Another great video. I love these little snippets you find of Bruce Lee… they bring him alive again without the distraction of the publicity and rumours that would hound him after he became a star.
It is very rare that Bruce gets the year wrong on all the pages. It could be that he makes a mistake in one and writes 1961 instead of 1960. But in all of them? That has to be investigated.
@@Retro_Slinger it’s definitely a mistake for sure…. I think it’s possible he had 1961 on his mind for some reason, maybe an event or something he was looking forward to and wrote that instead of 1960. He was still fairly new to this country even though he was born here.
Great content. Is it possible that Bruce wrote on these pages over a couple years? Maybe he got confused on the year if he backdated the older pages. I’m assuming he had multiple diaries, and this one was focused on early interactions with his main students at that time.
Hmm....yeah, I don't know what's going on with all the mix-ups in the dates and time lines. That is very strange. Could it be Bruce is just writing things down months after the fact as if they just happened? Maybe Bruce doesn't yet understand English written calendar dates? I have no idea what's going on. Have you tried asking Doug Palmer if he has any idea?
@@squatch545 thanks for bringing that up and nice to hear from you! I think you might be right actually! I have no contact with Doug that’s the thing…. I’d love to ask. But what you said about Bruce not knowing English well is totally true as we can see in his journals as things aren’t totally adding up. It must have been hard for a young 18 year old being all alone in a new country as he tried to learn the culture, language and how to read people’s characteristics as he was just getting by. Bruce was often picked on in Seattle for being Chinese and having trouble pronouncing his R’s but some ended up learning the hard way with a good Gung Fu lesson!
Jesse Glover would have been 23 in 1959 when he met Bruce. So I can believe he was 180 lbs. What was Jesse taking at Edison Technical School at that age?
@@squatch545 you know I’m not sure what he was taking.. maybe make up credits in general Ed ? He should’ve been in college or finished college by that age.. I do know that Jesse lived in Southern California before he moved to Seattle and was involved with Street gangs but eventually got out of that lifestyle and into martial arts in Seattle.
I don't have a channel. Just a person interested in the truth. I noticed some channels, such as the Kxxg Fx Gxnxxs, which have made extensive shows on Bruce's supposed drug habit in the last few years of his life. I am not saying that this topic could not be discussed, but I couldn't see how these discussions were in any perspective other than discrediting Bruce as a person. Certainly, these shows do not have concerns for Bruce's wellbeing or health in mind, because if those were the intentions, they are some fifty-one years too late.
There’s lots of love for Bruce out there… and sadly, lots of hate. I have to say, though, that the KFG is an excellent source for understanding the real Bruce Lee. If you take a look at some of KFG’s other posts (esp the one about the drugs letters), you’ll see he loves Bruce, respects him hugely but is also objective enough to acknowledge Bruce’s flaws.
@@stejcool I watched one of his shows on the drug letters. Apparently, there are enough materials to make four shows. Afterwards, I just don't get what message he was trying to convey. Was he trying to alert young people to the harmful effects of drugs? Was he showing his concerns for Bruce's wellbeing and health some fifty-one years after his death? Or was he showing that Bruce was a drug addict and making money doing it? Bruce said so himself that he was no saint. We know he had flaws. I am not a blind worshipper of anyone, but still want to know the purpose of showing that he has flaws, without more, is to serve what end? That's a strange way to show someone already departed, someone who can no longer defend himself from allegations against him, that you love him.
@@KOFAKEDEM I think all topics regarding Bruce Lee should be discussed. As for my channel, I tend to do things a little differently. I prefer to bring new information to the table by doing extensive research and uncovering Bruce Lee related history that has been unsolved for the last 50 to 60 years… this is something new and separates my channel from the rest of the mainstream channels. Although it’s good to discuss topics such as the drug letters, it’s already out in the public.
@@KOFAKEDEM I take your point… it’s bizarre that people still pore over Bruce’s passing and the possible causes. It serves no real purpose. I’m guilty of it too: I can only put it down to the fact that Bruce’s achievements and legend are so great that it is only human to try and understand what could possibly have caused his passing. I’m still not sure what parts of the interest are down to grief and/or morbid curiosity! Whichever it is, you’re right: Bruce should be remembered and celebrated for his achievements in life rather than what happened on that day in July 73.
@@jkdart1980 I commend you for your efforts. You are attempting to recreate a lost "reality" by showing the actual artifacts as you read out their contents and make reasonable interpretations of them. As regards the drug letters, my view remains that presenting a one-sided discussion on some letters, together with someone who attests to the authenticity and his own interpretations of these letters, when the writer could no longer respond to them, is unfair. It's very different to the interpretation of dates of some events being unclear or confusing. That doesn't have any connotations on the character of a person. Discussions of a person's alleged drug habits and the surrounding circumstances in which the alleged habits took place without any opposing views from a credible witness, are by themselves an affront to the sanctity of that person. This approach alone gives me the distinct impression that they are demeaning Bruce. It is the treatment and approach, not the actual discussions on the topic of Bruce's alleged drug use, which are problematic and offensive.
Another great video. I love these little snippets you find of Bruce Lee… they bring him alive again without the distraction of the publicity and rumours that would hound him after he became a star.
@@stejcool thanks and I like to do research and bring facts to the table.
Nice job on deciphering some of that stuff. I enjoyed the video Josh. Steve P.
@@eelecurb thanks Steve very much!
Awesome content
@@djoneforever thanks man! I always provided newly discovered research as much as possible thanks 🙏
It is very rare that Bruce gets the year wrong on all the pages. It could be that he makes a mistake in one and writes 1961 instead of 1960. But in all of them? That has to be investigated.
@@Retro_Slinger it’s definitely a mistake for sure…. I think it’s possible he had 1961 on his mind for some reason, maybe an event or something he was looking forward to and wrote that instead of 1960.
He was still fairly new to this country even though he was born here.
Great content. Is it possible that Bruce wrote on these pages over a couple years? Maybe he got confused on the year if he backdated the older pages. I’m assuming he had multiple diaries, and this one was focused on early interactions with his main students at that time.
@@chewhew5045 thanks for the comment! I believe Bruce got the year mixed up. These pages are from starting December, 1959 - 1960.
@13.19 (Jan.15) the word you couldn't make out is 'material'.
@@squatch545 thanks for making it out .
Hmm....yeah, I don't know what's going on with all the mix-ups in the dates and time lines. That is very strange. Could it be Bruce is just writing things down months after the fact as if they just happened? Maybe Bruce doesn't yet understand English written calendar dates? I have no idea what's going on. Have you tried asking Doug Palmer if he has any idea?
@@squatch545 thanks for bringing that up and nice to hear from you! I think you might be right actually! I have no contact with Doug that’s the thing…. I’d love to ask. But what you said about Bruce not knowing English well is totally true as we can see in his journals as things aren’t totally adding up. It must have been hard for a young 18 year old being all alone in a new country as he tried to learn the culture, language and how to read people’s characteristics as he was just getting by.
Bruce was often picked on in Seattle for being Chinese and having trouble pronouncing his R’s but some ended up learning the hard way with a good Gung Fu lesson!
Jesse Glover would have been 23 in 1959 when he met Bruce. So I can believe he was 180 lbs. What was Jesse taking at Edison Technical School at that age?
@@squatch545 you know I’m not sure what he was taking.. maybe make up credits in general Ed ? He should’ve been in college or finished college by that age..
I do know that Jesse lived in Southern California before he moved to Seattle and was involved with Street gangs but eventually got out of that lifestyle and into martial arts in Seattle.
I don't have a channel. Just a person interested in the truth. I noticed some channels, such as the Kxxg Fx Gxnxxs, which have made extensive shows on Bruce's supposed drug habit in the last few years of his life. I am not saying that this topic could not be discussed, but I couldn't see how these discussions were in any perspective other than discrediting Bruce as a person. Certainly, these shows do not have concerns for Bruce's wellbeing or health in mind, because if those were the intentions, they are some fifty-one years too late.
There’s lots of love for Bruce out there… and sadly, lots of hate. I have to say, though, that the KFG is an excellent source for understanding the real Bruce Lee. If you take a look at some of KFG’s other posts (esp the one about the drugs letters), you’ll see he loves Bruce, respects him hugely but is also objective enough to acknowledge Bruce’s flaws.
@@stejcool I watched one of his shows on the drug letters. Apparently, there are enough materials to make four shows. Afterwards, I just don't get what message he was trying to convey. Was he trying to alert young people to the harmful effects of drugs? Was he showing his concerns for Bruce's wellbeing and health some fifty-one years after his death? Or was he showing that Bruce was a drug addict and making money doing it? Bruce said so himself that he was no saint. We know he had flaws. I am not a blind worshipper of anyone, but still want to know the purpose of showing that he has flaws, without more, is to serve what end? That's a strange way to show someone already departed, someone who can no longer defend himself from allegations against him, that you love him.
@@KOFAKEDEM I think all topics regarding Bruce Lee should be discussed.
As for my channel, I tend to do things a little differently. I prefer to bring new information to the table by doing extensive research and uncovering Bruce Lee related history that has been unsolved for the last 50 to 60 years… this is something new and separates my channel from the rest of the mainstream channels.
Although it’s good to discuss topics such as the drug letters, it’s already out in the public.
@@KOFAKEDEM I take your point… it’s bizarre that people still pore over Bruce’s passing and the possible causes. It serves no real purpose. I’m guilty of it too: I can only put it down to the fact that Bruce’s achievements and legend are so great that it is only human to try and understand what could possibly have caused his passing. I’m still not sure what parts of the interest are down to grief and/or morbid curiosity! Whichever it is, you’re right: Bruce should be remembered and celebrated for his achievements in life rather than what happened on that day in July 73.
@@jkdart1980 I commend you for your efforts. You are attempting to recreate a lost "reality" by showing the actual artifacts as you read out their contents and make reasonable interpretations of them. As regards the drug letters, my view remains that presenting a one-sided discussion on some letters, together with someone who attests to the authenticity and his own interpretations of these letters, when the writer could no longer respond to them, is unfair. It's very different to the interpretation of dates of some events being unclear or confusing. That doesn't have any connotations on the character of a person. Discussions of a person's alleged drug habits and the surrounding circumstances in which the alleged habits took place without any opposing views from a credible witness, are by themselves an affront to the sanctity of that person. This approach alone gives me the distinct impression that they are demeaning Bruce. It is the treatment and approach, not the actual discussions on the topic of Bruce's alleged drug use, which are problematic and offensive.