A few years back I was alive with the excitement of a discovery that changed my outlook, that “Paul McCartney” was actually two men, a set of twins. Once I got a thorough immersion in their faces, they became easily to tell apart, so that I can easily see that today’s Paul McCartney is actually “Mike,” though we do not have the luxury of knowing their real names.
That information in tow, I put together a (in retrospect, sloppy) blog post on the matter, and submitted it to Miles Mathis. He rejected it as not up to standards, which I easily accepted, as I was indeed a newbie. At a certain point in the succeeding conversation he suggested one flaw in my writing: “You make too many assumptions.”
One embarrassing assumption in that original piece was that the original Paul we knew from A Hard Day’s Night grew tired of the program – replacement Paul, Mike, would shamelessly promote the use of LSD, a destructive chemical. I suggested that Paul wanted no part of such criminal destruction of young minds.
On what basis? None. I assumed. In fact, the entire paper was riddled with such assumptions.
Later I suggested at one point that the movie Let Him Be, which features a real and living John Lennon, was a swan song, that Lennon was finally succumbing to his cigarette habit and was saying good-bye for real. On what basis? Well, on film, he smoked. Otherwise, none.
It is a hard habit to break, and easy to backslide. I catch myself all the time, and do not catch myself often enough. I go into a project attempt to prove this or that point of view, and am quickly unnerved by the evidence which suggests not A, not B, but rather P or X. An entire new outlook is needed.
Thus did I enter the fray of Grizzly Man, and deduced based on memories twelve years old that the movie was real. I only wrote about the movie because it led me to discover unexpected factor “P”, that the actor Woody Harrelson, whose father Chuck is alleged to be (on the left) one of three men in the famous tramp photos from Dealey Plaza, and who supposedly lived out his life in prison where he was alleged to confess to having had a role in the assassination.
Using Geni.com I followed the Harrelson line back to Virginia colony, where it dead ends in the 17th century. What does that tell us? It tells us that Woody Harrelson’s lineage can be traced back to Virginia colony in the 17th century, and nothing more. The name Harrelson does not appear in ThePeerage.com, though there are enticing similarities between names there and Harrelson. What does that tell us? That the name Harrelson does not appear in ThePeerage.com.
In summary, more research is needed, and we cannot know where it will lead. One thing is certain: Since the JFK assassination was a fake event, the presence of Charles Harrelson in Dealey Plaza, if that is indeed him, has some other meaning, something less sinister than we assumed before.
I decided to take a look at Woody Harrelson’s mother, and there I found an enticing lead: Her full name is Diane Lou Harrelson (Oswald). This dovetailed nicely with a Mathis Paper called “Looks Like JFK was Gay,” in which towards the end he finds the Oswald family to be blood line, and even possibly linked to the Kennedy’s. I turned that information over to Mathis, who said he would look into it.
What conclusions to draw? None. What assumptions to make? Many. But it is better to label them “speculations without evidence.” What we have is this: Charles Harrelson possibly present at Dealey and part of a high-quality professional photo of three men walking; his son Woody having easy access to fame and high-profile roles in Hollywood despite what I view as only a meager ration of real talent; evidence presented by Mathis of a link between the Oswald’s and the Kennedy’s; a statement somewhere else that I won’t go looking for to the effect that all these people are related.
Finding then that Woody’s mother’s maiden name was Oswald is intriguing. Nothing more. Her lineage dead ends “between 1824 and 1884,” the birth of her gg grandfather. On her maternal side are Lauterwassen’s and McElwain’s and Sims and “Leonard.” (My own mother was a Leonard. Cue eerie music!) At this point I realize that I need far more breadth than I have, and while I won’t abandon the project, I have to let it percolate. I need seasoning.
Conclusions: None. Speculation: Woody Harrelson and Lee Harvey Oswald might be cousins. Is that reason to stop? No. It is reason to go forward, to get better at this stuff. Right now I am in the shallow end of the pool. I might be on to something, I might be dangerous.
I did not sit down this morning to write out all of that. I had another complaint in mind. In the post below, Grizzly Deaths, I started out, having watched the movie again, thinking it was a hoax.
- I thought I had spotted two characters, Willy Fulton, a bush pilot, and Franc G. Fallico, a coroner, who were mere actors. Each turned out to be a real person, one, Fallico now dead (at age 66, cue music). Fulton is still a bush pilot, with one movie to his credit, one called “Grizzly Man.”
- I viewed the Treadwell-shot video scenes in the move as slick and professional, which was odd, but not conclusive, as I found out from other sources that Treadwell had very good equipment. He was also an actor.
- I found the closing scenes, Timothy walking away in the presence of foxes and brown bears, to be predictive of his demise, and thought that suspicious. Then I realized that he had it in his mind to make a movie, explaining both those scenes and the high-quality equipment. While the scenes are slick, it is, again, inconclusive.
- I found his use of the name “Treadwell,” in ThePeerage.com, to be suspicious, but then found it was his mother’s maiden name, and that it is not prominent in the peerage, just there. I have Treadwell’s among my non-blood relatives, and they claim their ancestry to go back to John Alden of the Mayflower group. Many people do that.
- I found Amie Huguenard to have a prominent name of French origin, so that we have now two people who are possibly blood liners.
It all makes me suspicious, but what solid evidence did I have? Nothing conclusive. I had only one thin reed to hang on to: If it can be shown that the footage of Treadwell and the bears is the product of green screening, then we can safely conclude that the movie is a hoax, and that Treadwell and Huguenard merely went on to assume new identities. To that end I have asked a man I know in advertising who has decades of experience to view the footage. It looks real to me, but I can be fooled. He has agreed, and I will accept his verdict as final. If he says it is real, it does not mean the movie is not a hoax. If he says it is green screened, it means the movie is a hoax.
What troubles me is that in all of the comments below that post, only two of us have actually viewed the movie. Everyone else is operating on assumptions. The most common assumption is “It is fake until proven otherwise.” This is a stepchild of an even larger assumption: Everything is fake.
Everything is not fake. Everything is not real. Everything should be examined without assumptions.
That is all I set out to say some umpteen paragraphs ago. Have a nice Saturday. Or Sunday if you are in some part of the world where it is now tomorrow.
37 thoughts on “Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions …”
On Harrelson->Harralson->… I see “Denmark”, so it should be related to “Haralsson”, “Haraldson”, “Haraldsson”, etc.
A Swede with the name Haralsson. Must be a very common last name in Scandinavia, as “son of Harald”, a common first name there, especially in those ages.
“Of all the immigrants from Scandinavia, those from Sweden were the first to come to the U.S., and they came in the greatest numbers. In the early 17th century, the nation of Sweden had become a substantial power in Europe, and it joined with other powerful nations in launching colonial enterprises in the New World. In 1637, a group of Swedish speculators, together with German and Dutch investors, formed the New Sweden Company in order to send a trade expedition to North America. The next year, the Company’s two ships, the Fogel Grip and the Kalmar Nickel, sailed into Delaware Bay, where the settlers founded the town of Fort Christina, now the city of Wilmington, Delaware.
Over the next two decades, the farms and villages of New Sweden spread out along both banks of the Delaware River, well into present-day New Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania, as more immigrants, mostly Swedes, arrived from Scandinavia. By 1657, though, the small colony was swallowed up by the larger New Netherlands, which was in turn subsumed by the massive English settlement founded by William Penn.”
Which closes a loop:
Swedish/Danish immigration to US -> Woody Harrelson ~> Grizzly Man ~> Into the Wild -> directed by Sean Penn
Harrelson has a very extensive genealogy. Woody’s 2nd g-grandfather Edmond “Morgan” Harrelson married a woman named Mary Almira Emily Taylor. She is the key component here. Edmond’s mother was Elizabeth Mancill, and her grandfather was Edward “Green” Mancill (1760-1840). On his Findagrave profile, it states, “He owned land as far as the eye could see in all directions.”
Mary Taylor’s mother was Elizabeth Mary nee Carter (1830-1912). Geni lists her father as Jack W. Carter and stops. His full name was Jackson Washington Carter, and he was born in Baldwin Georgia, not South Carolina. Geni appears to be misdirecting. The only way to find him is to google his father “William Robert Carter 1757”. Once you are there just click on the carter name and the first result is “Captain Daniel Carter, Ancestor of President Theodore Roosevelt.” The next Carter was baptized as a Mormon. Then geni misdirects again conflicting with information provided by Wikitree and Ancestry.com. There are 10 family trees on Ancestry with consistent information and coincides with Wikitree, but this is getting tedious. The bottom line is these are the Carters of Virginia from which Jimmy Carter descends.
Lee Harvey Oswald’s 3g-grandmother, the wife of Joseph Oswald Jr., was Ann Carter, born in Newport, Georgia. Her parents are scrubbed, of course.
Baldwin and Newport Georgia are 67 miles apart.
Now that’s what I am talking about. A rookie could not possibly see all of that. Does Geni routinely misdirect? Are Wikitree, Ancestry and Geneanet more reliable?
And do you work, like I do, without memberships?
I subscribe to ancestry.com because I physically build trees there. I also use geni, wikitree, and findagrave.com (and some other lesser known sites) as cross-references or when the trail goes cold at ancestry. If there is too much conflicting info on Ancestry and I can’t get a consensus among the other sites, I leave it alone/out. Geni was the only site that conflicted here, no way to know if it was intentional.
Usually, it’s not misdirecting as much as omission. Just like Lee Harvey Oswald’s GGG-grandmother in this case.
I think the misdirection is intentional in this case. I’ll show you why if you care to play along.
Google “Daniel Carter 1700” and then take the geni.com link. This takes you to the profile of the “Ancestor of President Theodore Roosevelt”. Now scroll down to see two links titled “Ancestry Genealogy – Smart Copy”. The first link erroneously lists his parents as Edward Carter and Elizabeth Thornton. Now look at sources and what do you see? “No Sources”. Now take the second link which (correctly) lists his parents as Thomas Carter and Arabella Williamson.
It provides 5 sources including birth, death, and marriage records.
Why then did the manager of the profile at Geni.com choose the non-sourced option? He/she could have also cross-referenced other sites as confirmation.
I too can tell them apart, even as early as Hard Day’s Night, when they looked more alike than later. Mike/Paul has the bunny teeth. and John (James)/Paul is the cute one. John Lennon may not live to 100, but was likely alive during the John Lennon 75th birthday concert and video last year. Just look at the cheery song from Ringo and the cheery video from Paul. They’re not communicating with heaven. John’s cousin in Let Him Be, Graham Wignall, (a charming actor and character) looked like a real relative, if not a young John, and passed away in 2012. However, I am now more concerned about the future than the past… Where is the joy for the powers that be in living in a devolved dystopic world imprisoned behind gilded gates?
Are you sure that Wignall died?
Am I sure that Wignall died? [March 24 2012, apparently] Er no. Based on his reported “sudden and unexpected death ” in a hospital in Toronto. Hospitals are also key players in hoaxes and faked deaths, a nice compartmentalised location with plenty of safe pairs of hands to be called on when needed.
I found this blog post interesting..
No previous acting skills, eh? Born 1938 in South Liverpool, the same district as John, but two years earlier.
I haven’t seen the film, but I guess that’s Wignall at 1:22 in the Vimeo trailer for the film, or 1.00 on a You Tube trailer.
I have the movie sitting here … I’ll never watch it again. Contact me at mark at mpthct dot com and we can arrange to mail it to you.
I like Woody Harrelson. He’s no Anthony Hopkins, mind you- Convivial menace might be a way to describe what he does, even when just trying to be funny. Ramparts, a 2011 film scripted by James Ellroy, is Woody at his best.
Back in the day I had a notion that the three tramps were used as a signal for all participants in Dealey Plaza to stand down; that the show was over and every asset was free to get out of Dodge. The prominent route they took from the box cars to the jail would put them in view of all possible angles shooter teams might take up. The fact that they were also part of the Masonic trappings helped to misdirect from their possible practical purpose.
These days I think the Masonic parade is all they were used for- whenever those photos were taken. Three reliables playing the part of Shadrach, Meshach, and good ol’ Abednego. A layer to be waylaid upon in a fruitless search for who killed HOPE! Etc.
PS- Ed Landsdale, often thought of as THE person of interest in the “murder/military coup” is glimpsed in lost profile in one of the tramp photos. Yet another rabbit to chase for the “Pentagon did it” folks, which included, most prominently, Mae Brussell.
So what if you assume? I do too, we all do. Assumptions are always based on some beliefs and some of them are very much true . You can assume to get hurt if you fall down with your face first, and such assumption doesn’t need personal experience to stand firm. When you assumed about Paul, that was your own belief about goodness prevailing within people. There’s nothing wrong about it and I wish it was true, although it can actually stop you from getting to the core of the truth. So it depends how close to the truth you want to be / get. In Beatles’ case, it actually doesn’t really matter why there was an exchange Mike/Paul, and maybe you were even right about it and Paul revolted against abuse. It was most probably for numerous reasons, because – I assume based on many cases – nothing is ever simple in PTB’s intrigues. As much as in MM’s case, he assumes as much as anybody else trying to figure out the question of “why?”, the most important one beside the “who”, where he speculates much more than you do in your genealogy attempts.
You’re right, of course, both of you. I enjoyed Harrelson in Zombieland, especially when they come on a truckload of Twinkies, and even though hungry, he refuses to eat them because they have coconut on them. He does not like the texture. And you, Vex, are right too that we all make assumptions … maybe I should be clearer … be aware that when you operate on assumptions you might overlook many other possibilities. And Mathis too makes a boatload of them, especially in connecting family names, which I did not do here even as there were tempting counterparts in the peerage. Gaia opened up the new and better possibilities there.
Good comments, all. It makes writing worthwhile.
Agreed with both Tyrone (esp. about Woody) and Vexman (and hence Mark). In a discussion I had with John Le Bon about science, or psience, he and I disagree quite a bit. I described it to him as “we have a different tolerance level for assumptions” and he agreed with that observation. The extreme of the spectrum would be nihilism; making NO assumptions whatsoever. A position I personally find empty (“nihil”) and useless because you kicked away the toolbox to analyze all these hoaxes/staged events/stories.
Science, or scientism, is literally full of assumptions. The biggest theories we use everyday are based on it (evolution, Big Bang, gravity/heliocentrism to just name a few).
So if we find ourselves in a battle with “the mainstream”, they cannot use that “argument” against us; they themselves use much more and much bigger assumptions than we could ever come up with. First of all the assumption of believing in their everyday more ridiculous stories.
As long as we recognize our assumptions (and label them right), we are safe; “to know that we know that we know, and that we don’t know what we do not know, that is true knowledge” – (attributed to) Confucius
I am interested in the “everything is fake” assumption. Everything is fake is a bit more narrow since it is usually assumed that everything is fake that is promoted by media, government, large institutions (something that has some authority). There are some subgroups that talk about holographic moon or even holographic earth (actually some of these ides are promoted by mainstream). The holographic ideas are probably easy to connect and used to promote the use of various psychedelic drugs in order to “reach higher truths”. The elites will be happy to provide these people with some kind of “soma”. My point is that “everything is fake” is probably not a good assumption, if you want to have a solid philosophical foundation. The people that believe in the more narrow assumption (authorities promote fake stuff), are in a better position. But even most of these people may miss important things. For example I see a lot of problems regarding most history (including the narratives, the chronology etc), but I am still interested in reading the “primary sources”. I may have many doubts about the stories in the Bible, Tacitus or Herodotus, but I am still interested in these stories. These books are still important if you want to understand many elements of our civilization, even if they were written only 200 years ago using made up stories. The situation is even worse if you dismiss authors like Epictetus, Cicero or Euclid, because you believe they are invented characters.
Regarding making assumptions in general, I believe it is ok to start with a few standard assumptions when you treat a subject. If the subject is something that is new to you and it is not very related to your prior expertise, it is probably better to have fewer assumptions. If the subject is related to your expertise, you already probably have many patterns in your mind about the subject. The patterns in your mind already formed a few standard assumptions, but this is ok because they are based on some prior experience. No need to act as if you are tabula rasa with respect to every subject encountered. Nonetheless, I believe it is a good idea to review your basic or standard assumptions from time to time. Also be aware of logical fallacies and cognitive biases (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases ).
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is probably the best comment I am going to see today, or this week, so it is a good time to stop. But I won’t, of course. Perhaps a change of terminology is useful, instead of assumption using “working hypothesis.” That at least has some humility underneath, an open admission as we proceed that the assumption could be mistaken.
These past few weeks I have a come to grips with the AIDS industry, and now Darwinian evolution, where people of great reasoning ability have dismantled the body of assumptions to uncover what one person (whose name I did not write down, dammit) called a “vast system of mental cheating.” Behind AIDS in particular is force, not just bad assumptions, but willful manipulation of money and data to lead people to false conclusions. “Force” means punishment of deviants as well. The result, bad science, is rewarded. If Mathis is right, the same procedures apply to physics and quantum mechanics too.
We are living in a bogus world, so our search is to find things that are real. Everything is not false, but it takes some searching.
You have not sourced how you ID ed C. Harrelson, the tall guy on the left of your photo above. His son, Woody, is kinda short and that tall guy is probably 6’2″ or more. They don’t look alike. That tall guy looks like Tim Robbins, the actor, of Shaw Shank Connection fame. I checked the timeline and Tim’s Wiki or imdb page list an age that is not within that time-frame. However, we all know that TPTB rewrite profiles of actors, politicians, famous celebs all the time. I vote for Tim Robbins: the right look and height. Also his career really took off after the JFK hoax and he is one of the A list now. You are on a wild goose chase with Chuck Harrelson.
Right you are! I think I worded that to the effect that he is alleged to be Chuck. I spent waaaay too much time on that sort of stuff before Mathis lifted the veil. The tramps were just another rabbit hole.
I suppose I should look into Chuck as part of the get out of jail free series. I could also do a facial analysis. Dammit.
Holt identified the other two men as known mob-related murderers Charles Harrelson and Charles Rogers (aka Richard Montoya). Holt’s claim gained attention when Lois Gibson, a widely recognized forensic artist and facial expert who works for the Houston Police Department, conducted an analysis in which she affirmed her certainty the three men were Holt, Harrelson and Rogers.
According to MM, the mob went out of business after WWII taken over by the spooks (CIA). I don’t buy any analysis from government that needs to maintain the hoax.
Point taken, but I’d believe the tramps were never there at all rather than trying to push Tim Robbins into the scenario.
I am having a hard time following … Tim Robbins was four years old in 1963. What is the connection?
Ask Zoomah. He proposed it, and you replied: “Right you are!”
“Right you are” referred to the ID as the guy on the left in the photo as Charles Harrelson. When I wrote the post I was not willing to make that assertion or do any research beyond the rabbit hole stuff I had done and abandoned. I do not know or claim to know who any of the three are. I was aware of the Lois Gibson testimony though I did not remember her name. She is, I assume, a plant.
Well, I connected Harrelson’s grandparent to Oswald’s grandparent within 67 miles. I will not spend one more minute on JFK.
But, according to Zoomah, ” we all know that TPTB rewrite profiles of actors, politicians, famous celebs all the time. I vote for Tim Robbins”.
“According to MM, the mob went out of business after WWII taken over by the spooks”. Right. Because he said so? We only have his opinion to support that sentence, correct?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Making too many assumptions? Really? how many is “too many”? I assume you are telling the truth about your exchange with Mr. Mathis. If so, hmmmm…. I prefer to keep my opinion to myself. It all depends on the argument you are making, to make your argument you need premises or as you call them, assumptions. 1 or 2 premises or assumptions? how valid is your argument? Complex arguments may require several assumptions or premises.
I guess I need to think and express myself in a clearer manner. Let’s distinguish between blinding assumptions and experimental assumptions. What I started with in the McCartney business was a blinding assumption, that of the essential honest and good nature of the original Paul. I let it cloud my judgment. Had I removed any emotional content from the work and just examined the evidence, I would not have gone down that path. I am prone to making those kinds of assumptions, especially, for example, in the women I have dated in my life, assuming too many noble qualities. (We call this “falling in love,” but it is more like allowing body chemicals and imagination overrule objective reality.)
So take another example, that of JFK’s morgue photos. Mathis (who makes errors) told us in his groundbreaking essay that the man in those photos was not dead and was not JFK. In looking at other photos of JFK, I realized that the man on the table indeed looked very much like JFK, so much so that I had to believe that he really had died that day. So I took a harder look at the assumption behind the Mathis comment, and went and got a left profile shot of the living JFK and overlaid it on the morgue photo and got an exact match … except that the ears did not line up. I realized that Mathis was half-right – the man on the table was not dead, but it was JFK … his face, photographically superimposed on another man’s body, some stunning work.
Mathis made a blinding assumption that caused the work to stop in place when more work needed to be done. Assumptions can work for and against us, to we always need to keep arm’s length and regard them all as potentially wrong. We just have to keep working, keep pushing. This work is fun and difficult and never done and we do make mistakes.
“if you assume you make an ass of you and me” I have it from Stephen King. We all have to assume many times anyway. There is no way around it. Everything starts with an assumption, right? If we’re right, it will solidify itself given time, if we’re wrong it will fail. From current events we learned how far they go to fake them, so the assumption Kennedy was not killed is more then justified. Details like was it him on the picture are not of much weight.
The fake morgue photo sealed it for me, removed all doubt.
Back in 2013, I was amazed by MM’s paper… (I find curious that his paper preceded 90 days or so TM’s JFKTV’s paper) after many moons passed, let me say I am raising new questions withou demeriting his paper. Let’s assume it was a fake death for a moment. I am being shortsighted for sure, I still cannot see the benefits (cui bono)/appeal of faking his death or taking the presidency underground. Besides, we also know any president (JFK included) is not a real ruler. JFK certainly was not the one to break this spell. Some documents have been released but I doubt I will ever delve into them but just ICYMI: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trump-expected-to-release-remaining-jfk-assassination-documents-thursday/2017/10/25/52c8f71a-b9b7-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.3652edf300e1
What is your take on the motive/purpose of faking the death?
As long as it is labeled speculation: Big changes were in store – the Vietnam War, the fake moon landings, the Beatles. JFK ascended to the presidency as a chosen one, young, handsome, beautiful family, idealistic and smart (a speed reader, we were told). The youth of America fell for him big time, were doing 50-mile hikes, were basically coming alive and were deeply proud of their country. Then he was gunned down. The result was a traumatized public, and that trauma was part of our conditioning – trauma-based mind control. Then came the Beatles, and all those screaming girls, and that too was induced, but coming as they did three months after the assassination, I have to believe that what we witnessed was an outpouring of grief as well as sexual desire. We were then hit again and again with assassinations and the war and crazy events around the war, never allowed to regain footing until such time as perhaps half of our brains were occupied by trauma and anxiety.
And that is how they chose to govern us and still do to this day. Government by trauma-based mind control.
I still do not what to make of it, feel that something is in there but perhaps someone will get this clue: In 1960, for the election we know very well the Democrat candidates were: JFK and LB Johnson. We also know the Repulican presidential candidate was Nixon. WHo was the republican vice-president candidate? Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. Idk about you, but the way I see it Cabot family + Lodge family > Kennedy family. Nobody touches on the Boston Brahmins that much among researchers, or perhaps I missed a paper on them. At least the MSM researchers and alternative ones, just saying.
one more thought: the closed files. Why is there need to keep closed files and promise to open them many centuries after the event? I assume, this way they can invent new details or adapt the narrative to farther mislead the sheep.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s like a good Broadway play … they never want to close it down. Although I understand Cats is done now, but then, I said “good” Broadway play. One of my favorite movie lines is Bruce Willis in Sixth Sense walking out of the 6th grade play, and when asked how he liked it says “I liked it better than Cats.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
This isn’t a battle over semantics. We are researching for that elusive truth. MM in many of his “Update” papers mentions the takeover of the mobs post WWII. He regularly documents many of his observations or conclusions. That mob takeover is mentioned in more than one paper although I can’t tell you which ones. There is evidence, not just Mile’s word. Now you can dig around in MM’s papers and do real research instead of criticizing everyone else!
My comment had an inquiring tone but perhaps came across as polemical. Your comment (I sensed) was trying to make me feel bad for criticizing. First of all, I have not criticized. Second, If I did, what’s wrong with that? So I do not care criticizing other’s ideas or work as long as I do it respecting the person’s dignity. Go tell the Lucchese, Gambino, Gennovese, Bonnano or Colombo families that they are spooks and that the Kennedy clan owns them and see how it goes from there. They might as well have stickers in their cars like this: “Protected by the Mob. You hit me, we hit you”. You assume I have not researched MM’s paper. Wrong. I am not that stupid to throw out an opinion without not knowing what I am talking about. But I do not want to disrupt the topic of the comments I just replied to you out as a friendly neighbor without any animosity.