the whole motive of hundreds of mushroom trees but regardless of Rolfe’s knowledge in 1925, The moment that Panofsky publishers publishes his argument the moment that he communicates it to the mycologist in 1952 or whenever I think maybe earlier as soon as he tells a soon as he tells them I colleges that there are other mushroom trees then his argument can no longer be sustained and what is what is it going to do when mycologist react to this new information that there are hundreds of mushroom trees forming a standard universal motif all throughout Christian art everywhere what is Panofsky going to do then when is my college essay

Now that you have informed us that there are hundreds of mushroom trees we still persist we still we mycologist still persist in believing that plane curl FriscoNow that you have informed us that there are hundreds of mushroom trees we still persist we still we mycologist still persist in believing that plane curl Frisco is msh?

what is the nick the big question here is what is a Panofsky’s next chess move this fallacious bad strategy argument arguing from the ignorance of your opponent it set you up with no possible next Jasmine what’s your next chess move going to be when your opponent rejects your argument and continues to persist interview when they are now plainly no longer simply ignorant the argument from you are simply ignorant of fact ask the argument from “you are simply ignorant of fact ask which I am now informing you of fact X well now your opponent is no longer in current affect X so what is your next chesswhat is the nick the big question here is what is a Panofsky’s next chess move this fallacious bad strategy argument arguing from the ignorance of your opponent it set you up with no possible next Jasmine what’s your next chess move going to be when your opponent rejects your argument and continues to persist interview when they are now plainly no longer simply ignorant the argument from you are simply ignorant of fact ask the argument from “you are simply ignorant of fact ask which I am now informing you of fact X well now your opponent is no longer in current affect X so what is your next chess

so what is your next chest move that you have left open for yourself now that your opponent is no longer ignorant thanks to you because you have informed your opponent so they are no longer ignorant so now when they persist in their same view and reject your interpretation of the new fact what are you going to do next what’s your next step going to be because now your opponent is no longer ignorant things to you Panofsky everyone in the world now is over every mycologist now all of those my colleges who persist in saying that the fresco means mushrooms they are now aware of things to you because you have informed them they are now aware of hundreds of mushroom trees and they still persist insaneso what is your next chest move that you have left open for yourself now that your opponent is no longer ignorant thanks to you because you have informed your opponent so they are no longer ignorant so now when they persist in their same view and reject your interpretation of the new fact what are you going to do next what’s your next step going to be because now your opponent is no longer ignorant things to you Panofsky everyone in the world now is over every mycologist now all of those my colleges who persist in saying that the fresco means mushrooms they are now aware of things to you because you have informed them they are now aware of hundreds of mushroom trees and they still persist insaneso what is your next chest move that you have left open for yourself now that your opponent is no longer ignorant thanks to you because you have informed your opponent so they are no longer ignorant so now when they persist in their same view and reject your interpretation of the new fact what are you going to do next what’s your next step going to be because now your opponent is no longer ignorant things to you Panofsky everyone in the world now is over every mycologist now all of those my colleges who persist in saying that the fresco means mushrooms they are now aware of things to you because you have informed them they are now aware of hundreds of mushroom trees and they still persist insane

in saying that the fresco is mushrooms so no you’re previous argue your previous argument is worthless you can you can no longer say you can no longer make your argument anymore that the reason the only reason in this is literally what Pulaski said this is literally Word for Word literally what Tom had said in his argument when you make this Felicia’s messed up unsustainable argument they literally say that the only reason let me emphasize that the only reason the single only reason so they’re not just claiming that you’re ignorant they are claiming specifically that the one and only loan single reasonin saying that the fresco is mushrooms so no you’re previous argue your previous argument is worthless you can you can no longer say you can no longer make your argument anymore that the reason the only reason in this is literally what Pulaski said this is literally Word for Word literally what Tom had said in his argument when you make this Felicia’s messed up unsustainable argument they literally say that the only reason let me emphasize that the only reason the single only reason so they’re not just claiming that you’re ignorant they are claiming specifically that the one and only loan single reason

Panofsky and Hatsis make the very very specific argument that the ONLY reason – let me emphasize, that the ONLY reason that you hold your position is because you were ignorant of fact X.

but this is clearly an unsustainable position, if the opponent continues to maintain their position after they become informed (by you, thx to u ) of Fact X.

in the case of Panofsky the fact X which you previously were ignorant of is that there are hundreds of mushroom trees in the case of Tom Hanses the fact X which you were previously ignorant of and things to his terrible atrocious writing you are still remain ignorant of because he won’t tell you fact ask he refuses to tell you fact ask he just tells you that if he were to tell you fact ask and then you would agree with him

in the case of Tom Hatsis the supposed fact ask that that you are simply ignorant of is some arm wavy alleged list and I have with some great trouble north with no help from Tom Hatsis despite his deliberate withholding of what those alleged sound tried and true historical criteria are for “easily explain away mushrooms in Christian Art those are the fact ask the hats is argues if you knew fact X, you would not disagree with him

in the case of Tom Hatsis the supposed fact X that that you are simply ignorant of is some arm wavy alleged list and I have with some great trouble – with no help from Tom Hatsis ; despite his deliberate withholding of what those alleged “sound tried and true historical criteria” are , that “easily explain away” mushrooms in Christian Art , those are the Fact X the hats is argues if you knew Fact X you would not disagree with him.

well it’s a terrible argument strategy for multiple reasons for one thing Tom has a statement in his book is false for multiple reasons for one thing I am in fact was aware of his arguments for a long time since like 2015 when you first wrote his articles and I read them then I never suffered from ignorance ever of his alleged sound tried and true historical criteria bullshit arguments and for another thing his page in his book is also additionally wrong and falls when he says if you knew what these criteria are venue

So the worst written history page of any book ever is Tom Hatsis in his book psychedelic mystery traditions where he claims that he has easily explain away sound tried and true historical criteria but he with holds those alleged criteria from you and provides a sloppy vague citation pointing to his online articles at his weblog his blogger is online blogger articles amateur his amateur blogger articles which he fails to cite properly to point us exactly to wear these alleged criteria are

he makes two specific full statements in his lousy page of this book wonderful statement is that you are ignorant of his criteria and the other full statement is that if you were not ignorant of his criteria then you would agree with him both statements are false I was aware of his alleged Supposed Criteria as soon as he wrote his articles long before his book was published his other claim is forced to because I know his alleged criteria and I do not agree with him he falsely states that if I knew

He falsely states that if I knew what his secret criteria were then I would agree with him but in fact I know what is Secret Criteria are and I continue to disagree with him so that’s two manifestly false statements on his worst page ever written in any history book , which is specifically on the subject of mushrooms in?right here on this specific topic of mushrooms in art we have great glaring examples of the very worst kind of argumentation showing it to to try to hold up to try to maintain the position that Christianity doesn’t half mushroom you have to make the worlds worst unsustainable arguments poorly delivered fallacious arguments left and right this is the absolute bottom of the barrel argumentation that is required specifically meant to maintain the position of denial that mushrooms are in Christian history these two things go together what a great pair that they make these two things they go together so well the denial

These two things go together like peanut butter and jelly is the denial of mushrooms in Christianity and the worlds worst most fallacious arguments and terrible unsustainable argument tactics

I thought I stupidly thought that I was just being random and quirky when I work or that I was being opportunistic of I simply found it convenient to compare the pattern of the coerced positions of academics I acted stupidly as if it was just a mere coincidence that I saw the same patterns when discussing how academics are coerced to lie and say that they

believe that we have compelling evidence for historicity of Mr. historical Jesus to some extent maybe you could say that it was arbitrary that I arbitrarily compared the pattern of coercion academic coercion in the field of Jesus studies is so very similar to academic portion in the field of does plaincrawled Me Mushrooms which is a question that straddles mycology and cultural anthropology entheogens Scholarship

List of Involved Fields

• Entheogens scholarship (ambiguity: which era; people are wrong and it is that it is a significant problem and flaw in the field that either you or you assume we’re talking about the broad ancient pre-modern history or you silently assume that when you say history the word is understood to mean 20th-century history starting with mescaline in late 19th century, A.k.a. late modern history of win entheogens or rather shall we say “psychedelics” “started” to – in fact this warrants a note this warrants a note of the great huge massive fallacy and strategic misstep that for 50 years people stupidly thought that psychedelics were a brand new invention and this was a big reason that we need to acknowledge we need to acknowledge Carl rock provided a much needed clarification but no you guys are wrong psychedelics is not a brand new thing who is history is limited strictly strictly to the 20th century you guys are very very wrong and the word was greatly needed we really did very much need the word in the engine to break the huge fallacy the huge fallacious assumption that’s baked into the word psychedelics and that might ruin and a fatal flaw that the word psychedelics cannot possibly be used the worst thing with the word psychedelics is that baked into it deeply is the connotation and assumption that the history of psychedelics begins with masculine in 1890 and that there’s no connection to ancient history than the word entheogens was necessarywas greatly needed we really did very much need the word in the engine to break the huge fallacy the huge fallacious assumption that’s baked into the word psychedelics and that might ruin and a fatal flaw that the word psychedelics cannot possibly be used the worst thing with the word psychedelics is that baked into it deeply is the connotation and assumption that the history of psychedelics begins with masculine in 1890 and that there’s no connection to ancient history than the word entheogens was necessary
• Mythology (Ruck)
• Mycology (Rolfe, Ramsbottom 1925)
• Art History (Brinckmann 1906, Panofsky 1952)
• How early did Panofsky write against Rolfe & Ramsbottom? Check Jan Irvin’s research in my Plainc article at egodeath.com

Art History Brightmann 1906 you have to start slapfight historyof “does Christianity have entheogens ?”

start here in 1906, its all tangled together in a knot preventing any progress. the Allegro double taboo “YOURE SAYING JESUS DIDNT EXIST SCREECH ALLEGRO!! YOU COMMITTED THE ALLEGRO DOUBLE TABOO!!” the moment you say “I think Christianity had entheogens.”

You will inevitably be pulled into a seizure we can reliably prophecy that you will be sucked into the vortex of asserting that Jesus didn’t exist even if you try to disavow and repudiate and demonize Allegro just like Dr. Brown demonizes Allegro by labeling Allegro as “discredited & disgraced”.

List of Associated Esotericists Position on Topics

The problem is it it is in fact it is a cluster of positions according to Elaine Pagles first three books I have used I have done detailed reviews at Amazon of her first three books proving with page number citations that the views break out into two separate groups of views on separate allegedly unrelated topics the supposedly unrelated topic of did Jesus exist he’s always clustered together inherently it is a cluster of views you cannot pretend that they did the views don’t cluster this way anyone who believes know Jesus also believes Christianity comes from mushrooms if you believe

inherently interconnected views if you believe Christianity came from mushrooms then you believe Jesus didn’t exist that is the strong tendency and good luck trying to break apart that strong tendency which Elaine Pagles her books substantiate that my scholarly contribution to Elaine Pagles books is that I explicitly amplify what is in her books and I point out the allegro connection in Elaine Pagles books she describes that the esoteric Christians did not believe in Mr. Historical Jesus they are not very interested in a man a little Christology they are interested in they hi Crystal GE hi Christology and we must remember the true pun that it is no coincidence the pun of get high get high on mushrooms and high Christology hi the two are really it appears to be a frivolous pun in yet the word high retains two clusters of separate connotations but the fact is that high on Jesus really does mean high on mushroom Jesus to be high on mushroom is to be high on high Christology

Art History – Panofsky 1952 or when did he first write against Rolfe 1925 book’s ideitificn of Plainc as msh?

Mycology – Rolfe 1925, Foreward by Ramsbottom 1924

in the field of art history Carl Ruck is it is interesting position he straddles the field he straddles the academic scholarly field of mythology errands mycology or not mycology but sort of like Dr. Brown the academic field of infusion scholarship and then there’s the field of art history so we have a bananaPanofsky broke out the fields and spoke in terms of two fields that my colleges in the field of mycology versus art history the art historians but when Bernosky Road there did not exist the third field cold entheogens and Scholarship the third field that we called infusions Scholarship entheogens and entheogens Scholarship

and then you can naming field maybe cultural anthropology these fields these taboo fields cannot even be identified and I’m thinking of some scholars Peter first I think I’m thinking of Peter first what field what do you call the field the academic scholarly research field in which Peter FURST , or scholars (i think) like him.

I have been acting as if it is purely arbitrary coincidental just a very convenient as if it was merely a convenient parallel pattern that the reason why I’m talking about Storico Jesus when I am mainly talking about identifying Mushrooms in the Frosk the plane crawl fresco but it is not entirely arbitrary at all because don’t be does stop being stupid and dense I need to stop forgetting

obviously it seems so obvious now I I guess I’m so involved in the field I can forget the obvious of course they’re connected the reason why you cannot say the reason why you are not permitted and you are not allowed as an academic to say that the planec fresco means mushrooms because if you do you will be thrown into the specifically John allegro people specifically yell and scream and screech they will screech at you “allegro violation!! you have committed the allegro taboo!!”

and don’tobviously it seems so obvious now I I guess I’m so involved in the field I can forget the obvious of course they’re connected the reason why you cannot say the reason why you are not permitted and you are not allowed as an academic to say that the plane c fresco means mushrooms

because if you do you will be thrown into the specifically John allegro people specifically young and scream and screech they will screech at you allegro you have committed the allegro double taboo!!

don’t forget that when they screech the word allegro at you violating the taboo specifically absolutely specific to this particular Mushroom we’re not talking about just general abstract theoretical belief about what mushroom trees mean if you assert that mushroom trees in general and his particular Mushroom Tree is associated with mushrooms the herd bird will screech you and kill you and chat and yell at you you have committed the Allegra violation but what is don’t forget don’t forget what is the Allegra violation is not

don’t forget don’t be stupid and forget that the allegro violation win the screech the word you have violated the allegro 10 is to fold it is too full don’t forget that it is twofold violation remember it’s straddles the two fields for two different taboos it is a double taboo

you will get entangled in what is specifically a double taboo you are not allowed to say any mushroom treat means psychoactive mushrooms because there is a very specific the allegro to is the double

don’t forget that the allegro taboo is a double taboo very very specifically about Mushrooms and therefore

check this out

it might not seem it does not seem instantly obvious that

we forget we need to stop forgetting

don’t forget the subject of identifying Mushrooms in Christianity is directly connected to the taboo of admitting that we don’t have rational sufficient basis for believing in the big bang theory that Jesus was the end

The big bang theory that Mr. historical Jesus at a point in time as an identifiable single person and identifiable single historical individual as if we could time travel to the year 30 or 25 and single out a single identifiable person that who invented who was the inventor at a point in time of Christianity without Home there would be no Christianity that is the historical Jesus hypothesis or historical model as bad as opposed to in sure

In sharp contrast with the gradual coalescence modeled the no historical Jesus model that Christianity came together over time and that the figure of Jesus came together gradually overtime the gradual call lessons historical model of Critical and Historical inquiry Tom Hatsis

HEY TOM HATSIS BIG TALKER WHATCHA GOT ON CRITICAL HISTORIOGRAPHY OF MR. HISTORICAL JESUS

that Jesus was the inventor of Christianity at one point in time you cannot discuss Dr. Brown naïvely thinks Dr. Brown thinks that he can discuss Mushrooms identification in Christian ours without getting instantly embroiled in the question of whether Jesus existed

Dr. Brown thinks that he can simply wave aside the question of whether Jesus existed that very very fatally taboo question

and then I’m making it worse for Dr. Brown because I happen to agree with all the growth that we don’t have reasonable evidence I agree with Richard carrier and so now Dr. Brown thanks to me thanks to me Dr. Brown can be accused of holding the allegro position which is a double taboo and here’s a weird thing explain to me where is a weird thing about Tom Hatsis

The Supposed “Historian” Tom Hatsis Has Failed to Acknowledge the Huge Directly Related Entangled Historical Question of Whether Jesus Existed

here is a weird thing that nobody is pointing out about Tom Hatsis: he has never mentioned the topic of whether Jesus existed

Voice transcription awkward workaround to try to solve the double entry text problem is to do voice transcription in a separate simple text app and then copy and paste into this page in this weird WordPress mobile app – pretty awkward, but it would prevent double entry of voice transcription text.

Thomas Hatsis can you pass the test which the comic panel presents to you which the top artist Eadwine presents you with a puzzle he presents you with a test of interpretation

can you pass the test

prove that you are qualified to open and flap your jars on the subject of mushroom trees and I’m sure you will have no problem explaining as you say “” easily explained away the key tree using sound, tried and true historical criteria all right Mr. authority on criteria prove to us prove it prove you’re not full of baloney prove that you can apply your historical criteria what are your what are your sound what and be specific this time not like your piece of shit book that was arm waving be specific what exactly are your sound tried and true historical criteria that enable you to easily explain away the pink key treatprove that you are qualified to open and flap your jars on the subject of mushroom trees and I’m sure you will have no problem explaining as you say “” easily explained away the key tree using sound, tried and true historical criteria all right Mr. authority on criteria prove to us prove it prove you’re not full of baloney prove that you can apply your historical criteria what are your what are your sound what and be specific this time not like your piece of shit book that was arm waving be specific what exactly are your sound tried and true historical criteria that enable you to easily explain away the pink key tree That is attached that is what the top artist is directly asking you Thomas Hatsis asking you and asking all the five students the top artist Eadwine the famous illuminated manuscript leader is asking you :

Tom Hatsis: what is the meaning of the pink key tree so as to prevent you loss of control on commences Cubensis so as to prove that you are qualified to banquet and to lead this field of entheogens scholarship And hang best positioned balanced and hanging in mushroom tree number 71 so that you are best position to judge whether Plaincourault with snake and branching and underlying structure of Eve’s body revealed prove that you are best position to judge on plane crawled being a mushroom, witch Hatsis? – Eadwine

I hereby announce the criteria to test who is qualified to lead the field with entheogens scholarship the top Christian artist Eadwine in one of the hundreds of images which Panofsky tells us that the number one data we need to consider and take into account is the fact that there are hundreds of these mushroom trees in Christian art

given that the top artist is eatwine in the genre of these mushroom trees, then you must prove that you are well-positioned to judge on plaincrawled being a mushroom : you must pass the test which the top mushroom tree artist presents to you

can you explain the meaning of the pink key tree can you explain the pink initiate positioned in the Cubans his tree in the red initiate positioned in the mushroom tree number 71 can you prove that you are best position to lead this field by passing the test

Can you pass the test the pink key tree test which ate one present to you the bearded man in the upper left a Canterbury Psalter a Alleg Hanging Mushroom Tree comic panel he is asking you a question can you answer the question can you pass the test to prove that you are best position to judge on plane corralled can you explain the pink key tree and how to not lose control on commences Cubensis.

that is the test and the riddle and the communication encoding Decoding scheme which the top artist Who are the people that the top artist shows in his comic panel the top art historian Panofsky is in that picture he is a failed student with a furrowed brow

Dr. Brown is the passing student with the lifted garment passing the test who is able to explain the pink key tree that is attached to mushroom tree number 71 out of 75

Dr. Brown is permitted therefore to dine at banquet at the initiation banquet where he is carried by the angel and then Dr. Brown is balancing sitting Balancing in the mushroom tree one of Panofsky’s mushroom trees touching the sword of God best position to explain the pink Branching and non-Branching Chi tree you have to prove this and I have identified I am announcing that I have identified the means by which we test investigative journalist Emma her claim of who is best position to judge on plane crawled being a mushroom here is the test to test who is best positioned the writer of the book on Romanesque art or Dr. Brown who has taught University university course on cultural anthropology a visionary plants in the edge and use since 1975 and who is able to explain Branching and non-Branching in the cut branch motif in the hundreds of mushroom trees which Panofsky urges us to above all number one when interpreting Plaincourault specifically when interpreting Plaincourault we have to start by considering the mushroom trees here is a mushroom tree to consider which will prove who is best position to judge on plain curled being a Mushroom Tree which was the purpose of Podolski urging us that the number one given data that historical criteria sound tried and true to easily explain away the pizilaum data

mushroom tree one of Panofsky’s mushroom trees touching the sword of God best position to explain the pink Branching and lypzlnon-Branching Chi tree you have to prove this and I have identified I am announcing that I have identified the means by which we test investigative journalist Emma her claim of who is best position to judge on plane crawled being a mushroom here is the test to test who is best positioned the writer of the book on Romanesque art or Dr. Brown who has taught

Who are the people that the top artist shows in his comic panel the top art historian Panofsky is in that picture he is a failed student with a furrowed brow.

Dr. Brown is the passing student with the erect lifted garments passing the test who is able to explain the pink key tree that is attached to mushroom tree number 71 out of 75

Dr. Brown is permitted therefore to dine at banquet at the initiation banquet where he is carried by the angel and then Dr. Brown is balancing sitting Balancing in theEadwine

The Conversation in this Field has Moved on, Has Moved Past the Mere Question of Sheer Presence of Mushrooms; we Are now Graduated to Focusing on Explaining the Meaning of the Given Data, that There are Ubiquitous Mushrooms as Panofsky Emphasized: Explain the pink key tree attached to mushroom tree number 71 and then get back to me, students of entheogen scholarship

Hatsis and Ruck and the other mushroom minimalists are still stuck back in the remedial class for the slow students with the furrowed brows, the failed students that can’t pass and graduate to the adult level of engaging in this field of entheogen scholarship.

insert picture upper left mushroom 71 examining the students candidates for further initiation

Hatsis is flunked, he’s not permitted to banquet on the right side of row one because he fails to comprehend the prerequisite topic of non-branching for avoiding loss of control on psilocybin mushrooms as brilliantly communicated with double check parity check pink key tree

tell me Flunked students Ruck and Hatsis: what does the pink key tree mean underneath Mushroom tree number 71 in the Great Canterbury Psalter please explain that to me or else you flunk and you’re not allowed to continue to lead and mislead the field of entheogen studies?

nobody who is unaware of the pink key tree is allowed to lead The field I passed the test Dr. Brown passes the test call rock failed a test and has failed the test you’re not qualified to lead the field of intelligence scholarship because you cannot answer the question solve me the riddle what is the meaning of the pink key tree attached to mushroom tree 71 what is the meaning of touching God sword what is the meaning of touching your base your foot to the column base explain the meaning of John rush raised Garment of the passing student on the upper left of the comic panel explain to me or else you prove you failed to be in the best position explain that to me

journalist Emma who pontificate on who is best position to judge Plaincourault meaning Mushroom author of the book on Romanesque aren’t you brilliant expert who are best positioned to lead the field and point your thumb in a downward direction about plaincrawled tell me this then if you are allegedly best position surely certainly you can explain to me what is the meaning of the pink Creek key tree attached to mushroom tree number 71 out of 75 mushroom trees which Panofsky of the sizes above all first of all the first piece of given data that is crucial to interpret plaincrawled Panofsky urges us the given data is and the momjournalist Emma who pontificate on who is best position to judge Plaincourault meaning Mushroom author of the book on Romanesque aren’t you brilliant expert who are best positioned to lead the field and point your thumb in a downward direction about plaincrawled tell me this then if you are allegedly best position surely certainly you can explain to me what is the meaning of the pink Creek key tree attached to mushroom tree number 71 out of 75 mushroom trees which Panofsky of the sizes above all first of all the first piece of given data that is crucial to interpret plaincrawled Panofsky urges us the given data is and the mom

Wasson who rejects Plaincourault tells us that the number one top expert art authority Panofsky who thumb down plane crawled Panofsky the authority who we must believe suppose we believe the data he reports to us the data and he tells us that this is the number one most relevant Panofsky tells us that the number one most relevant given data is the fact that mushroom trees are ubiquitous there are hundreds and hundreds of them so tell me then who is best positioned to put their thumb in an up or down direction regarding Plaincourault which Panofsky is telling us that the number one relevant fact given fact to interpret plaincrawledWasson who rejects Plaincourault tells us that the number one top expert art authority Panofsky who thumb down plane crawled Panofsky the authority who we must believe suppose we believe the data he reports to us the data and he tells us that this is the number one most relevant Panofsky tells us that the number one most relevant given data is the fact that mushroom trees are ubiquitous there are hundreds and hundreds of them so tell me then who is best positioned to put their thumb in an up or down direction regarding Plaincourault which Panofsky is telling us that the number one relevant fact given fact to interpret plaincrawled

so then we have to do with Panofsky told us to do we have to start reasoning from the given data that there are hundreds of mushroom trees for example let us discuss what John lash discovered and uploaded the picture to the web where I then decoded the meaning of the picture which John Lash uploaded of the Canterbury Psalter then interpret me this interpret this to me you expert in Romanesque are so expert that you wrote a book then I’m sure you’ll have no problem because you are best position to judge on plank Road that must mean that you know about branching mushroom trees please explain to me to prove that you are in the best position to judge on plane girl The plane corralled fresco Plaincourault fresco you have to prove that you’re in the best position to judge can you pass the test in the upper left can you pass the test which Edwin Edwin in the great artist famous if the top art historian is Pulaski then the top Christian artist we agree that the top Christian artist for illuminated manuscripts is eat wine and eat wine tells us you have to pass this test can the Roman ask book author pass this test can the alleged leader or miss leader of the field entheogens and Scholarship Pearl rock he fails to pass the test exploit Carl rock you have to prove that you are best position and the writer of the Romanesque art but you have to prove what the journalist Emma claims is best positioned Thomas Hatsis you have to prove that you are best position because of your great credentials that you’re the paradigm attic perfect ideal historian historian then prove that you are the ideal the story by explaining to me all of you can you pass the test that the top artist Eadwine of Great Canterbury Psalter

The proof that Dr. Brown is best position to judge Mushroom Trees is that Dr. Brown is able to pass the test he is able to explain the puzzle more of the communication check the communication parity check which eatwine the top artist presents to us in one of the instances of the mushroom trees which Panofsky says the number one thing that we have to consider the given data is the fact that there are hundreds of these mushroom trees exactly like this mushroom tree so can you pass the test to prove that you are in best position to judge on plain cruel Mushroom tree with the serpent and the branching multiple Mushrooms Branching out from it

here’s the here’s how to tell who is leading the field with you to the scholarship if a person has no coherent explanation for the pinkie tree which is attached to mushroom tree number 71 if you cannot explain that pinky tree then you are a fraud at leading the field of intelligence scholarship the true authority who is best positioned upside down hanging in the tree deliberately touching God’s sword with their leftwhat does the pink key tree mean underneath Mushroom tree number 71 in the Greg Canterbury Psalter please explain that to me or else you flunk and you’re not allowed to continue to lead and mislead the field of intelligence studies nobody who is unaware of the pink key tree is allowed to lead here’s the here’s how to tell who is leading the field with you to the scholarship if a person has no coherent explanation for the pinkie tree which is attached to mushroom tree number 71 if you cannot explain that pinky tree then you are a fraud at leading the field of intelligence scholarship the true authority who is best positioned upside down hanging in the tree deliberately touching God’s sword with their left Lim to cut and negate the branching premise here unlike the investigative journalist Emma here is my alternative explanation of how to pick which scholar is “best positioned” to lead the field to give their thumb up or thumbs down on plain cruel meaning Mushroom here is who is best position I would reckon that the red initiate hanging upside down by the non-Branching serpent stem Bluestem commences stem of the tree number 71Lim to cut and negate the branching premise here unlike the investigative journalist Emma here is my alternative explanation of how to pick which scholar is “best positioned” to lead the field to give their thumb up or thumbs down on plain cruel meaning Mushroom here is who is best position I would reckon that the red initiate hanging upside down by the non-Branching serpent stem Bluestem commences stem of the tree number 71 his best position to judge that red hanging initiate I propose is in the best position to judge whoever can explain the meaning of the riddle whoever can answer the riddle of what is the meaning of the read initiate positioned hanging from the Cuban system of mushroom tea number 71 next to attached to the pinky treat the person who is in fact best positioned to lead the field of intelligence Scholarship and give their thumbs up and thumbs down on plain crawled fresco here is the criteria on which to judge here is the missing criteria which the investigative journalist Emma failed to provide when she claimed that the Romanesque art scholar was best positioned and that Dr. Jerry Brown was not best positioned but I am going to teach Dr. Jerry Brown the meaning of the red initiate positioned in gods tree cube and stem hanging upside down and Dr. Jerry Brown is that red initiate and I reckon that he is best position because he passed the exam on the left side of row one and he was permitted to banquet and the angel carry Dr. Brown and placed him hanging upside down in tree number 71 deliberately touching gods swordhere is the missing criteria which the investigative journalist Emma failed to provide when she claimed that the Romanesque art scholar was best positioned and that Dr. Jerry Brown was not best positioned but I am going to teach Dr. Jerry Brown the meaning of the red initiate positioned in gods tree cube and stem hanging upside down and Dr. Jerry Brown is that red initiate and I reckon that he is best position because he passed the exam on the left side of row one and he was permitted to banquet and the angel carry Dr. Brown and placed him hanging upside down in tree number 71 deliberately touching gods swordhere is the missing criteria which the investigative journalist Emma failed to provide when she claimed that the Romanesque art scholar was best positioned and that Dr. Jerry Brown was not best positioned but I am going to teach Dr. Jerry Brown the meaning of the red initiate positioned in gods tree cube and stem hanging upside down and Dr. Jerry Brown is that red initiate and I reckon that he is best position because he passed the exam on the left side of row one and he was permitted to banquet and the angel carry Dr. Brown and placed him hanging upside down in tree number 71 deliberately touching gods sword dr. Brown touching God sword cutting his Branching thinking and explaining the meaning of the pinkie tree Dr. Brown and I hanging from the tree we are best position that is my proposal now who are you going to believe are you going to believe investigative journalist Emma when she says that the Romanesque book writer is best position or are you going to hold and believe that Dr. Brown and I hanging upside down in gods mushroom tree number 71 while we explain to you the meaning of the pink tree we are best positioned here are the criteria to judge who is best position to give a thumbs up or thumbs down ondr. Brown touching God sword cutting his Branching thinking and explaining the meaning of the pinkie tree Dr. Brown and I hanging from the tree we are best position that is my proposal now who are you going to believe are you going to believe investigative journalist Emma when she says that the Romanesque book writer is best position or are you going to hold and believe that Dr. Brown and I hanging upside down in gods mushroom tree number 71 while we explain to you the meaning of the pink tree we are best positioned here are the criteria to judge who is best position to give a thumbs up or thumbs down on Plaincrawled being mushroom or not ask the serpent in the Branching Plaincourault Frosk oh tree ask Eve who is covering her Branching crotch with the mushroom cap and showing her snake shaped 14 ribs which we can see through the veil the abs temp the temporary volatile eventually roasted away flesh of temporary childish childish Hatsis like Carl rock type of childish infantile thinking who are in capable of explaining the read initiate who is best positioned in God’s Mushroom Tree to touch gods sword of loss of control yet retaining stability while in the psilocybin statePlaincrawled being mushroom or not ask the serpent in the Branching Plaincourault Frosk oh tree ask Eve who is covering her Branching crotch with the mushroom cap and showing her snake shaped 14 ribs which we can see through the veil the abs temp the temporary volatile eventually roasted away flesh of temporary childish childish Hatsis like Carl rock type of childish infantile thinking who are in capable of explaining the read initiate who is best positioned in God’s Mushroom Tree to touch gods sword of loss of control yet retaining stability while in the psilocybin state

Allegro’s Theory: No Historical Jesus

I agree with John Allegro: the “gradual coalescence” of the Jesus figure (the “no historical Jesus” position), not the “big bang” origin of Christianity (the “historical Jesus” position).

The Year Called “1525 A.D.” is 800 Years After the Year Called 1 A.D.

Edwin Johnson’s chronology revisionism, 1890. Subtract some 725 years. To learn about Historiography Criteria, see “Edwin Johnson” at http://egodeath.com .

The Extreme Opposite of Carl “Dr. Secret” Ruck’s Idiotic “Secret Mushroom” Thesis: The Eucharist Was Universally Recognized as Psilocybe Mushrooms

There are some interesting potentials in analysis resulting from the secrecy premise that Thomas Hatsis and I are both attacking.

We are allied in attacking certain elements around the secrecy premise.

We are both absolutely and totally attacking the secrecy premise.

It’s got to die; it’s got to go.

… although we are coming to it from entirely different angles and I with the greatest force possible they say I insist that:

The only whiff of secrecy that exists at all is that:

Our real nature as control agents is temporarily slightly veiled, until the moment the psilocybin is added and then that secrecy is completely gone.

That’s the only sense of secrecy that I permit, in the maximal entheogen theory of religion.

I am out to destroy and remove and delete as the most harmful thing that’s harming, stunting, blocking, impeding, and retarding terribly, the field of entheogen scholarship.

We are both absolutely and totally attacking the secrecy premise, it’s got to die, it’s got to go.

… although we are coming to it from entirely different angles.

With the greatest force possible, I insist that:

The only whiff of secrecy that exist at all is that our real nature as control agents is temporarily slightly veiled, until the moment the psilocybin is added, and then that secrecy is completely gone.

That’s the only sense of secrecy that I permit.

I am out to destroy and remove and delete Ruck’s “secret mushroom” dogmatic assumption, as the most harmful thing that’s harming terribly the entheogen scholarship field.

We’ve got the Carl Ruck and Jan Irving & Allegro “secrecy” mental jail cell that shackles the mind.

Throw off their mind-destroying, extremely wrong, and self-defeating mental shackles of the ‘secrecy’ premise.

Ruck’s notion of “secret mushroom” is the exact opposite of the truth!

Thomas critiques or exposes the flaws of the secrecy premise.

The field of scholarship has absolutely got to get rid of the Carl “Dr. Secret” Ruck’s stupid damned “secrecy premise” from hell has got to die!!!

For the love of Christ, Carl stop, just stop writing the word secret!!

My god, what’s wrong with you?! , stop writing the word “secret”!

Don’t ever write that word again in your life.

For God’s sake, for the love of God, Ruck, fcking stop writing ‘secret’ every other fcking word!

Ruck, what is your insane obsession, your absolute obsession with the word ‘secret’?!

I don’t give a f about secret mushroom use; I only simply care about use!

Why do you insist on forcing us to always frame use as secret?!

Stop framing sheer use as ‘secret’.

Stop it.

You’re self defeating, and you are directly self-contradictory.

Carl Ruck versus Carl Ruck: “Secret use is absolutely everywhere; every single person in the entire town is all secretly using mushrooms.”

You are totally incoherent; you are totally self-contradictory, Dr. Ruck.

Stop contradicting yourself.

You’re harming the entheogen scholarship field.

Stop framing all mushroom use as “secret”! Stop it!

You’re making me have to go obsess on it in order to hold it and stop it.

It’s not me who’s introducing the word ‘secret’; it’s me who’s yelling against the word ‘secret’, to make you shut up and stop writing ‘secret’, every other word.

if I did a word-count analysis, the giant big huge bold word in the middle of coral rocks writings would be the word ‘secret’; he just completely is fixated on that.

I think Ruck gets paid, the Pop Sike Agenda agency pays him by doing a word count: a thousand dollars for every time he writes the word ‘secret’.

What the hell?!

Thomas Hatsis and I do everything we can to write against the secrecy premise, though from a different mindset, in a different angle; a different vector than I do

I have some different reasons than Hatsis.

There’s an overlap and it’s a complex multi way fight.

I have come to realize and identify that Carl Ruck is part of the problem because of his One dimensional brainless framing of every single instance of mushroom uses always always secret, every single time.

No matter how many hundreds and thousands of instances of mushrooms are found in art, he always insists on framing as “secret”.

What is your justification for framing it a secret?

I watched Ruck’s video too; I heard you sing with your own voice with your own dramatic framing that you’re dramatically framed it in a whisper a secret.

That is the carl rock paradigm, the foundation stone; the cornerstone of the Carl Ruck paradigm is “entheogen secret” scholarship, not entheogen scholarship.

in Carl Rex’ world, there is no such thing as an Entheogens, there is only one single thing, and it is called “secret entheogen”.

so much so that Ruck deletes the entheogens so that he can have the only thing that he cares about is secret.

He’s not interested in entheogens; Carl rock is only interested in “secret” –

And he doesn’t even understand the real meaning of the word secret! which is the non-branching nature of the world and self is the hidden secret.

Carl Ruck is totally obsessed, impeded, blocked, and developmentally stunted in an infantile fixation on the word ‘secret’ – and he doesn’t even understand the basic mystic standard meaning of it.

One-dimensional, brainless framing of every single instance of mushroom use is always, always secret, every single time.

No matter how many hundreds and thousands of instances, he always insists on framing as secret.

What is your justification for framing it a secret?

I watched Ruck’s video too, I heard you say with your own voice, with your own dramatic framing, that you dramatically framed it in a whisper, as “secret”.

That is the Carl “Dr. Secret” Ruck paradigm, the foundation stone, the cornerstone of the carl rock paradigm is “secret entheogen” scholarship, NOT entheogen History scholarship.

Ruck is trying to replace the history of entheogens by “secret entheogens” instead.

Ruck replaced entheogens by ‘secret’ and secrecy; that’s what he really cares about.

Ruck only cares about “secret”; he doesn’t care about the plants, he doesn’t care about mystic revelation, he doesn’t care about understanding the secret of the mind that’s revealed in the altered state.

All Ruck cares about is that the mushroom itself must be kept secret at all costs, to protect the false Pope story, the lie of what Christianity is about, the lie that normal, real Christianity lacks and must continue lacking mushrooms.

Ruck’s job is to keep Christianity lacking mushrooms; he cares only about secrecy and keeping mushrooms separate from and out of real, normal Christianity.

In Carl Ruck’s world, there is no such thing as entheogens, because there is only one single thing, and it is called “secret entheogens”.

So much so that Ruck deletes the entheogens so that he can have the only thing that he cares about is secret.

Ruck’s Strategy of Deflecting All Mushroom Evidence through Negative Reframing, to Protect the Evil Lie of “Real Christianity Wasn’t Based on Mushrooms”

Carl Ruck practices and exemplifies that bizarre move of deflecting evidence through inversion framing, negative framing:

Every time you find evidence, be sure to emphasize, above all, that it was abnormal, deviant, and is absence.

Each proof of presence of entheogens is there by inverted and deflected to become converted into proof of the *absence* of entheogens from normal, real Christianity.

Thanks to Dr. Secret, we can never win, and we’re guaranteed to always lose, because he makes it so that the more evidence we find, the louder that he tells his story, his false lying story, that Christianity cannot ever and must not be allowed to have mushrooms.

Carl “Dr. Secret” Ruck defines Christianity as by definition, he dictates that real, normal Christianity is not permitted to have mushrooms.

No wonder we can never win with a loser what a losing game:

The more mushrooms that you give to Carl “Dr. Secret” Ruck, the stronger and more intensely he tells the lie, that he says “this proves that Christianity – real, normal Christianity – has the *absence* of entheogens.

Dr. Secret’s evil braindead puerile strategy is to convert the presence of entheogens in Christianity, to warp and twist and negatively reframe it, so that what Carl Ruck ends up giving us at the end of his negative inversion production line is:

We put mushrooms in, and then what we get out is Christianity with all the mushrooms removed – good fcking job, Ruck, loser, you’re blocking all progress, you’re pretending to make progress, but what you’re doing is actually preventing and blocking progress.

You’ve put up a brick wall for the field, we can never win, thanks to your stupid loser rules and defeatist strategy of self-contradiction that you keep saying that mushrooms were everywhere, and this proves that there were no mushrooms in our religion.

You’re just a total self-contradiction – some kind of “leadership” there; good job that you’ve set up, where the more mushrooms we give you, the stronger you tell your lying story that real, normal Christianity lacks mushrooms.

Good fcking job, way to lead us into a cul-de-sac of failed strategy.

Great leadership job there.

What the hell, get the hell out of the way.

Ruck is not interested in how the altered state works, or what it reveals, or how it transforms the mind, and his fake book falsely titled as “consciousness” doesn’t have a single sentence about consciousness, or change of mental model, so why does the title have the word ‘consciousness’?

False advertising!

It deserves deducting many stars. When rating a book, the worst thing a book can do is fail to accomplish what it is intended to accomplish.

In Ruck’s so called “consciousness” book is nothing except infantile-level, superficial kiddie books’, children’s books pictures of puerile red and white third rate mushrooms that are like the rejects from your mushroom-hunting haul, that you give to your stupid kid brother while you ingest the good ones instead, the psilocybes.

See if you could get your gullible kid brother to drink his pee while you’re at it.

Carl Ruck is only interested in “secret entheogens”, not entheogens or consciousness.

Anyone who advocates the “secret mushroom” theory and writes the word ‘secret’ at every possible opportunity is the absolute enemy of Christian entheogen scholarship, and we must totally reject with maximum force and figure this evil, satanic lie from Hell, this literally demonic, anti-Christ premise of “secret mushroom” theory.

There is NOTHING secret about Jesus’ flesh being the psilocybe Eucharist.

EXPLICIT Branching-Message Mushroom Trees

Every single artist knew that the Eucharist is psilocybe mushrooms; it was on billboards; it was broadcasted everywhere, with breathtaking efficiency in the incredible motif that they engineered for pictorial communication: the explicit branching-message mushroom tree.

8′ tall mushroom the Plaincourault fresco branching mushrooms and non-branching snake, seeing through Eve’s superficial flesh of volatile, temporary possibility-branching thinking, which vanishes when the light of mushrooms reveals the actual underlying non-branching, snake-shaped (or rib bone shaped) structure that’s hidden underneath the surface layer of volatile, temporary childish thinking.

Too bad we are illiterate in the basics of pictorial communication, for all our false pride of foolishly expecting text which nobody reads to explicitly (in addition to implicitly every time it mentions the Eucharist) talk about mushrooms.

Why do we have to have explicit in addition to the implicit discussions of the Eucharist as mushrooms in the text, when we already have explicit depictions of the mushroom together with its transformational effects clearly and plainly depicted for everybody openly in the standard common language of pictorial forms?

We already have right there, 8′ tall right in front of you, 5 branching mushrooms & non-branching snake Inevitably bringing the mushroom carrying the payload of the message that we see plainly communicated in the explicit branching mushroom tree openly right in front of our eyes, seeing through Eve’s flesh, to see her branching rib cage – except you see no branching, but only her snake-shaped ribs, her 14 non-branching individual rib bones are shown by the mushroom but not her branching spine, while she is covering with a mushroom cap her inability to generate control thoughts.

And why don’t we see, why does she cover and negate with the mushroom cap her branching at her legs, we can’t see her legs branching apart from her body, she is negating that and yet revealing to us her snake-shaped non-branching individual rib bones which match the color and curvature of the arms of the mushroom tree.

I already proved November – Thanksgiving 2013 in the book The Power of Myth, by Joseph Campbell (and Fritz Graaf’s Greek Myth book cover showing Jason’s torso with Python non-branching serpent body protecting / guarding The golden apples of immortality non-dying timeless fruit of the tree of the garden of the Hesperides, The snake with the extreme excessive ability to see and perceive everything about branching and everything about the branching model of oneself moving steering through time too much ability to see how your mind works guards the tree of the apples of inmortality , driving away those who are not worthy by making them lose control in front of the non-branching vine tree Even more scrawny than Charlie Brown’s pathetic Christmas tree with the sacrificed golden lamb skin fleece hanging watched and controlled by Demeter

https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/12/14/greek-egodeath-mythology-images/

In The Power of Myth with eye opened, I was restricted to being shown by Campbell only one quarter of Cranach’s painting (no color allowed to me, no Adam on the left side of the painting) allowed to me only the tree and serpent and Eve standing next to the tree: in front of her branching crotch, she held a branch, and behind her is a stag with branching antlers – proving that Eve’s legs are the branching theme which she in Plaincourault is covering with a mushroom cap. – Cybermonk, 9:09 p.m., March 28, 2022,

in the popular normal communication medium of art pictures that everybody could plainly read together package together with instructions on adopting the non-branching model, the snake-shaped future course of your pre-given control thoughts in order to, in the mushroom state, have spiritual regeneration to a new world and a new soul as a re-generated king, now with knowledge of God through the psilocybe mushroom Eucharist.

This was common knowledge; normal, real, ordinary Christianity; that was the normal standard main stream standard knowledge everywhere.

… broadcasted; they did everything- the artists did everything possible to depict the glorious mushroom Eucharist along with non-branching motifs (including nonbranching serpent) to instruct and communicate to the entire populace how to retain control stability while undergoing mental transformation.

I don’t know if the agency is telling Ruck to do this as a strategy to to try to make mushroom seem exciting by the strategy of always framing mushrooms as deviant.

That’s a Jan Irvin analysis/explanation of why would Carl Ruck be doing what he always does, his signature move.

Carl Ruck’s assigned role in the Pop Sike Agenda is to go track down every instance of mushrooms in Christian art, and then sever and cut each one apart from its contacts in real Christianity, and try to frame and tell a story that real Christianity never includes and cannot ever include mushrooms.

This causes mushrooms to seem exciting, according to the Jan Irvin’s analysis of the Pop Sike agenda; this will cause mushrooms to seem deviant and exciting.

Like Christopher Partridge in his obsession, his stupid false conflation of esotericism with being counter-culture Carl Ruck’s job is to go find mushrooms that come from the culture (meaning real normal Christianity) in the middle ages.

Ruck’s job is to sever and split apart real, normal, standard Christianity from mushrooms.

The perverse interesting dynamic I have identified is deflection of evidence through inverting, through an *inverted framing of the evidence*:

The more mushrooms that you give to Carl Ruck in Christian art, the more strongly he emphasizes that real Christianity cannot ever include mushrooms.

By definition, according to Carl Rock, any instance of mushrooms in Christian art further strengthens the proof that there is not – that there is the absence of mushrooms from Christianity – by which he would implicitly mean normal, real, standard Christianity.

Ruck is trying his hardest to go round up each mushroom instance and separate it from real, normal Christianity.

That way, it makes mushrooms seem exciting and appealing, to push the Pop Sike Agenda.

Thomas Hatsis’ research against the premise of secrecy offers some interesting potentials from a different angle.

Hatsis’ question:

If mushrooms are broadcast on every billboard everywhere in the middle ages as mushroom trees ubiquitous, as the top art historian Panofsky urges us to keep in mind above everything else, then why don’t people such as Eadwine artist group write about it in their illuminated manuscripts and church father texts,

Why don’t they explicitly use the word ‘mushroom’ there when they are writing about the Eucharist, why do they always talk about the Eucharist and describe its psychoactive properties and its transformative altered-state effects of the Eucharist but according to hatsis , they don’t explicitly write the word ‘mushroom’.

Who cares about texts; the people didn’t read text; the people read pictures, pictograms, pictographs.

Hatsis’ question:

“if mushrooms were the Eucharist,…”

Hatsis doesn’t word it as intelligently and emphatically as this, but what he should be asking, the way he should accurately be asking it –

Every time the church fathers are talking about the “Eucharist” or Lord’s Supper, they are always intending – what they have in mind when they write about the Eucharist is that they always mean Psilocybin.

Not Mandrake, not Amanita.

Every time the church fathers write the word “Eucharist”, they are always talking about and intending to mean that they are describing psilocybin.

Not cannabis, not scopolamine plants, but specifically, Psilocybe.

Hatsis’ question:

Why would mushrooms be openly depicted in art, but not mentioned (supposedly) in texts, or at least not mentioned explicitly?

Psilocybe mushrooms are constantly, all the time, in the center of all Eucharist writings.

All Christian texts, every Christian text is centered around discussing Psilocybe.

Every Christian text about the Eucharist is description of the effects of psilocybin.

Hatsis says we have no texts explicitly reporting mushrooms used in Christianity.

Hatsis asks “Why no explicit mention of mushroom in Christian texts?”

Jan Irvin recent podcast episodes, two of them, seem to be quoting a Christian passage that included the word Mushroom.

I don’t know whether or how often christian text contain the word ‘mushroom’.

I don’t know how often they *explicitly* talk about mushrooms.

Every Christian text about the Eucharist is talking about mushrooms, through talking about the effects; the psychoactive mind-transforming effects of Psilocybe mushrooms.

Branching-message mushroom trees: comprehending them; comprehending branching; comprehending mushrooms

Comprehending the branching elements of Christian mushroom trees is far more sophisticated and is the only real comprehension of the mushrooms, and proves the “mushrooms” identification

I have proved through my extremely sophisticated decoding of extremely sophisticated art based on pictographic, highly structured, extremely coherent, extremely structured pictographic letter written to us by Eadwine, he discusses through pictographic form, he explains to us that:

Every mushroom tree with branching anomalies is psychoactive mushrooms, along with (more importantly than mushrooms) psilocybe mushrooms’ mental transformative effects about loss of control and transformation of our control model regarding branching possibilities and how to retain control stability and avoid loss of control.

Normal, mainstream public Christianity was explicitly based on explicit depictions of mushrooms on billboards broadcasted, loudly broadcasted as loudly and clearly as the artists were able.

The artistss made a science out of communicating to the non-literate Populace, in the primary Communication Medium of the populace, which was not text, but rather art/pictures.

So art is more important and definitive than text, for evidence of mushroom use in Christianity.

Art through mushroom branching motifs communicated to the non-literate populace how to take the mushrooms and retain self control and prevent loss of control by adopting the non-branching model of your future path of thought, and by relying on the creator and being rescued from outside of your system of personal control from outside by Jesus.

I have proved that normal mainstream Christianity explicitly was based in mushrooms and that the artists tried as hard as they could to convey that effectively and outdo each other in their effectiveness of conveying not merely Mushrooms, which is what how to gets fixated on and that he is limited to.

We must go past, we must graduate past merely looking for mushrooms.

We finally accomplished the real answer about mushrooms by not stopping at mere sure use of mushrooms, and sheer existence of mushrooms in art, nor even halting at recognizing the Eucharist as psilocybin mushrooms.

We need to do better; we need to push further, to reach some knowledge that truly matters and is truly relevant for religious revelation and mental transformation, from one definite model to the other specific model.

We must not halt at mushrooms.

To get the mushroom story truth, we have to aim past the mushroom question and grasp and comprehend …

… of your system of personal control from outside by Jesus

I have proved that normal mainstream Christianity explicitly was based in mushrooms and that the artists tried as hard as they could to convey that effectively and outdo each other in their effectiveness of conveying not merely Mushrooms, which is what Hatsis & everyone gets fixated on and that he is limited to.

We must go past, we must graduate past merely analyzing merely looking for mushrooms , and then we will finally accomplish the real answer about mushrooms, by not stopping; we must not halt at mushrooms.

To get the mushroom story truth, we have to aim past the mushroom story truth and grasp and comprehend.

The full meaning, remember, is non-Branching serpent and cut branches on a mushroom tree where the motif of branching tree is fused together with motif of the mushroom shape – now we have a real complete coherent sensible relevant religiously relevant conception one of what we’re talking about when we’re talking about mushrooms, we should be talking about the effects, the transformative effects, the religious transformative effects and how those effects are depicted, together with depicting the mushrooms in art.

We need to learn to read; stop being illiterate about pictures the language of pictures start being literate with visual mythemes.

I have laid out a whole catalog of this entire language (key mythemes page at top of wordpress) in which I have translated to English plain, common everyday tripper English; common standard tripper parlance just like everybody talks and relating directly to what everybody reports loss of control instability of personal control frozen time etc. etc. being a helpless doll subject to a hidden controller – all that standard, normal everyday tripper parlance language thats found in every trip report; utterly commonplace, standard top 10 list of effects that every single mushroom trip reports, exactly depicted in art and in theology centered around the Eucharist and its altered state, mentally transformative experiential effects.

What we have in art mainly is not mushrooms.

We do not have mushroom images; what we have instead is branching messages, mushroom trees accompanied with just enough literal mushrooms simple Mushroom images, just enough of them to establish that yes these strange branching and cut branch mushroom trees are mushrooms but there is much much more to the story than that we are not showing you simply mushrooms.

Mushrooms, pictures of mushrooms, and even ingesting mushrooms, is merely just the message’s carrier wave, the envelope.

The payload message – the heart of the message, the real message, is not mushrooms now along the way yes along the way we will prove the truth:

There are mushrooms all throughout normal, real Christianity, against Carl “Dr. Secret” Ruck, who tries to cut apart mushrooms from real, normal Christianity.

The real way that we will know the proof that mushrooms are proved, is by proving something even more, and something more specific than merely the sheer presence of mushrooms.

In order to prove that less important fact (there are mushrooms in normal real Christianity), we have to do something much more profound and recognize that these are not merely Mushrooms; these are specifically Branching Mushrooms, I emphasize again that …

branching Mushroom Trees together with non-Branching Serpents with legs added, expressing Branching verses nonbranching.

That is the revelation of our nature as controllers revealed in the loose cognitive state from the psilocybin mushrooms, which are explicitly not secretly, not Covertly, not veiled, but explicitly, openly, publicly depicted and emphatically communicated, not in texts, which nobody can read, but in art pictures, which everybody reads.

Who cares about texts?!; nobody reads.

These artist do not want to stop communication; they want to do communication.

Hatsis’ limited thinking would argue:

The proof and the evidence, the compelling evidence that these cannot be mushrooms in Christian art, is because they have anomalous branching.

in fact they emphasize that.

Added branching & non-branching elements is the primary stylization of what we have in these mushroom-like shapes that prevents them from actually being mushrooms.

The primary stylization that we have is that these mushroom shapes have added branching, which makes them no longer mushrooms, and have added cut branch motifs.

The Egodeath theory, my theory, explains “analogical psychedelic Eternalism and dependent control”, and how that mental transformation happens when loose cognition through Psilocybin to transform our legs that we stand on from dancing or standing on our left leg (unstable) vs right leg basis (stable).

Our {left leg} is branching thinking, where are you picture that your thoughts move your control thoughts into the future our steering among branching possibilities into an open, nonexistent future, so that you become the creator of your future.

Our mind is transformed by mushrooms’ loosened cognitive association binding.

Psilocybin Eucharist loosens to transform our mental model of control-steering within possibility branching in the world through time.

The actual message of the mushrooms, the non-mushroom mushroom shapes because in Christian art they add the add anomalous branching.

The actual message, the actual –

What we have evidence for is not merely mushrooms, but rather, a peak religious experiencing message.

These pictures communicate instructions to us through non-literary means appropriate for…

The primary communication medium is art, not text,

In a non-literate society, these non-Mushroom – or mushroom plus these mushroom plus images mushrooms plus branching and cut branches, serve to communicate instructions on how to to things how to avoid loss of control and maintain stable self control, like your right foot on a column base-

so much retaining control, that you are able to touch God’s sword blade edge with your left limb and cut off your branching-dependent, branching-based thinking about personal control agency power across time.

Explicit branching mushrooms, which we have throughout normal mainstream real, NOT deviant secret counter-Christian art, serves to communicate the twofold thing:

not merely to communicate “mushrooms”, but specifically, much more, far more profoundly, and far more specifically, how to use mushrooms to do two things, or while doing one thing while avoiding or gaining the other:

How to retain stable control, and gain transformed mental model or spiritual regeneration.

“spiritual” essentially meaning, fundamental to our concept of what we are and how the world works, how the world is structured, and how we as personal control agents are structured within that world that spread across time.

The mushroom pictures are depicted with branching features, to communicate to us not merely the sheer use mushrooms, but rather, much more profoundly, and totally way more to the point- the point is not mushrooms; the point is:

Using mushrooms to induce loose cognitive association binding, to enable the mind to perceive & probe how its control system works, and perceive a different experience and a different model of time, a different experience and model of control, and then transform the mental model, as if to see through Eve’s flesh standing to the right of the Plaincourault tree; how to see through her temporary surface flesh that may be burned off like the salamander roasting burns away the surface initial thinking, which is in terms of branching possibilities and a control agent who steers supposedly through the supposedly branching off possibilities.

The mental model is transformed from- to give the formula:

using mushrooms to induce loose cognitive association binding, to enable the mind to perceive & probe, test & observe how its control system works, and perceive a different experience and a different model of time, a different experience and model of control, and then transform the mental model –

as if to see through Eve’s flesh standing to the right of the Plaincourault tree, how to see through her temporary surface flesh, that is burned off like the salamander roasting burns away the surface initial thinking, which is in terms of branching possibilities and a control agent who steers supposedly through the supposedly branching possibilities.

and the mental model is transformed from to give the formula formulaicly

formulaic expression meant the mushroom Trees with Branching features depict and

these trees are firm nonbranching and they negate Branching

the explicit branching-message mushroom trees communicate that branching thinking equals death and going unstable and losing control and not being a viable control agent; whereas in contrast, by learning a new way of thinking, we learn the non-branching way of thinking about control personhood and possibility branching in the world.

The message of the mushroom trees that contain nonbranching serpent or a long non-Branching Mushroom stem that you hang by your right leg from in order to touch – cut off – your branching thinking and no longer depend on it is:

mental model transformation in the loose cognitive association state that’s induced by psilocybin mushrooms, from the mental model of:

literalist, ordinary state (which is tight cognitive binding), possibility Branching, with autonomous control ;

to:

analogical psychedelic eternalism with dependent control with future control thoughts being a single set of thoughts already existing cast in stone in the future like a brass bronze rigid snake shaped world line frozen into the block universe

See the Stanford Ency Phil site article about philosophy of time, contrasting possibilism versus Eternalism – but then add the two, commensurate versions of personal control: autonomous control steering in a possibilism world, versus dependent control (Jesus’ “narrow way/path”) frozen in eternalism.

The deluded way of the world is broad in fact it’s branching into open possibilities.

The way of Jesus is narrow and fixed and monocoursal and pre-given, which means loss of control – at least, loss of egoic pseudo-autonomous control, but a new form of control, involving trust in the creator of your preset, pre-given, personal control thoughts that are lying ahead on the worldline and you have no power to steer away from them, but have to trust, just as the control thought creator and source already brought you this far, and you have no choice anyway but to depend on them

You are given a new stable control; you are fished out by the fisher of men; you are fished out from your egoic point of view of your steering agency , and you are forcibly given a new mind from outside of your system.

reframe all personal actions as passive tense: receiving salvation; receiving a new model; being given a return to stable self-control; being rescued; being lifted up – all passive-tense of wording.

You do not rescue yourself; the Savior, uncontrollable higher Controller X rescues you and gives you a new mind.

Just like God gives you and leads you to through a snake-shaped course of your life brings you to the mushroom, brings you to ingest the cognitive loosening agent, and you have no choice over that from a metaphysical point of view.

How do you trust; rather, how are you given trust.

Not how do you generate and muster up ; it’s not a matter of you inventing the ability to trust.

The Savior gives you trust, and causes you to become stable and avoid catastrophic control loss of control seizure from your being made to test and probe and put on trial your system of personal control now that you are able to probe and test and override and violate and break , and cause your control system to fail – be made to cause your control system to fail, the spear of vulnerability in the right side giving new birth.

Probe and test and make fail and observe the personal control systemand in this loose cognitive associations state that is from the salvific psilocybin mushroom Eucharist which causes rebirth into a new restructured world as a new restructured person.

Lifted Garment Indicates the Psychedelic Altered State

Probing the loosened personal control system and being able to observe it and override and bypass it and make it fail to put the blade through the two smiling cybercide guys with the right foot on the stable base

the lifted garment John Rush the lifted garment theme exactly matches Dionysus’ Victory Procession mosaic and also the many lifted-garment images in the Canterbury comic book novel by the Eidwine group, art picture motif identified by John Rush as indicating the (loose cognitive) altered state explained by me in full, complete detail, completely explained.

Why don’t we have a written letter in text from the Eadwine group? They were literate.

Why did Eadwine not write in the illuminated manuscript “all normal real Christians these days by definition ingest the Eucharist, which is psilocybe mushrooms”?

The Eucharist is primarily and normally Psilocybe.

Amanita is an honorary pseudo-Psilocybin, but is known to be third-rate when anyone who gathers their collection of hunting mushrooms and they will then sort their mushrooms into first rate and third rate.

Give the third rate Amanita to the low value slave the low ranking slave.

and give the desirable first rate mushrooms to the head of the household the king give the good mushrooms the king and then

Used mandrake in the off-season when you don’t have the desirable type of mushrooms in the off-season mandrake scopolamine deliverance as a lesser rate I don’t know if it’s second rate or fourth rate.

Applying the same principle from art to text:

Realistic principle of art: any entheogen in art represents the use of respect for and knowledge of the entire set of all visionary plants.

Similarly, the presence of visionary plants in text, the presence of a specific visionary plant in text is evidence for the use of all visionary plants, whatever is available and ready to hand.

Implicitly suggests that we read art instances of visionary plants in the same way this way we break the firm division just like the Canterbury Psalter with the 75 mushroom trees which fail to be mushroom trees, because they have, in the self-defeating fashion, after drawing the mushrooms, the artist added branches, destroying the right mushroom shape, in order to add the real point of what to do with the mushroom, or what change results from the mushroom is:

transformed mental consciousness about branching, about control, about possibility branching across time, and whether or not we can steer, and how to avoid loss of control, and regain a new mode of control for a revealed nonbranchjng reality based understanding of the world, a new structure, a new configuration of control power that accommodates the non-branching experience.

– Cybermonk

1988 1997 2003 2006 2010 2013 2016 2020 2022

1988 the actual nature of transcendent knowledge and ego transcendence is cognitive loosener Luz cognitive Association binding transformation of mental model to block universe

1997 reading gnosis magazine Western spiritual traditions summary of course theory Theory, and monocoursal labyrinth vision reading about Mushroom History

2003 maximal Entheogen Theory Religion and mythology

2006 Main article lacking the word branch highly readable summary of core theory interwoven with and explained in terms of and cross explained with the methane theory mytheme Theory including mushroom trees but not branching Message Mushroom Trees nor tree versus snake nor decoding Moses bronze brass snake on a pole

2010 branching pads in the forest preserve paths together with annual mushroom hunting there of photographs branching trees

2013 brought together forcefully research on contrast producing formula tree versus snake equals possible isn’t versus Eternalism equals possibility branching versus pre-existence of control thoughts but not a, during reading about mushroom scholarship but not incorporating the mushroom trees which were mentioned in the 2006 article

2016 tentative decoding of limping guard and dancing man of the roasting salamander image left foot and right foot map to the two mental world models possible as him and eternal isn’t with the idea being the tentative hypothesis that if you’re standing on one leg that means you’re depending on or imploring that meant the world model rather than the other mental world model “needs more confirmation; to do”

2020 Canterbury decoded by using 2016 hypothesis and conversely provides the needed corroboration of the 2016 hypothesis of left leg vs right leg = The two mental world models of personal control foundation and self agent in world and agent in a world model then extended out here in two left limb right limb

2022 further cross connections finished full inversion of value of mushroom trees instead of only valuable for the mushroom despite the unfortunate branching anomaly whimsical puzzling mysterious features finished though started and done to some degree started This inversion in 2020 but still perceived the branching as bothersome puzzling anomalies yet to be solved and rightly held rightly considered. created elegant powerful phrase concept label branching Message Mushroom Trees and immediately got confirmation of that in branching message mandrake trees therefore branching message and fusion trees and finished inverting completed the inverting of the values to fully grasp that the mushroom was secondary and that the anomalous branching was the primary message or the ultimate payload message defeat the bug

The bug and defect is the primary feature and continued strengthening the theory of Vineleaf trees which accompany the mushroom trees also decoded Plaincourault fresco in terms of non-branching serpent branching rib cage neutralized

generative aspect canceled by mushroom cap covering genitals and naked at the tree with the serpent meaning now I am reading better now right now their nakedness they saw they were naked means seeing through the superficial possibility branching thinking to perceive the underlying what’s exposed and revealed underneath the clothing or underneath the flesh as clothing the review

can’t tell if I lost a little bit of text

the generateof potential to generate personal control thoughts neutralized by the mushroom Covering the generate of potential generative potential just

to realize that they are naked is to see the underlying nonbranching reality instead of the transient usual superficial surface of the surface covering the transient surface covering of possibility thinking appearance

the clothing the clothing usually hidesThe clothing would be a possibility thinking and to be unclothes would be to lose the possibility thinking to reveal the non-branching reality underneath usually obscured and hidden by the clothing which is possibility thinking

to realize they are naked is to see the underlying reality of non-branching rather than the surface temporary covering of apparent possibility thinking

I think I may have figured out how to get voice dictation to work well without duplication and going insane, to do voice voice dictation into wordpress: I think I simply need to keep each text entry paragraph block short.

drawing diagrams, photographing and uploading the diagrams; I no longer use text to communicate or voice recordings, but instead I communicate all by diagrammatic pictograms now, it’s more efficient 😑 🍄🌳🐍

to communicate Mystic state mental transformation writing texting words or speaking and then having a secretary turn scribe that to words on then speaking and having the town crier repeat the speech or playing back recording voice transcription acting like a drunken secretary to transcribe speech and then having to clean it up with a little bit with the soft keyboard but that’s very inefficient and better to do the cleanup with the hardware keyboard

📝📚📕✉️

Erik Davis book tech gnosis technologies the technology of pictograms to express mythemes in efficient ways fusing together the wine with the tree through mushroom with added branches subtract the rock keep the snake subtract the king keep the branching

Another different format to that I was working on and I kind of moved away from it around 2018 and 2019 200 character summaries

recent weirdness with the key mythemes Page: no entry for this perhaps compound mytheme branching Message Mushroom Tree there is an entry on tree and there’s a category for branching but there’s no entry there’s no entry corresponding to the concept which was the key central most important king of the concepts in the middle ages Christianity the grand invention of branching Message Mushroom Trees the great Christian invention which communicated it packed

it packed an incredible amount into elegant remarkably condensed format of the mushroom image conveying the cognitive loosener then you have branching features added onto it and sometimes a snake serpent contrasting we have both branches added and we have neatly cut branches and sometimes the serpent carries the fruit in which sort of doubles or repeats or multiplies the mushroom theme here’s the snake serpent bringing the mushroom the serpent is in the mushroom tree which has bread

branching but adding the serpent does get a little bit busy and is no longer the extreme of simple of elegant extreme total data compression you’ve got that important factor of the mushroom that’s got to stay and you’ve got branching and cut branch features that’s got to stay and you’re done that’s all that you really need that’s the minimum you need a different combination is a sneak in a tree or some kind of a contrast of a snake type shape like the salamander roasting dancing man image we could almost call it the Sam Marini Bennett Irvin Hatsis Hoffman salamander roasting dancing man image the decoding of which directly gave an immediate result to disk decoding the center of Canterbury and from there the first row of Canterbury and then the remainder of Canterbury

and that solution came through a trajectory of the core theory 1988 first identifying the true nature of ego transcendence is cognitive loosening check the 1997 summary adopting the block universe that would be the keyword keyword number one keyword would be Luz cog and then block universe to summarize 1988 revelation of the true nature of ego transcendence it would be loose cog block universe and get a high score on the physics exam

my trajectory just the high points to try to connect it to that had to urban salamander Canterbury trajectory which led finally to to the production of I think my Greatest con sept number six I have a giant pile of greatest concepts this greatest concept is the branching Message Mushroom Tree and I will note the branching message Mander a tree which I am the discover of and the generalized concept branching message in theater in tree but The classic I would absolutely pixel also but I had to say I took it took exactly precisely two seconds to think and decide what to say about amanita forget it how many to makes for great art absolutely give us salsa be any day ha ha Ha Psilocybe babe Psilocybe any day

The classic is not the amanita mushroom tree as far as an Canterbury wins here Canterbury wins list the pros and cons we were talking about playing Carol versus Canterbury for the crown the king of classic mushroom shapes the classic the king instance of branching Message Mushroom Trees is Amanita or Psilocybe he the winner there is a loss to be because it’s clean efficient no preparation close

and definitive classic affects Canterbury loses points for being over elaborate although it had to be done fully spilling out both with elegance and great detail as well what’s a good typical example if I pick a good typical example the Canterbury cannot be a good typical example of the branching Message Mushroom Tree also of note is the roasting roasting salamander dancing man is a worthy candidate with features to discuss of branching the salamander serving as theand definitive classic affects Canterbury loses points for being over elaborate although it had to be done fully spilling out both with elegance and great detail as well what’s a good typical example if I pick a good typical example the Canterbury cannot be a good typical example of the branching Message Mushroom Tree also of note is the roasting roasting salamander dancing man is a worthy candidate with features to discuss of branching the salamander serving as the

The burning away theme burning way possible isn’t thinking burning way possibility transient ephemeral possibility branching thinking or illusion gets burned away by the flame of the mushroom what is that flame the flame is the mushroom flame is fire fire gives light illumination ability to perceive and you roast it for a period a period of immersion and exercising and doing conducting tests and experiments within the Luz cog state repeatedly being in the fire for sometime then transforms the salamander and then it becomes a snake serpent shape lined placed nonbranching Place side-by-side with the branching mushroom in the salamander

roasting dancing man image the man stable on right foot left foot floating right foot I think stable and head and left foot flooding in front of chest left left hand floating in front of chest right hand firm on face is it safe to take a naïve reading of his facial expression it may well be it makes good sense debt it’s it looks like me it looks like me when I decode the Canterbury Psalter it makes me feel stupid and I face palm

every breakthrough I have I have to reduce my estimate of my IQ level how did you not realize this before dark five IQ points doc dark points

I like voice recording better but I keep trying to do voice exercises of reading aloud passages and I can’t because every single time I try to read a passage I go off on a flight of critique

I am not able to do my voice reading exercises I’ll have to pick a very dull extremely don’t read the phonebook I have to pick a very dull passage so that I don’t go off I have to read the ingredients list off

why I prefer I’m I’m most find a voice recording but this voice transcription although it’s half broken it’s a full 50% broken and I have to mop up the mess afterwards but this is really resonating with the back to the future day October 26, 1985 idea development session one where I took up the pencil for the first time to capture the flight of ideas so that I could see it

and review it and this voice transcription approach really accomplishes that well especially if I keep track if it’s mistakes it’s the mistakes really don’t cost me too much trouble while I’m in the midst of speaking out ideas and then alternating with reading the script the sketchy the sketchy transcription is plenty sufficient though I do object I’ll have to put post this prominently I do object to the double double or maybe even triple repetition that it often does that’s a problem

it might be aand review it and this voice transcription approach really accomplishes that well especially if I keep track if it’s mistakes it’s the mistakes really don’t cost me too much trouble while I’m in the midst of speaking out ideas and then alternating with reading the script the sketchy the sketchy transcription is plenty sufficient though I do object I’ll have to put post this prominently I do object to the double double or maybe even triple repetition that it often does that’s a problem it might be a

there’s a large chance that some of the double transcription it’s because I’m doing transcription into this awkward non-standard word press editing interface might be causing the double transcription but aside from all these breakage is though I’m what I’m saying is that this format works so very well I can really concentrate on thinking more than when I use keyboard I suppose I just wish that I were making a voice recording but I

i’m afraid the merits are so great in this voice transcription approach that it this is a good problem to have I have three terrific formats keyboard typing of webpages works extremely well and voice recording doesn’t exactly work well I wouldn’t say it works well but I I like it and in some ways it does work while you you run the tape recorder and you speak and you get a result so it’s very easy as far as producing information although you can’t see your thoughts and it has its downsides of course you have to clean up the results and youand potentially you could hook up transcription to it so that you do end up with both that’s a strange thing that’s a weird thing right now is that I have to pick between either doing a voice recording or doing voice transcription why do I have to pick between them can I have the tape recorder running while I do this voice transcription I doubt it

yep confirmed as soon as I start doing voice transcription it stops the voice recording

To continue the best thought from above tracing the trajectory trying to get a nice summary overview of my trajectory we have and I’m picking really only the tall like my top three if you look at my top three breakthrough suppose and then let’s see let’s see it leads up to branching Message Mushroom Tree so how do we get I almost treat well I guess branching Message Mushroom Tree is part of my November I think the best way to position it is that it’s a fall out from the November 2020

just like November 2013 I had fallout jackpot all the way through into my May 2014 similarly I had the Canterbury breakthrough in November 2020 and that continued playing out until February and then now a year after that a year and a half later you could say that you could very much say that my concept of or my concept phrase my phrase my label of branching Message Mushroom tree is nothing but a packaging of my November 2020 breakthrough that seems like the most reasonable way to frame or position I I don’t

my current feeling about this week this past week and the breakthroughs jackpot is that it’s largely about packaging however packaging is very important that we cannot underestimate packaging merely a matter of packaging packaging is a big big deal it’s like communication communication formats or communication channels part of this past week breakthrough while assessing the magnitude of it is to further develop the concept which I is based in my November 2020 but I continue to play it out of really

really interpreting the middle ages branching Message Mushroom Tree pictoral grams is a public communication format emphasis on public understood is the opposite of secret it is a public communication for the highest knowledge very elegant very public very visible how do we think about and I guess I’m kind of break

i’m kind of breaking away from thinking of mushroom trees in terms of evidence I guess I feel like I’ve graduated beyond evidence in some sense in someway like that I don’t think that I don’t like that perspective that I had just prior to the Canterbury breakthrough I was starting to list I want to arrange breakthroughs in a certain way right now per above arrange breakthroughs in in relation to this weeks decoding as such of branching Message Mushroom Trees which I feel like I have to make a nod to my mandrake breakthrough

looking for any humorous ideas about labeling branching message hat sis mandrake Communication Trees Siri something like that Theory Hatsis because I won cannot think of mandrake trees and the fact that I identify them not him and the fact that I decoded it to connect it successfully and remarkably with the branching Message Mushroom Trees which I had just like hours earlier

only hours after I formulated that powerful phrase branching Message Mushroom Trees hours later I recognized branching Message Mandrake Trees and therefore the higher order construct of the or the generalized construct of branching Message Entheogens Trees which plainly is evidenced I don’t like I had kind of a week I feel like I had a defensive and weak stance regarding evidence and the very concept of evidence seems like a disempowering idea my feeling about the word Evidence right now is it is it it is a disempowering idea if you want to feel disempowered think in terms of evidence as a rule the concept of

as a rule the concept of evidence seems to be disempowering and it’s dismissive as soon as you’re talking about as soon as you talk in terms of evidence you lose you become disempowered the evidence is taken away from you while chanting the word evidence I am anti-evidence I am against evidence evidence equals blindness that’s my current feeling is it like the title of the article before the Canterbury article proof of evidence when you’re talking in those terms you’re a loser it’s a proposal to enter debates that are set up in a fraudulent way that nobody can win I don’t believe in evidence I believe in interpretive frameworks

I take a framework first theory first approach evidence second and I fear that the title of an article which puts the priority on the word evidence makes the mistake it should be more like instead of instead of criteria of evidence and proof it should be more worded in terms of interpretive frameworks and explanatory theories where the Hells of the theory you can’t talk about evidence without talking first and foremost about theory how are you supposed to perceive evidence if you’ve got no theory the theory is the lens through which you are become able to perceive and take in evidence if you don’t have a theory then you cannot have evidence I feel like that’s really the whole art

Compelling evidence ? criteria of proof?

those sound like bunk BS terms their terms that have been deliberately corrupted and disempowered before you even begin

there is no such thing as compelling evidence out of context

there’s no such thing as criteria of proof out of evidence

the theory makes the data

the theory makes the evidence

there is only theory based evidence

it is nonsensical to talk about evidence without first talking about theory.

suppose your hold unacknowledged theory premise that non-Secret Mushroom use is an impossibility and a contradiction in terms an incoherent idea then how could you ever perceive or admit data evidence that’s publicly visible evidence would be prevented it is impossible to have evidence if you hold a theory with premises the shots out that evidence

at this point I need to read ten books that are a critique of the concept of evidence and proof

What happens when you take a wheelbarrow full of evidence and you bring it to someone and they say:

“I reject your premises, i don’t believe your premises, your promises are preposterous, I don’t believe your premises, I don’t believe your interpretation, therefore you have no evidence.” 😑

suppose we have a trajectory I’m thinking of for things plus hats this is article well the main thing I think about when I think about houses articles is the dancing man so let’s the roasting salamander so let’s take my big three breakthroughs and then add bracket Canterbury add one thing before Canterbury and one thing after Canterbury in that case I would be it would be let me start the way this easiest by listing years I am off and less you’re like very often less years is a great great short hand

1988 1997 2003 2006 2010 2013 2016 because I got confirmation that the dates are weird on houses articles and that they have the dates have been moved to a year later I still have yet to look up my first mention of the word Hatsis but I would perceive it as a episode two of Andy Letcherthere is a ton an absolute overwhelming ton upon ton of very interesting postings in the Egodeath Yahoo Group with very interesting dates very interesting history of trajectory very interesting postings it’s valuable your elves links it is a real gold mine filled with gold at this point I am still left with going on my gut intuition I don’t believe the dates that I’m seeing on the Hatsis articles I am seeing all indications that I was very early in following Hatsis I have every reason to believe as I recall and I can easily confirm the spot ha ha I can

I could confirm this faster than I can talk it through but right now I feel like I’m going with my earlier memory the 2016 I believe 2016 is the year when did I decode salamander I believe I it was when I was reading a good book on Greek myth art and I was decoding the limp limping mytheme using the salamander image and I believe that was 2016 specifically I believe that I used taxes copy of the salamander in 2016 and this is easy to confirm at Yahoo Group

provisional provisionally let’s say 2016 is the year that I decoded the salamander image which was about left foot versus right foot and it was not expressed in terms of branching I don’t think and I don’t think I perceived that mushroom tree as a branching Message Mushroom Tree I saw it’s branching as pure anomaly puzzle it was a puzzle the branching the mysterious branching was it I read it as a puzzling branching and I would say that hi

I could maybe disapprove this but I feel like I feel like until yesterday the branching on trees was still the branching on mushroom trees was still a puzzle to me I feel like despite my decoding it earlier I feel like it was still puzzling to me there was still a puzzling aspect of it that I finally resolved the puzzling aspect yesterday by which I mean a couple days ago that’s my subjective experience which is often wrong because often I forget an earlier breakthrough of the same thing but let’s say suppose I decoded left foot right foot and limping her Festus

The Smith in the underworld and Greek mythology which enabled me to decode Canterbury and I want to lead up to the question of when did I solve the puzzle I’ve branching message mushroom trees this despite my despite my writing about this in 2020 I want to say that this week I solve the puzzle of anomalous branching on mushroom trees it’s kind of a matter of degree à la Paul Thagard theory revision although in November 2020 I wrote two paragraphs on this topic I did not

merit solving the problem I did not have a complete solution I feel like I assess and I judge that I did not have a “complete solution” of the anomalous puzzling branching features of the salamander roasting dancing man image until now yes I decoded the dead left and right legs in 2016 but there was there was still highly provisional highly tentative highly provisional decoding of the legs it was only when I came to Canterbury Canterbury provided me the confirmation

Canterbury tree 71 provided me in 2020 with the corroboration of my hypothesis theory of interpreting the dancing man salamander the dancing man of the salamander image in 2016 and so on the one hand it’s a two-way thing corroboration is a two-way thing I like to corroboration in 2016 for my dancing man hypothesis about left and right legs and I use that hypothesis that tentative hypothesis in 2020 to ask could this tentative hypothesis from 2016 possibly provide a solution to the puzzle

i’ve Canterbury leg Hanging and Balancing and it did and therefore I received proof of my 2016 hypothesis about salamander dancing man in 2020 and on the other hand conversely my 2016 hypothesis corroborated and gave authorization to my tentative 2020 Canterbury decoding it’s a two-way corroboration that’s healthy reconfirmation works purple Thagard Paul Thagard that’s how theory confirmation and theory revision works and theory revision

I have written similar thing about the core theory phase 1 circa 1997 and also refined in the main article 2006 that needed corroboration where am I going to go to get corroboration first I looked to historical Jesus Jesus please corroborate my theory but he vanished Allegro took him away from me Allegro through John King because I learned about no Jesus through John King and some other books which I have cited the Egodeath.com Allegro took Jesus away from me

but I was needing Jesus to corroborate and confirm my ego the theory so where am I going to look to get confirmation or corroboration for my theory in the sort of sense of Paul Thagard theory or metatheory the answer is religious mythology including image pictograms of branching Message Mushroom Tree the more developed the left leg of my theory the more it corroborates the right leg of my theory and vice versa it’s kind of like saying what can I do to develop the core theory answer

develop the other part of the theory the methane theory if I ask what can I do to improve and develop my missing theory the answer is develop the core theory how do we know the course he is right how do we know the core theory is true because it is corroborated by the mytheme theory how do we know that the missing theory is true because it is corroborated by the core theory the core theory and the missing theory are able to corroborate each other because in so far as they are two different things to different bases which stabilize each other and strengthen each other how do I know that

how do I know that the salamander dancing man has significant left foot versus right foot and how do I know that my interpretation of the branching mushroom tree and the fire and the serpent salamander how do I know my reading of that is valid also how do I know that my reading of mushroom tree number 71 is valid with the balancing and hanging and sword a big answer is permissive decoding the way that you have connections woven interwoven across so that decoding admit theme is not a matter of saying this missing equals this principle it’s not a one for one decoding mytheme is harder than that to do a complete job because to complete your dickhow do I know that the salamander dancing man has significant left foot versus right foot and how do I know that my interpretation of the branching mushroom tree and the fire and the serpent salamander how do I know my reading of that is valid also how do I know that my reading of mushroom tree number 71 is valid with the balancing and hanging and sword a big answer is permissive decoding the way that you have connections woven interwoven across so that decoding admit theme is not a matter of saying this missing equals this principle it’s not a one for one decoding mytheme is harder than that to do a complete job because to complete your dick

it is a network weaving you have to weave the network to decode mytheme is a matter of weaving a network of connections Allah Paul Thagard Paul Faggard similarly how do I know that I’ve decoded image a and that how do I know that I have decoded image be I find the isomorphism and I find that the same interpretive theory that makes sense and resolves the puzzle of image essay and it also makes sense of unresolved the puzzle of image be then my solutions to the two puzzles enter corroborate each other they cross corroborate each other

theory confirmation involves cross corroboration when you have corroboration that weaves throughout the system is the component a confirms component be in component be confirms component essay so instead of stupidly talking in terms of naïve simpleton isolated bits of evidence like my self-defeating article title please provide criteria of proof and compelling evidence these are kind of idiotic questions and their defeat as they’re hopeless you can’t win because evidence doesn’t work that way evidence involves systemic coherence of interconnections do we have systemic can

do we have systemic coherence of interconnections then yes then we have evidence but we cannot have evidence if we don’t have systemic coherence of interconnections our mental model of what evidence is is messed up evidence is not granular atomic isolated pieces there is no theory free data there is no theory free evidence and the problem with these numbskull deniers and deflectors

they defined the rules of the game and situated is impossible to win there is no evidence because there is not permitted to be evidence because they don’t allow an appropriate interpretive theory to allow the evidence to come through they won’t let the evidence speak they neutralize the evidence they are trying to neutralize the evidence not to merely test it they’re trying to ignore it and erase it and deflect the evidence instead of reading or measuring it they’re not interested in measuring the evidence they’re interested in explaining away that evidence as Hatsis brags about his awesome accomplishment of that he that he has accomplished waving awaythey defined the rules of the game and situated is impossible to win there is no evidence because there is not permitted to be evidence because they don’t allow an appropriate interpretive theory to allow the evidence to come through they won’t let the evidence speak they neutralize the evidence they are trying to neutralize the evidence not to merely test it they’re trying to ignore it and erase it and deflect the evidence instead of reading or measuring it they’re not interested in measuring the evidence they’re interested in explaining away that evidence as Hatsis brags about his awesome accomplishment of that he that he has accomplished waving away

easily explains away through our mushroom trees and Christian Mart or easily explained away through sound tried and true this is meant through memory I am memorizing his passage his “of shame the supposed mushrooms in Christian Art are easily explain the way through sound tried and true criteria which adherence of the theory he freaking fails to even see what stupid theory he even has in mind terrible writing why should I memorize it rotten writing

The supposed mushrooms in Christian Art are easily explained away through sound tried and true historical criteria which the followers of the theory parentheses including significant variations of it) or oblivious or unaware of or else they would or simply unaware of

that’s very close to an accurate quote from memory!

infamous Thomas Hatsis quote of anti-scholarship extreme scholarly fail, from memory

The supposed mushrooms in Christian art are easily explained away through sound, tried-and-true historical criteria, which the adherents of the theory (including significant variations of it) are simply unaware of.

– Thomas Hatsis, anti-scholar (from memory)

in the page of his book where he is supposed to be providing a list of criteria not pompous bullsht claiming to have such criteria; what the fck are the criteria???

state them here and now, I paid $15 for this POS pathetic rag of a book amateurish as hell

cough up the damn criteria or else at least give me specific citations pointing directly to the exact paragraphs pompous amateur idiot

Voice dictation line break carriage return

I am here too wreck and ruin cyber disciples neat and clean distinctions stylized images of mushrooms versus depictions of mushroom effects and the simplistic distinction between texts evidence and art evidence these so-called Stylizations it turns out I don’t believe that I I refuse to believe that I had a clearer concept of this a clear grasp of this in November 2020 or February 2021 it turns out I think they truly new idea for March 2022 is what are these stylizations what is the most important of the stylizations it turns out that the most important of the stylizations is it self the most important of the depictions of the mental cognitive affects the transformative mental model transformative effects and that’s an experience shall affect it’s a transformation of the mental model that’s driven by experiencing especially the disappearance of the experiencing of branching possibilities being replaced by the experience of non-branching possibilities and the ramifications for and feeling sensation of personal control power to steer through such branching at the peak of importance the most important stylization of the mushroom shapes in art is exactly identical with the most important of

The depictions of the effects of mushrooms

the two meet

the most important stylization is that which most potently describes and depicts the peak ultimate experiential transformation experience

I’m not really approaching this this critique of art versus text I’m not approaching it in the conventional way I am

i’m having a different realization from a different angle I’m sensing that the focus on text is irrelevant and miss placed and miss guided

if the primary communication medium for an illiterate culture is art , why would we say that text medium is more important than pictorial art medium, given that it is a non-literate culture?

I am reversing the values and telling Hatsis that text is less important than art evidence text evidence is less relevant

text evidence is less relevant and less important in this middle ages era then art evidence

the primary communication medium the standard primary communication medium among the non-literate populace is art images not text

and they would even look at text or consider a text from an arc point of you like illuminated manuscripts

I continue to press the argument that Canterbury

Fake scholarly pretend engagement to deflect

change of subject here

we are sick to death of the brain dead arguments which are muddleheaded deflections and refusals to engage reason refusals to make explicit chain link by chain-link rational structured arguments

we are tired of avoiding that of this avoidance and deflection and dismissal this fake pretense were scholars pretend to take up the subject but they don’t actually take up the subject of interpreting mushrooms in Christian art

70 years of deflection, 70 years of fake pretend make-believe scholarship but not actually taking up in good faith with serious reason

Jesus historicity debate was a total loss for academia; predictably similarly Entheogens Studies debate will be a total loss for the academic establishment, predictably

oh here’s a thought I keep thinking this I can’t

I can’t believe it has taken me so long to communicate to get around to making this point but

this is an exact repeat this having to pin the scholars down that they scream like a baby that you’re trying to feed it food and they don’t know I don’t wanna eat that I don’t want it

we have seen this before we have been through this before Richard carrier in the field of

before he ruined the field PS he ruined Richard carrier absolutely ruined it as a separate topic but I don’t see any connection why but Richard carriers he destroyed seemingly single-handedly destroyed the field of atheism conferences and the topic of the topical domain of or the field of atheism Richard carrier single-handedly destroyed and terminated and ended the field of popular atheism studies but anyway I think

his work is great on a historicity but I think he’s just a terrible person but

I’m talking about his particular studies in the field I’m not talking about him as a person just like you can you can detest and despise a musical artist while still enjoying the music

Academia finally agreed to do an actual debate about Jesus history and predictably, they totally bellyflopped and lost; it was a blowout win, a pathetic fizzle conclusion of the great ahistoricity research era

Richard carrier went all Asperger’s and he and other people too they press the point and they went to the scholars in the academia the scholars who always refused those ones of the scholars who chant is it

a spiritual religious chant all the time they said

this has been settled 😑

been debunked 😑

no reputable scholar would assert ahistoricity of Jesus. 😑

we scholars have already investigated this. 😑

obviously we scholars have already thoroughly studied this matter and raise these questions of debate of them and settled them but no we are not willing to debate these points because they’re not worth debating because they are so settled that it’s not worth debating or discussing them 😑

and these are pure smokescreen because the scholars have not in fact taken up in a serious actual bona fide scholarly way the question of a historicity did Jesus exist as an identifiable single identifiable person or was Jesus created by a confluence :

the big bang conventional theory which is the historicity position

Versus

the gradual coalescing theory which is the ahistoricity theory of Jesus of the formation of the figure of Jesus

Dr. Jerry Brown was wise when he didn’t make any statements other than saying we believe “we agree with those who believe Jesus existed” – and then he stopped, and he shut up , so he didn’t say anything stupid and foolish like “been debunked” – see the list of smokescreen empty Bluffs above. The academic establishment historicizes colossally lost why would you think they lost by arguing by finally being forced to engage an actual bona fide argumentation of course predictably they got it handed to them they fumbled and bumble they’ve got nothing they have nothing but empty bluff everyone knew it and nobody was surprised when they suffered a complete blowout absolute defeat when they were finally coerced into doing an actual debate is this the a historicity people of course had their act together they had their blades all sharpened they would

they would not have pressed the point unless they knew that they were guaranteed to win and Richard carrier really kind of wrapped it all up with a bow and he converted all the argumentation into probabilities which was a good way of accounting for every argument and he knew he did we we a history we thumbs down Jesus people we knew we would when we knew we were right we knew that all the arguments supported us so we knew that it was a guaranteed win we knew that if there was ever if we could ever get the academics to to fight us we knew we had a guaranteed win and so did the academics which is precisely why the academic

academics refused to debate because they knew they had nothing they knew they had nothing but empty vapor the academics knew it the Jesus deniers knew it everyone knew it and I only I guess the surprising thing is why did Bart airmen agree to the debate that he was guaranteed to lose and as totally predictable his book came up with nothing and it was a complete blowout failure a total loss for on the part of academic establishment and and and that was it and so like we were done we finished like what do we do now case closed game over

So as as everyone knew the day that academia engages with that question it’s game over for academia and that’s why you get nothing but fluffpretend engagement made with great errors because it’s all put on it’s all an act it’s all the con game it’s all putting on actor we’re going to act I’m going to bluff and we’re gonna make big claims were going to make big empty claims and strut around because that’s all we’ve got is pseudo-arguments claims that we are the ones in best position we are the ones who are best position because we wrote a random book about art and therefore all your decades of anthropology experience in all your decades of intelligent research all your decades of mycology count for nothing because I wrote a random generic book on art they had no focus on mushroom trees therefore I’m in better position than you are that’s this is the caliber that we will Garin pretend engagement made with great errors because it’s all put on it’s all an act it’s all the con game it’s all putting on actor we’re going to act I’m going to bluff and we’re gonna make big claims were going to make big empty claims and strut around because that’s all we’ve got is pseudo-arguments claims that we are the ones in best position we are the ones who are best position because we wrote a random book about art and therefore all your decades of anthropology experience in all your decades of intelligent research all your decades of mycology count for nothing because I wrote a random generic book on art they had no focus on mushroom trees therefore I’m in better position than you are that’s this is the caliber that we will Garinpretend engagement made with great errors because it’s all put on it’s all an act it’s all the con game it’s all putting on actor we’re going to act I’m going to bluff and we’re gonna make big claims were going to make big empty claims and strut around because that’s all we’ve got is pseudo-arguments claims that we are the ones in best position we are the ones who are best position because we wrote a random book about art and therefore all your decades of anthropology experience in all your decades of intelligent research all your decades of mycology count for nothing because I wrote a random generic book on art they had no focus on mushroom trees therefore I’m in better position than you are that’s this is the caliber that we will Garin

we are guaranteed to never get anything better than this level this is peak this is the best they’ve got the mushroom deniers this is the best they’ve got this is the only thing they’ve got is sheer arbitrary Bluff a puff of vapor followed by another puff of vapor and then they add some logically sounding words like therefore ipso facto reason dictates and then it’s just arbitrary puffs of sheer assertion that all goes against the truth and it all goes against the evidence and they know it and they know that if they engage it’s a redux we’ve been through all of this before it’s gonna be another total blowout complete absolute loss for the establishment which is why Wason censored out Brinkman’s book Kanoski saidwe are guaranteed to never get anything better than this level this is peak this is the best they’ve got the mushroom deniers this is the best they’ve got this is the only thing they’ve got is sheer arbitrary Bluff a puff of vapor followed by another puff of vapor and then they add some logically sounding words like therefore ipso facto reason dictates and then it’s just arbitrary puffs of sheer assertion that all goes against the truth and it all goes against the evidence and they know it and they know that if they engage it’s a redux we’ve been through all of this before it’s gonna be another total blowout complete absolute loss for the establishment which is why Wason censored out Brinkman’s book Kanoski said

Panofsky said I am a professional academic so I am obliged to provide a citation for my bedtime just so story and he provided that but Wason knew this ain’t gonna work the more that we engage with this issue the more we’re gonna lose the truth is against us and we’ve got to prevent an actual investigation we’ve got to prevent people from looking at Brinckmann’s book because the more that they look into this whole subject the more the pope in the Bankster’s are going to lose there’s a battle has been declared against the mushroom by the impostors and the impostors know that the more that people research the more the people will find the truthPanofsky said I am a professional academic so I am obliged to provide a citation for my bedtime just so story and he provided that but Wason knew this ain’t gonna work the more that we engage with this issue the more we’re gonna lose the truth is against us and we’ve got to prevent an actual investigation we’ve got to prevent people from looking at Brinckmann’s book because the more that they look into this whole subject the more the pope in the Bankster’s are going to lose there’s a battle has been declared against the mushroom by the impostors and the impostors know that the more that people research the more the people will find the truth

The frauds know that that they’ve got to prevent research the fraudulent people know that they need to put out a kind of an argumentation that will discourage research they need to sound as if they’re putting forth arguments they need to sound as if they are confident as if they have considered the matter and as if they have made qualified informed considerations and reasonings and conclusions they know they have to send out a smokescreen Hayes in order to deflect and cover up and hide and prevent any actual investigation Panofsky tried to act like a professional and provide a citation but Wasson knew that wouldn’t work that he would have to allude to citations and give the impression of their existing citations without actually helping people to do any research his mission was to dissuade and head off looking into the matter so everything every word that Wassen presented in Spohn and let through and allowed to be printed with all crafted with the great mission of shut down any investigation into this matter don’t give people citations do the opposite tell them there’s no need for you little people to worry your heads about looking into this because the number one our authority my buddy has already assured me and he’s probably got I’m sure he’s got great citations but he and the authorities were best position I’ve already looked into thisthat he would have to allude to citations and give the impression of their existing citations without actually helping people to do any research his mission was to dissuade and head off looking into the matter so everything every word that Wassen presented in Spohn and let through and allowed to be printed with all crafted with the great mission of shut down any investigation into this matter don’t give people citations do the opposite tell them there’s no need for you little people to worry your heads about looking into this because the number one our authority my buddy has already assured me and he’s probably got I’m sure he’s got great citations but he and the authorities were best position I’ve already looked into this

so there is no need for any of you little people to do any research of your own we’ve settled the matter the matter is settled the authorities know that the here’s the story here’s your bedtime story you’re just so story story time bedtime story and we’ve worked out the story in great detail so let the adults handle this the mycologist in their ignorance made understandable blunder so please don’t make yourself look foolish don’t look into this matter the adults and top or authorities have already thoroughly taken up this matter and investigated it and it’s a done deal so don’t even think about there’s no way that mushrooms mean mushrooms end of discussion

case closed it’s already settled it’s just a silly popular idea pay no attention to those mushrooms which are not mushrooms which we referred to as Mushroom trees please do not listen to us when we refer to them as Mushroom Trees and so it’s a strategy of ridicule and Hayes and pseudo reasoning we’ve been through all of this exactly before we’ve done these exact dance steps before with the historicity of Jesus it’s all bluff all pretense bluster and phony posturing that’s all they’ve got is propaganda rhetoric to dissuade people from doing research because they know the establishment academics know perfectly well that they’re telling a lie and that the more the people

The academics know that their they’ve got no case and that they’re declaring war against the mushrooms and that the mushrooms are the real deal so it’s a giant cover-up operation is exactly what it is a cover-up operation try to steer and deflect treated poo poo it treated is not even worth just laugh it away laugh it off steer people away treated as a popular frivolous silly notion be dismissive of it don’t honor it with a genuine engagement because you will lose academic establishment will lose because they’re all based on a falsehood and lies going against mushrooms which is the real deal so he’s got to prevent any actual engagement we’ve got to do Sudo

we’ve got to convert this issue into a pseudo-engagement don’t let it become an actual investigation research actual scholarship we’ve got to avoid and so you can see that you can see this hack popular journalist riding against Dr. Jerry Brown you’ve got it’s all hack decoy fake pseudo- scholarship pseudo-argumentation pseudo-engagement that’s actually designed to prevent engagement it’s prevention of engagement which is shaped as if it’s engagement to prevent it’s all decoy pseudo- engagement which is exactly how it comes across these are all specious arguments they have tons and tons they spin out specious arguments all day and night and that’s all they’ve got nothing adds up because it really genuinely doesn’t add up and they know it

Richard carrier wrote a couple books on there and other people in that era around 2012 around 2010 people finally forced the issue in that field and they forced who is it Robert airman they finally forced ADP and they made Robert air Bart Bart ermine they forced him to write a book and actually deal with it and make a bona fide genuine engagement for the first time it’s the first time that that the alternative people

like I’ve been describing the picture of you you have to grab the scholar by the scruff of the neck and jam their face into the data and say deal with this stop evading the stop deflecting stop doing pretend make-believe pseudo- engagement you need to take this up in actuality in good faith and genuinely deal with this and reason through the data and take an actual real position on this and stop avoiding and deflecting and pretending to dibble dabble

The scholars brag and brag about their infinite level of certainty instead of ever writing any actual books giving any actual scholarship on the subject of historicity and it is the exact same situation we saw how the atheist finally what the the a historicizes finally won because they finally forced the issue they finally forced the academics to do a Jennifer genuine bona fide engagement and of course the academics lost because they’re full of nonsense they have no case there is no evidence for Historical Jesus so it ended this was inevitable of course that everybody knew the outcome there was no surprise to be had the academics new perfectly well they had no case the academics new perfectly well they had nothing but an

empty argument from authority it is in the end academics know it and the a historicity people know it that the only reason academia and here’s to a historical Jesus is pure purest of pure convention it is pure social convention and before that before Richard carrier destroyed the atheism community and before he destroyed the field of atheism Studies he and other people including me we went ass burgers on the subject and it it became clear there was no way

there was no way the academics were going to win this it became very clear to both the a historicity scholars and to the academics it became very clear before the debate and that’s why that is exactly why the academics refused to debate but just held their ground in chanting mindlessly chanting no credentialed academic believes it so it’s just like our plane corralled how many thumbs up are there and how many thumbs are pointed in a downward direction not any genuine actual scholarly engagement it was all avoidance smokescreen deflect deflect smokescreen avoidance sweep it under the rug and inevitably when finally a scholar took the bait bar airman the machine

The part airman publishing machine and the academic machine OK he’s going to be the one to save the academics right into the machine trembled and trembles and shook and shake and out popped a totally disappointing book that was even disappointing to the a historicity Scholars we’ve been through this exact pattern and this exact pattern will happen again prophecy guaranteed because it’s absolutely predictable it’s the easiest prophecy in the world we’ve seen it play out regarding historicity of Jesus in academia Bart Herman came to the rescue of academia and it was just a gigantic bellyflop as as it was expected but we thought that somehow we thought that somehow Bart airmen would manage to writeThe part airman publishing machine and the academic machine OK he’s going to be the one to save the academics right into the machine trembled and trembles and shook and shake and out popped a totally disappointing book that was even disappointing to the a historicity Scholars we’ve been through this exact pattern and this exact pattern will happen again prophecy guaranteed because it’s absolutely predictable it’s the easiest prophecy in the world we’ve seen it play out regarding historicity of Jesus in academia Bart Herman came to the rescue of academia and it was just a gigantic bellyflop as as it was expected but we thought that somehow we thought that somehow Bart airmen would manage to write

we we had such high respect from our airman that we thought he would manage to write a book worth reading to at least continue the debate but all he had the best that the best writer who most fervently wanted to uphold historical Jesus the best he could manage was a complete dull bellyflop he had nothing it was like it ripped it reminds me of certain political finding where there was a great build up and finally the great court case and we’re going to see now finally the evidence is going to be put forth and it’s going to be devastating and the guy goes up on the stand and he just fumbles and bumbles and stammers and he’s got absolutely nothing it was the dragon

The king of all nothing burgers and that was how we felt with Bart Airmans but two were like oh you’ve disappointed we had low hopes for you we had the week we kept our expectations down and we had low hopes but you even still yet managed to disappoint us couldn’t you at least couldn’t you at least keep the debate going this was just it was a pathetic it was a pathetic fizzle and this is hardly constitute a prophecy like I am going to make a prophecy the sun will rise in the east tomorrow that’s my prophecy similarly I prophecy that if we could force the academics to stop being deceitful phonies

and frauds and actually engage with the data if we could take them by the scruff of the neck and jam their face into the database the doctor Jerry Brown not Christian Mushroom database of data if we could do that I can guarantee what will happen it will be a giant fizzle out bellyflop they will totally absolutely lose because they have no argument whatsoever they have no basis for the position at all it is sheer convention purely floating on vapor they’ve got nothing the deniers of mushrooms in Christian history and Chris Newark the deniers they got nothing

THEY GOT NOTHIN’

that’s my prophecy is that the the day we finally get academics to to stop their empty bluster and actually engage in a debate and actually engage the data we can confidently predict they’ve got nothing it’s all bluster bluster is all they’ve ever had we’ve got Panofsky’s bluster Panofsky bluster in 1952 and that’s it in the stories done that’s all they’ve got you’ve got Brinkman showing his different varieties of mushroom shapes that proves absolutely nothing that they claim that it proves it just means that there’s a variety of mushroom shapes and Christian are in no way does his book constitute any sort of anything like what Wason is pretending

if Wassen were to admit that Brinkman’s book exists and I think that’s why I am my theory is that that’s why Wassen censored out the book and that’s why walls and censored out repeatedly the photo stats from Panofsky is because Wasson realized that if we pursue the evidence the evidence provides zero actual support for the Panofsky Wassen thumbs down view in fact the only thing that Brinkman’s book shows is more and more evidence for mushroom varieties in no way just Brinkman to book support an argument for thumbs down rejecting mushrooms in Christian Art and in fact bring his book

in fact Brinckmann’s Brinckmann’s’s book and if Wassen had allowed us to go further into the research and to follow the citations it’s a losing battle so Wasson had to prevent investigating the data wasn’t had to replace the data and replace any investigation he had to prevent an investigation from Taking Pl., Wisen’s job assigned by the pope who is competing against mushrooms directly very directly wasson that was instructed to run defense for the pope to defend against the mushrooms and so he was told don’t let people investigate this topic because we will certainly lose because the evidence is based in truth and the truth is that Christianity comes from mushrooms and all the datain fact Brinckmann’s Brinckmann’s’s book and if Wassen had allowed us to go further into the research and to follow the citations it’s a losing battle so Wasson had to prevent investigating the data wasn’t had to replace the data and replace any investigation he had to prevent an investigation from Taking Pl., Wisen’s job assigned by the pope who is competing against mushrooms directly very directly wasson that was instructed to run defense for the pope to defend against the mushrooms and so he was told don’t let people investigate this topic because we will certainly lose because the evidence is based in truth and the truth is that Christianity comes from mushrooms and all the data

The more that you investigate the question of mushrooms in Christianity inevitably the more you will realize the truth if we let people investigate mushrooms and Christianity and if we even help them to investigate this we will lose the pope will lose mushrooms will win it’s guaranteed people will find the truth the more that people research this topic and Wason knew this he couldn’t let people pursue Panofsky and Citation of Brinckmann’s’s book Wasson couldn’t let people know even even if Panofsky even if Panofsky meant for the investigation to support the pope Wassen was not so confident Wassen you even though Panofsky thought that investigating the material and Bill

Panofsky believed that investigating mushrooms in Christianity would lead to a thumbs down finding and would support the pope but however Wassen and the pope believed that allowing an investigation into mushrooms and citations in Christianity they knew the truth that that investigation would actually support the thumb up people and would disapprove the thumb down people in other words Wassen didn’t believe Pulaski’s argument wasson knew that Pulaski’s argument with Specious vapor-based nonsense and that Brinkman’s book would be a problem because it shows more and more evidence it actually makes the problem for the pope at Brinkmann’s book makes the popes problem worse

so Watsons job was to put forth a appearance of having settle the matter well discouraging people from actually pursuing checking on it and researching at his job was to prevent research prevent investigation by pretending that a good actual investigation had already taken place with conclusions

Voice dictation

I do not intend this page 2 be comprehensive list of people and I do not intend this webpage to list specific contributions or to list contributions and limitations but

I really specifically want to applaud most recently John lash for his “discovery of a lifetime”, of Canterbury – absolutely you said it brother magnitude 10 of congratulations

that is indeed in fact the discovery of a lifetime and I consider this is the subject of judgment but I consider three sort of equal breakthroughs that I have made a series of my major breakthrough one major breakthrough number two in Britain

major breakthrough number three

the first one was 1988 figuring out that the real nature of ego transcendence is loose cognition changing to the mental world model of block universe frozen time

in 2013 I consider and I experienced that is a very intense emotional experience a very shaking a week long I consider this is the subject of judgment but I consider three sort of equal breakthroughs that I have made a series of my major breakthrough one major breakthrough number two in Britain major breakthrough number three

1) the first one was 1988 figuring out that the real nature of ego transcendence is loose cognition changing to the mental world model of block universe frozen time

2) in 2013 I consider and I experienced that is a very intense emotional experience a very shaking a week long

A week long shaking experience as the theory revisions rattled throughout my theoretical model and world model of understanding oh my god the people before us understood this to this incredible level of understanding we were a blood we moderns were oblivious and they had an incredibly a profound like the people before us had a profound incredibly profound understanding to be able to cram so much comprehension and so profound of comprehension to be able to cram that into the figures of branching tree branching antlers the serpent and eve in the book the power of myth by Campbell side-by-side with Hellenistic as I always do the Jason calyx calyx the Jason kylix cup meaning meaning really a saucer art Jason coming from the serpent python by the non-branching vine tree with Athena

3) and I’ll then my third great breakthrough is Canterbury and I have defined in another webpage five minutes ago that the word Canterbury I officially proclaim and declare and announce that the word Canterbury now is equivalent to the word Plaincourault exactly as we are familiar with referring to using that one word to refer to that image

Failure to Debate, only Deflect

controversy but not debate this sub amateur non-debate controversy slap fight improper deflection mirror deflection nothing but deflection nothing but avoidance nothing but cover-up nothing but deflection shameful scholarship a failure of scholarship a failure to do scholarship we’ve got a bunch of propaganda bluffing BS bullshit instead of actual scholarship scholars you have failed you are a disgrace you are frauds your daemonic liars or equally badly you’re just that stupid and let your presuppositions that you don’t even state totally completely 100 percent drive your so-called reasoning which is about the opposite of a chain of links of chain links links together pulling you inexorably to a conclusion what you’re doing is the exact opposite puffs of vapor here’s a puff of vapor here’s another puff of vapor we’re talking an extreme instance of how the so-called old theory is anything but a structured theory it’s a got all the structure of a bowl of oatmeal oatmeal like Andy Letchers books sroom what sort of a theory is a bowl of oatmeal or a series of vapor puffs because that’s what the so-called sub amateur so-called scholarship commentary from the art historian role romanesque bullshitters who know jack sht to be proclaiming

and then the dimwit journalist says that these are the people best position to interpret unlike anthropologist who taught culture of infusions history for since 1975 that counts for nothing according to this hack embarrassing excuse for a journalist who spent five minutes investigating and is the best position journalist in the universe now to identify who is the best position art scholars not an anthropologist no not even in mycologist

although mycologist can be excused for their blunder because they are simply merely ignorant that the amanita tree is one of a type and that there are hundreds and hundreds and and if only if only the ignorant the understandably ignorant mycologist if only they were aware that there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of mushroom trees they would instantaneously know obviously plane crawl cannot possibly be mushroom because if it were you would have to also think that all the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of other mushroom trees in art or also mushrooms which we cannot even mention that idea

it’s beyond unthinkable are presuppositions prevent us from even thinking that this is this these puffs of vapor or what passes for scholarship don’t even think of referring to plain cruel as a debate this is not how debates are conducted dimwit journalist pointing to a Romanesque book scribbler who knows Jack all about the subject of psychoactive Mushroom tropes and motives and art I’m grabbing her by the scruff of the neck and shoving her head into the database which is the Dr. Jerry Brown honorary database alpha of data the database of the data because the data is not your stupid Romanesque book filled with random directionless imagery

the data to be addressed in a scientific professional actual bona fide way not your arm waving pull it out your rear vapor puffs vapor puffs bayou who haven’t even looked at the data have you looked at my data know I know you haven’t looked at my data so why don’t you look at my data first and then flap your jaws and give your worthless thumbs up and you’re worthless thumbs down so that the dimwit journalist like Emma can do a tally

because that’s the kind of level of research that that investigative journalist is capable of doing who is best position who what qualifications constitute being best position I’ve written a book on Romanesque art that automatically makes me best position for the specialize topic I didn’t know that that that this book author of I did not know that this book author of Romanesque art that somehow by virtue of writing a generic book on Roman escort qualifies this scholar to be in the best position to judge on the specialized field with your June scholarship

Lookout field of entheogen scholarship, you have all been trumped by the worlds greatest best position entheogens scholar of them all she has written a book on Romanesque generic art form and therefore because she has written a book on generic Romanesque art form therefore her thumb up trumps all of your thumbs up all of you in theorists and scholars have been writing on the subject since 1957 and 1925 because all of these my colleagues are understandably ignorant because they were simply unaware, they were simply not aware that there exist other mushroom trees in Christian Art other than plane corral

it is very easy to excuse the blunder ignorance of the mycologists you can see how easily my collegeagues are led astray and so therefore we can understand how very easily any author who writes a book on Romanesc art is immediately thereby qualified to veto and out-vote the entire field of entheogens scholars since 1957 and 1925 by virtue of writing of generic book on RomanNask art , that makes that person better positioned than the specialized entheogens scholars.

and on a longer-term scale I’ve I’ve actually created a webpage appreciation for Jan Irvin but I don’t really I don’t really want to spend the time or get into the detail but Irving has made some awesome contributions and sleuthing detective work

John Rush

and also I feel like under song well he’s gotten some attention of sun and some cents certainly John rush by virtue of publishing a book editing a book collection joining chapters from many different intelligence scholars so he is recognized but I was frustrated with his book of blurry pictures for a failed God failed book failed book is the title failed book because it’s CD his DVD images were I just couldn’t make sense of them and I am his Audi I am his audience and I couldn’t follow what he’s talking about and referring to in the pictures it just the presentation wasn’t good enough but while one of my top one of my top five images is from John Rush image collection the Y branching Moses the Moses branching image is awesome. I have completely corroborated John Russia’s insight which was not my insight except that I did notice an impossibly coincidental exact isomorphism which cannot have been an accident in the salamander dancing man compared against Dionyse is victory mosaic both of them have a lifted garment lifted him and John Rush has provided the explanation very similar to hell in 1986 I read Revelation and I recognize that intelligent but I just didn’t know which one and then as soon as I read Clark Heinrich is awesome book I knew he had solved it similarly I read John Russia’s book with the CD when it came out and then later I saw the image I don’t know how I felt of whether I felt that he had already explained it ahead of time I did not feel I think that I should have felt that Rush had already fully provided the explanation I feel like as soon as I saw the lifted garment of the dancing man in Hatteras his fourth generation reproduction of the image following after three other scholars I thought I don’t think I’m pretty sure that when I saw when I noticed the him it was it was specifically in this usual case that I do all the time ofI read John Russia’s book with the CD when it came out and then later I saw the image I don’t know how I felt of whether I felt that he had already explained it ahead of time I did not feel I think that I should have felt that Rush had already fully provided the explanation I feel like as soon as I saw the lifted garment of the dancing man in Hatteras his fourth generation reproduction of the image following after three other scholars I thought I don’t think I’m pretty sure that when I saw when I noticed the hem

it was it was specifically in this usual case that I do all the time of it always happens this way is that when I put side-by-side a Christian image with a Hellenistic image

in this case I put the dancing man salamander image next to the dinosaurs victory mosaic image and I experienced a problem but there was in an impossibly unlikely exact match in the lifted garment motif and I don’t know why but I did not experience that oh I immediately recognize that obviously that’s a John Rush motif that he explained it took me longer than that to feel confident in that reading I was tending to be skeptical and dismissive that this must be a coincidence

I did not take the approach of immediately saying this is obviously not a coincidence of course John Rush has fully explain this already so I am I have zero surprise about this I simply read it in fact there’s no decoding there’s no nothing to be explained here because John Rush has already completely explained it many years ago

I did not experience that

what I experienced was I have a problem here this is an impossible an impossibly implausible exact match and it cannot be an accident and yet it is infinitely implausible why would a Christian art have the exact identical motive exactly isomorphic with the same strange odd unnatural artificial motif in a Hellenistic mosaic

and then eventually I concluded the John Rush was correct in any case sooner or later well now I know I have collected many many instances of lifted garment all throughout it’s a standard motif throughout Canterbury and I have come to expect and look for that image regularly so John rush fully documented that and fully argument argued for it for interpreting that motif the lifted garment means the altered state from intelligence visionary plants and so every time you say lifted garment every time you point out that motif that is John rush on thatJohn Rush owns that motif when you mention that motif just put in parentheses John Rush

The Greatest Entheogen Scholar

so we must acknowledge it by far the greatest entheogens scholar of all time is this scholar who wrote a generic book on Romanesque art and has given her thumbs down on plaincrawled

she is better positioned then Carl rock in Dr. Jerry Brown an Cybermonk who has made the database of data that the author of the book on Romanesque art has not looked at the database of data and yet that author is the most well-positioned person to to stick her thumb in a downward direction

so step down and step aside a John Lash a Jan Irvin a John Rush because a far greater entheogens scholar than you has entered the scene by virtue of writing a generic book on Romanesque heart and is therefore in a much better position than you to stick her thumb in a downward direction on regarding whether Plaincourault depicts a psychoactive Mushroom

and you guys should start learning something that you’re making an understandable blunder of your ignorance mycologist in their ignorance make a blunder simply because they make the mistake they mistakenly think that plane crawl is a unique instance to justify secret

Insight: the assumption of secret is conflated with Panofsky argument that the image is not unique; when he says ‘unique’, think the word ‘secret‘!

I am making a serious point here announcing a serious point that in my

Sirius point here in my last recording about Plaincourault Ave I failed to it occur to me the secret I failed to bring in the theme of secret and I I know recognize listening to my listening to the egodeath Mystery show last night I recognized oh oops I forgot to tie in the concept of secret that in the argument in Panofsky’s argument about unique that saying so where we had where I talk about the word unique in my in my podcast where I talk about the word unique and the argument where Petoskey argues that if my college just learned if they would only

Panofsky argues if only the mycologist were aware that plane crawl is not unique then they would realize that it can’t be mushrooms because it would logically require that all of the mushroom trees mean mushrooms and that is obviously false what I failed to point out in last nights podcast was that we have involved in the premise of secret the important premise of secret is baked into their thinking here that reasoning that I listed above is premised on the Presupposition of secrecy set the what the what Panofsky believes that he is debating Panofsky believes that he is refuting the idea so he is he is conflating the idea of secret

Panofsky mistakenly thinks that what is

being proposed regarding Plaincourault is that it is specifically a secret Mushroom use he is arguing that plane crawl cannot possibly be a secret Mushroom use because in so he’s conflating the position of it being secret with identifying it as Mushroom for him and this is the same erroneous fat fallacy the same strange bizarre fallacious argument that the agenda requires the agenda requires that you adopt this strange a curious agenda I’m joking about rules heading above the plane crawl passage in which is that heading reads a curious myth in fact I think the chapter title is a curious myth here we have a curious agenda orPanofsky mistakenly thinks that what is being proposed regarding Plaincourault is that it is specifically a secret Mushroom use he is arguing that plane crawl cannot possibly be a secret Mushroom use because in so he’s conflating the position of it being secret with identifying it as Mushroom for him and this is the same erroneous fat fallacy the same strange bizarre fallacious argument that the agenda requires the agenda requires that you adopt this strange a curious agenda I’m joking about rules heading above the plane crawl passage in which is that heading reads a curious myth in fact I think the chapter title is a curious myth here we have a curious agenda or

A Curious Agenda-Driven Conflation

here is the strange reasoning that these people are all forced into it’s really weird they are forced to make a conflation we see these unbelievably invalid conflation how can this person possibly make this conflation I cannot believe it I really literally can’t believe that this person is making this completion why do people make this intensive this Hallmark this Hallmark amazing conflation between the theory that of an Amanita Plaincourault Bing secret what is it with this conflation of the word secret with the sheer use of the plant why are these people so fixated on the premise of secret

we see this for example an Thomas Hatsis his his incredible bizarre puzzling fix nation on the premise of secret why does his thinking absolutely require him to couch everything in terms of secret why is he forced to make that the center of his whole argumentation he is really under the sea or severe delusion that what he’s debating about is the idea of secrecy like why wait I’m not the one bringing that in it’s him he’s bring it in I’m just out I’m coming along afterwards analyzing what is his weird fixation on the the premise of secrecy he thinks it’s in the answer is that to accomplish his agenda he hast to make this conflation of the sheer use of mushrooms with the specificwe see this for example an Thomas Hatsis his his incredible bizarre puzzling fix nation on the premise of secret why does his thinking absolutely require him to couch everything in terms of secret why is he forced to make that the center of his whole argumentation he is really under the sea or severe delusion that what he’s debating about is the idea of secrecy like why wait I’m not the one bringing that in it’s him he’s bring it in I’m just out I’m coming along afterwards analyzing what is his weird fixation on the the premise of secrecy he thinks it’s in the answer is that to accomplish his agenda he hast to make this conflation of the sheer use of mushrooms with the specific

this agenda requires its adherence to make that conflation of the sheer use of mushrooms with the secret use hypothesis for them there is no difference between it’s almost like they are unable to perceive the position which I hold which is the sheer use meaning basically the non-secret use they are not able to perceive the existence of that it’s literally unthinkable to hats us and Panofsky they cannot conceive of the position of non-secret Mushroom use and so therefore I said that’s a curious moved and he let your mix in his books room it’s a very very notable very striking very distinctive move

A very striking very distinctive move that really stands out in Andy Letcher’s book and is very puzzling when he argues the mushrooms are on the door of the church therefore this disprove secret use therefore we have just disapproved the use he cannot he literally cannot conceive because of his agenda he literally the agenda does not permit him to think they thought he is not able to conceptualize and hold the thought like if you tell him your position is non-secret he cannot hear you his ears are closed he can’t hear you they cannot hear the existence of the position of non-secret Mushroom use that’s why they won hundred percent conflate secret useA very striking very Panofsky cannot imagine the concept of non-secret Mushroom use that’s why Pulaski assumes that when people say when people say that plain crawlers mushrooms what he hears them sing is the plane crawled represents secret use and that’s why Panofsky argues and thinks he has a slam dunk argument if only they knew that there are too many mushroom trees prefer it to be secret then people would abandon their assertion that amanita the plain curl means mushrooms now when he says mushrooms you have to understand it is crucial and key and critical you must understand that when Pulaski says mushrooms what he is thinking is secret mushroom use you have to understandPanofsky cannot imagine the concept of non-secret Mushroom use that’s why Pulaski assumes that when people say when people say that plain crawlers mushrooms what he hears them sing is the plane crawled represents secret use and that’s why Panofsky argues and thinks he has a slam dunk argument if only they knew that there are too many mushroom trees prefer it to be secret then people would abandon their assertion that amanita the plain curl means mushrooms now when he says mushrooms you have to understand it is crucial and key and critical you must understand that when Pulaski says

mushrooms what he is thinking is secret mushroom use you have to understand distinctive move that really stands out in Andy Letcher’s book and is very puzzling when he argues the mushrooms are on the door of the church therefore this disprove secret use therefore we have just disapproved the use he cannot he literally cannot conceive because of his agenda he literally the agenda does not permit him to think they thought he is not able to conceptualize and hold the thought like if you tell him your position is non-secret he cannot hear you his ears are closed he can’t hear you they cannot hear the existence of the position of non-secret Mushroom use that’s why they won hundred percent conflate secret use

it is mandatory and essential and crucial you must understand that when this agenda driven adherence when the adherence of this agenda when they say the word Mushroom as in where they talk about the assertion that the mushroom image means mushrooms when they say mushrooms you have to understand that what they are thinking is secret Mushroom use that that is hell 100% deep and intense their absolute conflation of V they cannot differentiate they are the agenda prevents them from being able to differentiate between the hypothesis of mushroom trees mean sheer mushroom usedit is mandatory and essential and crucial you must understand that when this agenda driven adherence when the adherence of this agenda when they say the word Mushroom as in where they talk about the assertion that the mushroom image means mushrooms when they say mushrooms you have to understand that what they are thinking is secret Mushroom use that that is hell 100% deep and intense their absolute conflation of V they cannot differentiate they are the agenda prevents them from being able to differentiate between the hypothesis of mushroom trees mean sheer mushroom usednon-secret they literally cannot think the thought of non-secret Mushroom use they think they’re debating about mushroom trees meaning mushrooms they really really think that that’s the exact same thing about debating whether it is secret mushroom use that’s why they always argue I have traced Letcher making this argument I have traced Hatsis making this argument I have traced Panofsky making this argument they always argue this way they always argue that we proved that mushroom use is not secret therefore we proved that there is no mushrooms they are

their agenda requires them to conflate non-secret Mushroom use with secret mushroom use

and coral rock does that to call rock conflates mushroom use with secret mushrooms he is unable why does a Carl Ruck share the same agenda as the bad guys the the cover up operation call rock agrees with those who adhere to the cover up operation he agrees that the only kind of mushroom use that that you can conceptualize the only possible kind of mushroom use that’s possible is secret mushroom use with they all agreed either their secret mushrooms or there is no mushroom use those are the two options non-secret Mushroom use simply is not an available debate option it is literally inconceivable

there are two kinds of intelligence scholars or there are two kinds of people who consider whether mushrooms in Christian Art mean mushrooms one kind of person is able to conceptualize non-secret Mushroom use the other kind of person is constitutionally in capable of thinking the thought of non-secret Mushroom use and you can really characterize and pinpoint the position that says those mushrooms are not mushrooms you can truly pin the essence the linchpin of their thinking and the linchpin of their agenda driven argumentation and motive reasoning

is that their inability to think the thought non-secret Mushroom use they are under the delusion that the entire debate well maybe it’s a couple different ways to put it or there’s a couple different aspects one good aspect one good clear-cut aspect is they believe that there are only two possible positions either secret mushroom use or else no mushroom use and so they believe as soon as they argue for and disprove secret use they really believe that they have therefore proved no use that is the structure of their argumentation that is the structure of Panofsky’s argumentation he’s arguing that I better do a voice recording on

announcement the word Canterbury means the comic panel that contains mushroom tree number 71 the centerpiece of the Canterbury Psalter which has 75 mushroom trees I have zoomed and cropped to study each one the word Canterbury means that mushroom tree image meaning the entire image and the interpretation of it when we say plane crawl we are not talking about the town we’re not talking about the whole chapel we are talking about that image similarly I am announcing that in the field of intelligence scholarship when we say Canterbury the central focus and connotation of the word Canterbury

The word Canterbury in this context I am announcing also includes the context of the other 74 mushroom trees and lifted garments per John rush and the Ivyvine the Vineleaf trees which accompany the mushroom trees does the word means Canterbury from my point of you the Canterbury Psalter and my point of you centers on that tree number 71 and row the top row of that image and the entire image and together with the other mushroom trees in the other images by the Edwin art group the entire set of

images by the Eid wine artist group the word Canterbury means all of the images by the Eadwine group arranged with the central focus on mushroom tree number 71 the central focus being on that comic panel the word Canterbury means a comic panel a specific comic panel that when I say Canterbury picture a comic panel surrounded by other images imagine a comic book imagine a comic novel consisting of the entire set of images or scenes drawn by The Eid wine artist group the word Canterbury means that comic book consisting of all of the eat wine group images placed with the central image the cover art for the comic novel is 371 centered around which that image is centered around the Salter reader with blades inches from his head and relenting and judgment and mercy and charity charitable

The word Canterbury in this context I am announcing also includes the context of the other 74 mushroom trees and lifted garments per John rush and the Ivyvine the Vineleaf trees which accompany the mushroom trees does the word means Canterbury from my point of you the Canterbury Psalter and my point of you centers on that tree number 71 and row the top row of that image and the entire image and together with the other mushroom trees in the other images by the Edwin art group the entire set of images

is that comic panel centrally focused around the balancing and leg Hanging Mushroom Tree in that image surrounded by the rest of the image surrounded by 74 other mushroom trees throughout the Canterbury Psalter Canterbury means that image that comic book panel and the places where I have drawn the focus but basically it means that comic book panel the word Canterbury means page 134F134 in the URLF134 page number F134

announcement voice transcription plain crawled is the before Christ era Canterbury is the after deuce era plane crawl equals BC Canterbury equals a D from now on I announce for the field seventh age and scholarship the word Canterbury when used in suitable context means mushroom tree number 71 balancing and leg hanging in the con comic panel with the banqueting initiation scene and the test testing the students and the Salter reader who is threatened and has mercy and judgment and the two cyber side smiling guys which I think John lash discovered in his discovery of a lifetime discovered that and other images and there is at least one other website that I used in late 2020 to decode the comic panel we are accustomed to using the word Plaincourault to mean Irving Allegro secret Amanita Image roll for 1925 romance of the fungus world Pulaski critiquing it and 70 years of infantile idiocy and bunk arguments trying hard to deflect that’s what the word Plaincourault means similar and I have done a lot of I have greatly advanced the subject of plain cruel studies of that image including the other day comparing eaves branching ribs and mushrooms as an x-ray to see through the temporary possible as a possibility branching thinking to be able to perceive the underlying nonbranching reality and I pointed out and recognize the difference the snake element the serpent element representing nonbranching in that image of and isomorphic with the sneaking sneaking mushroom stem that the red initiate hangs from with his right leg he’s hanging from a snake a nonbranching snake shaped mushroom stem and talked about the idea of genitals and Genesis and that they are negating their thing I am not the progenitor in the Frisco those are some examples of how I have moved the field of plain cruel studies I Plaincourault Theory and formal structured debate about playing curled as contrasted with the unstructured and unprofessional and under scholarly and sub amateur coverage such as that hack journalist Emma interviewing the no nothing Romanesque book writer scribbler who is not in any position to interpret the image Brown is in the best position obviously because of his background he has relevant knowledge there’s no nothing Romanesque book scribbler is not in any position to judge her opinion is worth nothing and she just participates in the usual Bankster pope conflict of interest cover up operation with the witch Hatsis nothing but a worthless cover-up operation and and a vile deflection deceitful agenda driven no coherent reasoning there are no logical forceful chains of argumentation step it is nothing but her ability to stick her thumb in the air and point Mueaqly to her book on Roman as painting which has jack squat relevance to put her in any position to interpret mushrooms in religious heart the person who is obviously in fact best positioned is myself and Dr. Jerry Brown who actually have relevant as opposed to irrelevant knowledge of the content there’s actually a distinction between medium and content and we are talking about a specialized content here so the sheer fact of knowing about Romanesque painting counts for nothing here it doesn’t necessarily count for anything at all what does this person know about Romanesque painting regarding the subject of the mushroom morphology and specifically the branching and non-branching morphology as one experiences in both of cyber disciples categories of stylized Mushroom imagery and discuss depictions descriptions of effects of mushrooms where the stylization itself is the depiction of the effects when in the case of branching versus nonbranching I have listed my massive long list of exactly relevant credentials what does this Romanesque book author bring to the tableand we are talking about a specialized content here so the sheer fact of knowing about Romanesque painting counts for nothing here it doesn’t necessarily count for anything at all what does this person know about Romanesque painting regarding the subject of the mushroom morphology and specifically the branching and non-branching morphology as one experiences in both of cyber disciples categories of stylized Mushroom imagery and discuss depictions descriptions of effects of mushrooms where the stylization itself is the depiction of the effects when in the case of branching versus nonbranching I have listed my massive long list of exactly relevant credentials what does this Romanesque book author bring to the table nothing but a opinion and bank shotty reasoning that has no chain of compelling force from one step to the next she her opinion carries all the weight of a thumb up counts for nothing let’s see some substance let’s see some actual argumentation from someone who has actual qualifications that are actually relevant like Dr. Jerry Brown for example and read my webpages Romanesque book author read my webpages read my catalog that I have delivered on what Dr. Jerry Brown asked for a catalog of database like in grab you by the scruff of your neck and shove your head into the data deal with the data deal with the hundreds and hundreds of either you have to take the position that none of the main mushrooms are you with that either you have to take the position that all of the main psychoactive mushrooms or that none of that means like white mushrooms in which case you need to deliver do you have a big problem on your hands how do you explain why psychoactive mushrooms would not be in religious art given the fact that you have to agree with that we all know and we all agree science agrees that psychoactive my psychoactive mushrooms cause religious experiencing so please explain to me without modeled arbitrary logic please give me an actual compelling explanation of why would not Christian religious art contain images of psychoactive mushrooms and contain descriptions of the effects of revealing the non-branching truth versus the branching illusion don’t tell me again exactly how your best position to interpret such things apparently you were unaware that everybody knows that mushrooms cause religious experiencing and so are perfectly appropriate to conclude that all of the mushroom trees all mean psychoactive mushrooms deliberately ingested for religious experiencing if you were actually best position you would draw that conclusion the fact that you don’t drive that obvious conclusion indicates that you are not at all best positioned in the best position according to judgment of the investigative journalist he’s gone so far as to collect a tally of thumbs up and thumbs down real deep research there return enter carriage return

New lineReturn new lineI am announcing in the field of intelligence scholarship in which I have contributed significant research to clean corrode studies the sub topic of playing crawl studies within the field of intelligence scholarship I have also helped establish and genuinely established for the first time Canterbury studies we agree it has been established the kids

it has been established the convention that the word Plaincourault means the controversy I don’t I don’t grace it with the word debate is not a debate it is a stupid slap fight it is not a proper debate about the plane crawl fresco image it is I can agree that it is a controversy it is not a debate it is a controversy wasson and Allegro never had they never engaged in a debate they deflected they avoided just like graves ended up choosing to not write any more than 85 pages they deflected and he self deflected to avoid the subject it’s a cover-up avoidanceA cover-up avoidance deflection operation is not the same thing as a debate what plane crawl has been for 70 years is not a debate but a deflection avoidance cover up operation anyway the word Plaincourault has come to mean that image of the 52 arms on the left two arms on the right three arms holding up the With a serpent with a serpents head mouth carrying fruit psychoactive obviously fruit but psychoactive containing the payload message of non-b

Nonbranching and the serpents head is at the elevation of the branching you have the serpents head among the branching of the central Do you have Adam on the left Eve on the right covering themselves with mushroom caps over their genitals which Jennifer’s gift would give them the power of steering and the power of creating their future thoughtsreadA cover-up avoidance deflection operation is not the same thing as a debate what plane crawl has been for 70 years is not a debate but a deflection avoidance cover

up operation anyway the word Plaincourault has come to mean that image of the 52 arms on the left two arms on the right three arms holding up the With a serpent with a serpents head mouth carrying fruit psychoactive obviously fruit but psychoactive containing the payload message of non-bread Nonbranching and the serpents head is at the elevation of the branching you have the serpents head among the branching of the central Do you have Adam on the left Eve on the right covering themselves with mushroom caps over their genitals which Jennifer’s gift would give them the power of steering and the power of creating their future thoughts

Voice mistranscription

Ever since I published the Plaincourault Panofsky Wasson Allegro article in 2006 for the journal of Higher criticism I always argued in that article I argued there is something missing from Panofsky’s letter something is missing from Panofsky’s letter

recently I have felt bad because John Irving and I failed to spot the ellipses where Wason censored out Panofsky citation of Brinkman’s book tree stylestrees Stylizations in Medieval paintings

I have now connected those two to resolve and give myself a pass

I can’t really speak to you on Irving I don’t know if you’re on Irving Young Irvin did not tell me as far as I remember and we did not discuss as far as I remember that somethings wrong here citation needed where is that citation

there is a citation missing somewhere a citation has gone missing

that was definitely I wrote that in the article I wrote in the article that a citation is missing or that I said Tatian has gone missing I wrote that in the article

what did John Irving discuss that with me I don’t remember I believe that this was minors I believe that I noticed that a citation was missing and I believe that Jan Irvin did not comment on that I believe that Jan Irvin did not identify and recognize that a citation had gone missing

I did not suspect that Panofsky had provided what anyone would expect which is a citation I criticize Panofsky’s article I criticized Panofsky for failing to provide a citation

however I should have I am I have a short coming here in 2006 I have a short coming given that I complained where the hell is the citation like in what publication have the art scholars scholars treated explicitly the question do mushrooms me mushrooms and Kristen are do mushrooms mean mushrooms in Christian art

I should have connected the dots literally given that I was complaining in the article I criticized Panofsky for failing to provide what an anyone would expect a scholarly citation

where exactly have art historians discussed this question as such I complained about that in the article

and I copied wasson republishing of Pulaski’s article including wasson… So here I am ironically in my article I’m writing that panache i’m writing obviously one would demand a citation where the hell is the citation Panofsky is failing to provide a citation

and then I published wasson’s copy of Pulaski’s letter and I included wasson ellipses …

The dots I failed literally I I literally failed to connect the dots specifically those dots which was an added in place of Brinkman citation the citation a Brinckmann’s book by a Panofsky

I failed to connect those specific literal dots

of course it’s obvious now and I’m giving myself credit while also identifying where I failed to connect the dots literally I’m also giving myself of 2006 credit

I wrote in the article that I have identified a flaw a professional lapse and a gap and an omission from what we would obviously expect from Panofsky as a professional art historian obviously we would expect a citation

so I did identify that the citation was missing and I did include the dots the ellipses that Wason added in place of the citation but why failed to connect those dots those specific dots of the ellipses to what I was demanding and pointing out as missing in the article

are you I recent in the article surely surely obviously one would demand a citation why in the hell is there no citation where is the citation tell me where in this letter is the obvious mandatory requisite necessary citation

and then I printed the dots that Wason put in place of the citation – I failed to connect those dots to the obviously glaringly missing giant screaming gap a gigantic gap of omission cries out in the copy of Panofsky’s article where is the citation safety

you could say you could call them the citation needed… I didn’t connect those two:

1) number one a glaring lack of a citation where everyone on earth would expect and demand a citation and then number two

2) … Which are physically placed literally placed exactlywhere in this letter is the obvious mandatory requisite necessary citation and then I printed the dots that Wason put in place of the citation

I failed to connect those dots to the obviously glaringly missing giant screaming gap a gigantic gap of omission cries out in the copy of Panofsky’s article where is the citation safety you could say you could call them the citation needed… I didn’t connect those two 1) number one a glaring lack of a citation where everyone on earth would expect and demand a citation and then 2) number two… Which are physically placed literally placed exactly literally placed exactly precisely in the physical spot where we would expect a citation

why wasn’t I astute enough to realize that those dots are probably hiding where there is a citation but in in the literal location where I would absolutely expect the citation to be placed what I see instead is…

Therefore I should have speculated I will bet that those ellipses are hiding and censoring out a citation because that is the exact location where I would expect the absolutely expected citation to be provided but what we have in the exact spot

it’s almost like it’s almost like Wason has the word bibliography at the bottom of his reach reprint of the letter it’s as if Wason has given us the heading at the bottom called citations and bibliography and then he is placed ellipses there…

That’s the extent to which his I should’ve seen it I should’ve seen it because the ellipses are placed precisely in the physical location where I would expect and demand and where anyone on earth would expect and demand a citation right there at that location is where there are…

Jan Irving and I will we didn’t really dwell on this point I don’t remember discussing it but it was bothering me it was

the thing that bothered me the number one thing that bothered me about Panofsky’s letter was where is the damn citation this is worthless this is in no way an art historian writing this letter in no way meets the basic requirements because he claims that the treatment was made but he gives no citation that I can follow up to it

this is basic this is utterly extremely utterly the basics of scholarship as you have to provide me with the citation so that I can check your claims it

if you don’t provide a citation then you don’t have scholarship you just have arm waving claims

you claim that the scholars have discussed it but yet why don’t you provide a citation

and that was the number one thing that I wrote my number one criticism of Pulaski’s letter that I criticize them for my top criticism in my article that I criticized Panofsky for was you failed to provide a citation but I should have been astute enough to notice thatwriting this letter in no way meets the basic requirements because he claims that the treatment was made but he gives no citation that I can follow up to it this is basic this is utterly extremely utterly the basics of scholarship as you have to provide me with the citation so that I can check your claims it if you don’t provide a citation then you don’t have scholarship you just have arm waving claims you claim that the scholars have discussed it but yet why don’t you provide a citation and that was the number one thing that I wrote my number one criticism of Pulaski’s letter that I criticize them for my top criticism in my article that I criticized Panofsky for was you failed to provide a citation but I should have been astute enough to notice thatThe precise location where I would expect him to Bright pride provide a citation was instead… Which are obviously from Wassen there’s no way that Panofsky would have written those ellipses dots obviously and it’s manifestly obvious that of course Wassen wrote those dots I should have been able to interpret the… As I did dues

I should’ve written in the 2006 article I deduce that Wason have censored out a scholarly citation here because this is location of exactly where I would expect the mandatory requisite required citation to be provided

I would expect it to be provided right here and what’s here instead is… Therefore I bet that these… Are censoring out a scholarly citation! I wish I had written that that would’ve been very very astute of me and would have really resolved my demand something is very wrong here if there is something completely suspicious about Lawsons publishing this article there is no way any scholar would make this argument without providing a damn citation and instead we have… Therefore I should’ve written there for these… Must it it logically follows and it stands to reason therefore the citations must be hiding these… Must be hiding a citation because there is no way it is not possible for Pulaski to have written a letter without providing citations this is absolutely unacceptable the notion to what would make his assertion without providing a citation it it cannot be Panofsky cannot have made the assertion that art scholars have treated the matter the question without providing a citation Panofsky therefore we can be sure that pin asking must have provide as a citation and what we have instead in the exact location where we would expect and demand as a basic inherent requirement right in that spot is… And therefore it stands to reason that these ellipses which Wason placed wasson must have censored out a scholarly citation right here at these…