OK, so there's a lot going on here and as you've made a similar post in a different thread that includes some other points that are also worth addressing, there's a lot to keep track of, so please bear with me.
Now, before diving into the weeds, I think one of the significant issues at hand is why it matters who decided to call this mix changa. What's in a name? Why does it matter if Joe Shmoe or Fulano de Tal or whoever crafted the name changa? What utility does it have? Who came up with the name hippy flip or candy flip? Would a different name lead to a different set of experiences?
I just don't see why it matters, even though you assert
Surely you can see that even after reading your assertion that this matters "to a lot of people," there's no explanation or reasoning given as to why it matters; just that it was significant and that you are the inventor, rather than some old dreadlocked Australian lady.
I too have read (and own) a copy of MSIH and I think Graham did a stellar job in compiling a veritable mountain of information. While it certainly is an odd experience to find oneself referenced in a drug history tome, it appears you've gotten slightly ahead of yourself. Don't let that fame go to your head boyo! The passages that deal with you as the originator/inventor/namer of changa all appear to cite works by you, exclusively! I'm talking specifically about the passages from p167-p172, as those appear to be the pages relevant to the discussion at hand.
Surely you can see how that would leave a skeptic unconvinced, especially when numerous reputable Australians (and others) have disputed your claim to be the "inventor" of changa, with some acknowledging that perhaps "namer of changa" would match their historical experiences/knowledge/understandings.
For instance, in
the other thread I mentioned at the beginning of this post, nen888 states:
There's also
nen's post stating:
As an aside...do you really believe that someone living in Australia would figure out to make a blend with plants indigenous to South America before the South Americans would? Really? You can say with a straight face that that passes your plausibility test?
So we have documented discrepancies, which your insistence to the contrary doesn't dispel as there appears to be no evidence being presented to support said insistence. Or at least it hasn't been presented here, as far as I can tell.
You then go on to state:
Please forgive me for saying so, but certainly you are not setting the bar for other human knowledge/experience based on who you have come across and/or what you have heard, are you?
Your assertions re: Ott and others are directly contradicted by nen888. When you go on to state that "I have NEVER heard of that, but the point is, even if that was the case, that only stayed with them and maybe their circle of friends," you seem to not only be asserting that your awareness defines the scope of human knowledge, but also that if someone invented changa and didn't publicize it to the point where you heard it, it "doesn't count" or something to the effect. Can you see why this might cause people to raise an eyebrow (or two)?
But that's not all,
because in that other thread you also say
You seem to engage in quite a bit of shifting the goalposts. First ott didn't smoke changa, then he may have smoked DMT on caapi leaf, then it doesn't really count as changa because it was missing the magical "other herbs". Your recollections, admissions, and definitions seem awfully fluid for someone who is asking us to believe a published historical account based solely on their own writings/assertions.
There's also the
claim by roninsina in the other thread
To which you replied
Again, we see you asserting that if something hasn't entered your awareness, it has a tenuous case for existence, at best. However, by my accounting thus far, all we have are personal claims and anecdotes about names and inventors and not a lot of real concrete evidence. Certainly not the rock solid case you continue to claim exists. Can you see why an outside observer might think the history is murkier than you make it out to appear? Especially given that you seem to be the only person so fixated on who the inventor "must" be.
Further confusion is introduced by another nen888 quote in that same thread, which you yourself shared:
Yet, despite this additional confusion, which comes through quotes by Australians, you still insist that
I've also spoken with several Australians who shed doubt on your claim to be the inventor. At least one of them was of the mind that you were possibly the namer of changa, but also spoke towards a certain propensity of yours to be pursuing a spotlight as "the father of changa."
This is precisely what endlessness and I were saying the whole time! Of course pure DMT is different than DMT + NMT + betacarbolines and other alkaloids. BUT, if you take that plant extract that was not just pure DMT...that was DMT + NMT + betacarbolines and other alkaloids and you isolate and purify the DMT and compare it with the purified DMT isolate from the plant that only contained DMT in the first place, there should be no discernible differences...similarly, if you compared those purified isolates to pure synthetic DMT, you should not observe any differences. DMT is DMT.
No one is claiming they wouldn't be different. Again, different alkaloid profiles and ratios would strongly suggest that they SHOULD be different.
I'm unclear as to what's going on here. The earlier assertion, as I understood it, was that the "energy" around the DMT would be different when isolated from a DMT-only tree and a "multiple-molecule tree." That was the issue that endlessness and I countered. Any time a person says something to the effect of "trust the experts" (as was stated earlier in the thread) they are entering into an "appeal to authority."
To reiterate, of course taking an extract from a plant containing only DMT will result in a different experience from taking an extract from a plant containing a range of alkaloids...you're talking about taking different compounds! This was not the earlier assertion.
Are you unfamiliar with M. tenuiflora? This is one reason I would not be so fast to declare that only the things you are familiar with are true, if I were you. M. tenuiflora has a remarkably clean DMT profile and was actually, afaik, for a long time, the most sought-after tree for extraction purposes globally. The assertion that only Australia has "trees which contain pretty much pure DMT" is utterly and demonstrably wrong...and a pretty significant thing to be wrong about, imo, especially for such a niche conversation relating to the preparation and administration of DMT.
Whew, that was a monster of a post, so I'll leave it at that for now!
Thanks for chiming in on the discussion
