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.