Bill O’Reilly, shape shifter

Now the face that I see in my mirror
More and more is a stranger to me
More and more I can see there’s a danger
In becoming what I never thought I’d be.
(Some Days Are Diamonds, by Dick Feller)

What is up here? First we learn that a leading “conspiracy theorist,” Alex Jones, is really a comedian, Bill Hicks, who faked his death in 1993. Then we find out that an avant-garde artist, Andy Warhol, is just a mediocre British rocker, Stu Sutcliffe, who faked his death in 1962. An important leader of “the left,” and “author,” Thom Hartmann, is TV actor Brandon DeWilde who faked his death in 1973. A woman supposedly murdered, having her infant torn from her belly in the process, Sharon Tate, was alive and well as late as 1993. Another woman violently murdered by her husband, Nicole Brown Simpson … still with us, and that scary, scary husband is actually a nice man whose reputation was given up for a higher cause. Why would he allow that?

And now a leading member of “the right,” TV pundit and “author” Bill O’Reilly turns out to be a mediocre American rocker, Bobby Fuller, who faked his death in 1966.

So there you have it, our entire spectrum, “right” to “left” to “conspiracy theorist,” our music and art, punditry and important news events all managed, all fake. And I am told it is not important, that this was a better blog when I wrote about politics and “real issues.” Jesus Christ on a crutch!

As time goes on, if you continue to read this blog, you are going to learn that our entire spectrum of thought is a manufactured illusion, and every “leader,” actor,” “author,” “artist,” “intellectual” and “pundit” who is allowed fame is given that fame by our ruling elite. Fame is granted and often taken away by the people who gave it. That is why so many fake deaths. People are used and discarded, reassigned a new role or cashiered to obscurity. Sometimes perhaps, like Lennon and Denver and Robin Williams, they are just allowed to retire, job well done. Maybe they were just tired of seeing that face in the mirror.

Honestly, folks, I don’t get you. It seems as if you prefer to live with illusions. It reminds me of that scene at the end of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest where McMurphy learns that the patients in the institution are there by choice. (Ken Kesey, author of that book*, was also a spook, an Intelligence agent. Part of his work was mass distribution of LSD, a CIA-manufactured drug that destroyed young minds. That could be a lot of our problem these days, addled brains. I wish I were joking. Surely the push to legalize marijuana is not being done to make us smarter.)

Anyway, turn the page, see how “Bobby Fuller,” intelligence asset and fake musician of the sixties, became “Bill O’Reilly,” TV pundit, author, and leader in right wing thought.

As always, this is my opinion, something I am pretty sure originates with me and is not merely the result of mass media suggestion. When we had a functioning constitution that opinion was protected as “free speech.”
________________
*We can never be certain who the authors of books or songs, or even who performs them for recording. Live concerts can be faked too, as Brittney Spears taught us. Much of it comes from committees, as the music of the Beatles and surely that of Taylor Swift and authors like L. Frank Baum or JK Rowling or George R.R. Martin. What of all the talented authors and songsters we don’t know about? Only a few get the nod.

 

For good measure:

Fuller OReilly 3

Originals:

I rest my case.

About Mark Tokarski

Just a man who likes to read, argue, and occasionally be surprised.
This entry was posted in American wilderness. Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to Bill O’Reilly, shape shifter

  1. Great job on this one.

    Although some of us may realize the fakery around us, these posts are important to expose the scope of the fakery and better understand how it is pulled off.

    With movies like The Game, Intelligence wants us thinking that they are invincible and omnipotent, but they are not. They have been using the same tricks for centuries. Not only are they fake killing mediocre musicians like Fuller and Stutcliffe, but historical kings like Louis XVI and then reassigning them as Louis XVIII. How many people throughout history were simply reassigned?

    These tricks are timeless and have similar templates. We must expose them and put them out in the open. Defeating Intelligence will take many generations, but getting this kind of stuff out there for those that are open-minded about it is of extreme importance. My instinct tells me that they only have so many tricks up their sleeves, and with each one we expose, they may not have a replacement.

    Like

  2. Tyrone McCloskey says:

    Reviewing the past few weeks of back and forth here regarding doubles, replacements and twins, I’ve come to the conclusion that the objective is to keep the most talented spooks on the playing field for as long as possible- These extended, family connected, extensively trained spooks that front for the culture creators are a huge investment and even as their initial personas die young, the spooks themselves are pledged to a life time of “cooperation” with their betters (“Lifetime Actors” as Joe Atwill styles them) and the fewer trainees needed, the more efficient the execution of the deceptions- Rare talent is a great thing to possess, Jayne, but salty veterans who have no need for their souls is preferred, despite the routine mediocrity of the scams and the banal objectives of power, wealth and control they enable-
    Plus, if you are temporarily dead before reemerging as a new persona, you can’t be prosecuted for anything in the interim- If Heath Ledger (expect him to return in some form in about ten years*) likes having sex with some endangered species of sea turtle, he can- You can’t prosecute the dead- (At least since the Middle Ages) This immunity is probably a huge incentive to play along- I think of the original assassins and the gardens of 72 virgins that await for the truly committed-

    *In ten years this kind of celebrity switcheroo may not be necessary as the culture may no longer be reliant on such conjuring in human form- As the tricks are exposed, the current concept of consensus reality may be jettisoned for some other faith based anchor of state sanctioned sanity that does not rely on mass deception as we now know it-

    Like

    • I wonder about the dead part versus legally dead. Mathis in his Lennon paper wrote about a court case that required assent of all four Beatles, and Yoko was not allowed to speak for John, meaning he was still alive. (Now that I realize there are five Beatles … even more complicated).

      Also, Prince and Denver dying without wills signals to me that they did not die, but that they cannot legally probate the will of a fake dead person. That’s how they get around that hurdle.

      But that is a great observation – I have to grudgingly admit that Hartmann and O’Reilly are talented people. And Jayne – wowsers!

      Like

    • Tyrone,
      I agree 100% with the first part of your post, but regarding the asterisk, I believe that once the masses figure out the consensus reality, they will no longer be as easy to fool.

      They have been using the same tricks for thousands of years. For example, I have not posted this anywhere yet, and it’s a big time bombshell, but Wiki flags Marc Antony and Octavian as conspiring with Brutus to kill Caesar. It was a straight forward controlled opposition move. They wanted the charismatic leader out, so they created the good guys and the bad guys. The good guys (Antony and Octavian) “kill” the bad guys (Brutus and crew) and take the throne. Meanwhile Brutus is at his villa smoking cigars and drinking wine, and the coup d’etat is complete. Been a successful secret for 2000 years. Antony and Cleopatra never happened either.

      So they had these tricks two thousands years ago. The only difference is that somewhere between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance they found a way to manufacture someone like Caesar, rather than have to kill him.

      What’s their strategy if this website gets out of hand? Make us look like tin foil hat weirdos to the public? Do armchair conspiracy psychology? Say Mark is John Candy? But what are they going to do once their game is exposed? Once people develop the instinct to sniff out their BS?

      Then they will try to infiltrate and misdirect us. Give us crappy comparisons. Do limited hangout type stuff. Try to dumb down the comments. But what happens once we sniff that out? What happens once the people have the instinct to sniff out the “divide and confuse” strategies?

      I believe their strategy then switches to “suppress as much as possible”. I don’t believe the smartest people in the world work for Intelligence. From everything I read about them, the most important characteristic they look for is reliability. I truly believe that if we start exposing their “black book” of tricks, they don’t have too much by way of a backup plan, at least when it comes to psy-ops. Once the smartest 10-20% of the population figures them out, I think they’re toast.

      Like

      • I hope 10% does it, because 90% of what I encounter is not functional intelligence.

        I think I mentioned this, but do take a look now at photos of Alex Jones. They have been monkeyed with, his face is widened, and some of them look as though he was washed with a paintbrush. I tired to do another Hicks/Jones comparison and was getting wacky stuff. I finally used his eyes/nose/mouth logo, which is still real.

        Like

      • Tyrone McCloskey says:

        Straight… I’m not sure I understand what your spin on Caesar is but I am of the opinion that Caesar’s assassination was a hoax, as are all of the other famous assassinations/executions- Caesar’s demise was a death and resurrection ritual to solidify his divinity and allow for subsequent deifications of emperors anon, especially for his adopted heir, Octavian (Likely a committee decision of the leading patriarchs, House Piso the most preeminent, in selecting Octavian)
        The creation of Alexander the Great by Roman authors, (Royals employing pseudonyms- there was no freedom of expression and the royals, even in the so-called republic, wrote all the books- Josephus is really Arrius Calpernious Piso, for example) set the precedent for deification of a living King and, because living divinities had this pesky death part to endure, Augustus decided he would not allow his person to be worshipped but rather have Rome itself, through his example, be worshipped- After his death, of course, he was elevated to godhood with an all access pass to Olympus-
        The syncretic assist of Ptolemaic Egypt in developing Rome’s Isis cults that became a species of secret society/imperially sanctioned religion/mafia known as ISChrest (this was not Christianity- That comes into focus remotely from this first century conspiracy religion with Charlemagne) is too apparent to deny Cleopatra VII had a hand in Roman affairs- The Fuhrer Bunker-like demise of Richard Burton and La Liz is certainly a later fabrication, possibly based on the urban legends that must have been circulated in Egypt to explain why there were no more Pharaohs- All psy-ops have street level legends circulated while an official story is being developed- 911’s witnesses to falling bodies and dead friends of friends is an example of false history being hatched from the get-go, later to be carved into state sanctioned stone-
        The imperial death and resurrection staple gets another big assist from the Nile and environs with the emperor Hadrian drowning and deifying his favorite concubine, Antinous in the second century….but I digress- Constantine’s Chi Rho is not Christian, even on his baptismal fonts- That is an Ankh tarted up with eastern frills…again, I digress… The punchline is Charlegmagne’s scribes create Jesus in 800 CE and there you go- Resting….

        Like

        • Who are you, masked man?

          Like

        • Geez, and I thought I was dropping the bombshells.

          Tyrone, you seem to have much more knowledge on this subject than I do. I was going off my interpretation of the Wiki flags which were mainly: Caesar’s family’s wealth being underplayed, Octavian and Antony going after Brutus and Cassius, Antony and Cleopatra’s affair, Cleopatra’s suicide by asp and a few more that led to me forming that view.

          There were no flag’s on Caesar’s assassination, which is why I assumed it may have been real, simply because of the time period. And Antony and Cleopatra’s relationship being a fake, does not mean Rome and Egypt were not working together. Wiki flags Alexander the Great as a creation, which is mentioned in my blog, so we’re on the same page there.

          I’m curious where you got your ideas from. I’d be very interested in reading more about fakery in that time period.

          Like

  3. Olde virginian says:

    He told us he tried to fight but the law won…. Whither the chin cleft dude?

    Like

    • It is a complication [should read “compilation”] of evidence. The other features are so strikingly in line that I had to go with it, even as I saw the cleft. Plastic surgery would not be out of the question to remove a distinguishing feature like that. And O’Reilly has accumulated an outer layer of extra facial tissue, an aging feature, that might have obscured the cleft, just as erosion will hide features in the landscape.

      But bottom line, I don’t know. That works against it.

      Like

  4. Craig Moore says:

    That’s a rubber crutch thank you very much.

    Like

  5. steve kelly says:

    If the institutions are all fake and corrupt it almost guarantees that the pitchmen are fake too.

    Like

  6. steve kelly says:

    How many Mannings are there? The same chin thing you mentioned above with O’Reilly. See last two images at the end of the article. Red flag source, of course, but a photo is a photo, is a photo, right? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3677223/Chelsea-Manning-28-rushed-hospital-trying-hang-inside-cell-maximum-security-prison.html

    Like

  7. Michael Hamilton says:

    A problem with saying Bill O’Reilly is Bobby Fuller is the fact that O’Reilly is a big guy (height 6’4”) whereas Bobby Fuller is said to be 5’11 (and seems to about the same height as other band members).

    Like

    • Bring some rock solid evidence on height. Your seemingly unusually precise knowledge indicates a hire, someone sent out to squelch the rumor. Nice to know people are paying attention.

      If you are saying that all of the facial features lining up mean nothing, but a detail we cannot know, height, means something, I call bullshit.

      Like

      • Michael Hamilton says:

        A quick google gave me the height information. From looking at youtube videos of Bobby Fuller he does not seem like an unusually tall guy (of course, maybe everyone around him is also very tall).
        You matches based on facial recognition are interesting. I suspect that it should be only one factor in determining a match.

        Like

        • Where, pray tell, does a “quick Google” give you height information, and why should we rely on such data, even if it is really, truly available? That information is mashed potatoes. You could be citing anything, or nothing, as we have nothing verifiable.

          On the other hand the photos I used were innocently made available, no one ever suspecting that their details would be so revealing. Now that I have shown they reveal important information, you are sent out to obfuscate. So far, no sale. You’re a hire.

          You’ll be back, under a different name I assume?

          Like

  8. Michael Hamilton says:

    I like a lot of your research Mark which is why I look at it. I am sure you would appreciate that some of your readers question things that they read. I made an observation about a height discrepancy between Bobby Fuller and Bill O’Reilly that I thought was worth sharing. Don’t take it at a personal attack.
    Also, I am not a hire but will gladly accept money.

    Like

    • If you want to question my work, which many do, bring the evidence along with you. I’ve done a lot of work with the McCartney twins, Paul and Mike, for instance, and you would not believe how hard it was to find photos where we could measure their relative height. And it is not given out anywhere, as Mike’s very existence was a secret. They are usually wearing boots or camera angles are distorted.

      A match-up like Fuller/O’Reilly is so dead-on, I’ve done so much of this, that you’re really going to have to convince me with hard evidence. Bill’s alter ego,is a secret, so no one is going to spill the beans, and he is not the first dead Laurel Canyon rocker to turn up alive. I have never heard of you, and you just turn up now. Where you been?

      Like

  9. Phillip Solesky says:

    I’m sorry, but there’s a real problem with this one. Not only are the eyebrows way off, but the tip of the nose is way off. If in old age he had the smaller nose, you could say it was lopped off by surgery, but in this case he would have to have grown a big bump as he got older.

    Like

    • No, not so, and you are again nitpicking. We have 95% alignment of features, down to posture and dimples and you want to detract by use of one changeable feature, the nose. I say changeable because noses tend to grow on many people throughout their lives, and are often altered by plastic surgery in the actor/news reader sets.

      So please offer something more substantial, as we ahve had spooks parade through here under various aliases, each nitpicking about one thing. I am going to email you. If I don’t hear back, you are gone.

      Like

  10. Brook says:

    Not sure these two are the same person, but this is only using my aging eyes. The match up photo-wise using your application is indeed close to 100%! The eyebrows (forehead ridge) and chin cleft leave questions for me.

    I did take a look at some Swill O’Really?? photos, as much as I could stomach. This guy is like chalk screeching across a blackboard to me! Now, this is just from a quick perusal of those photos but if I had your application to use I would check for twins just for fun. The younger Bloviating Billo seems to have a straighter forehead ridge and eyebrows and a very minor chin cleft. The older man has the arched scary brows.

    Or maybe they “both” (if there is a “both”) can be found mixed in at all ages by taking a better look. Any way, using the naked eye only, the young Billo matches Fuller better. I realize this is unreliable and especially when using 2D photos that have possibly been flipped or tampered with instead of seeing real life 3D people.

    Link to a couple of young Billo pics: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/27866091418980279/

    I think Hillary may well be twins. I spent many hours looking at her pics (blech) but interesting looking for the subtle nuances that separate twins. I see twins (or sisters very close in age and appearance) and at least one body double who would pass at a distance for Hill. I wondered if anyone else was looking into Hillary as twins and I found only one guy looking into this at the time. As I surmised, it is in the teeth and jaw structure. I would love to see what your application can show us about any Billo(s) and Hillo(s). I call the Hills “Madam Secretary” and “Madam Politician”.

    Hill twins? Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7G5sTQlZ1A

    Thanks! This twin thing is fascinating and I am really enjoying your blog!

    Like

    • We look for seven or eight features of the head and skull that do not change over time – pupil distance, skull shape, distance from lip to nose, bottom lip to chin, ear height, things like that. Chin cleft and forehead ridge are not two of them, as they may or may not be real or might have been non-apparent until the face fully filled out. given what we know about celebrities who fake their deaths and then reappear in new guises, having a match-up like is this pretty much a slam dunk. I don’t think there are any news readers out there who are who they say they are. They are all fakes, as I see it.

      Hillary/twins is a golden apple, and we are not going near it. You are placing yourself in jeopardy here by suggesting it. It is a spook trap.

      Like

  11. Brook says:

    First of all, thanks for the information regarding the features you look for and that they don’t change over time. It certainly makes sense to focus on those.

    Then- wow.

    I have to say I don’t really understand what you mean by “golden apple” and “spook trap”. I do know what jeopardy means though.

    I thought public figures were, by definition, open for scrutiny by the public. Are you trying to say that all the recent baiting by the media to LOOK at Hillary in respect to twins, doubles, CGI, mannequin, and who knows what else, is a covert way to pull in and identify people who look into this? If so, what jeopardy would they (I) be in? I’m sure all of us are already on some list somewhere in spookville.

    You probably can’t or won’t answer as to why Hill/twins is a “golden apple.” I can only guess that finding a corporation, a composite, Hillary Inc., let’s say, running for president might not be something “they” want the American people to know about…and yet “they” put out info that strongly invites people to look into just that! OR, is there one faction trying to expose “Hillary, Inc” (9/11/16 internet vid for example) and another faction trying to preserve “her” as a bona fide individual citizen? In other words do we have some spy vs. spy here?

    OR, are you trying to say that I am in “jeopardy” ‘here’, as in here on your blog, because you think I am baiting you to do something you don’t want to touch? I can assure you that is not the case but my assurance is of no use to you and I fully understand that. I had no idea that Hillary was off limits here and though I can speculate as above, I have no certainty as to why this would be the case while other celebrities and public figures are fair game. I have not noticed her being off limits at any other forum, blog, youtube site, etc., not even as regards the twins theory. I guess you must have some inside information.

    Like

    • We get a lot of drive by’s who, for whatever reason, choose one-name id’s, have no links, and try to cast doubt on our work. It is not honest skepticism, but a tactic, as we are on to something. The object is to merely to assure anyone troubled that things may not be as they are told on TV news that all is right with the world. SNOPES exists for the same reason, to protect liars.

      You fit the bill. I pointed to O’Reilly as a zombie on another forum a few days ago, and where Laura Evans, a low-level pretty dumb blonde reporter should have just done her job and ridiculed me, she did not, and now you show up here. She reported me, meaning she knows that no one in news is real, and wondered if higher ups knew of our pesky little blog, and now you show up. O’Reilly is old, old news. He was exposed here months ago. He’s a fake, a liar and an actor. You should be on the front page, questioning us about our recent exposure Of Dr. Phil. What are you going going back months for such old news? Exposing slime bag Phil makes us a much easier target.

      So go away now. You’re exposed too. Politics is just like news, full of fakes. We know Hillary is a fake and a phony, and are not about to travel down a path littered with golden apples. Strike three. Go away, spook. When you reappear here next week, try to link your name, have a real email address, and for god’s sake, be a little more clever.

      Like

  12. graemebird says:

    Mark the match-up is just perfect EXCEPT for the jutting forehead of O’Reilly. Is there any procedure that you know of that could give O’Reilly that ugly jutting forehead? Because its the best match possible except for that.

    Like

    • I am going to revisit this sometime soon. I have better capabilities using Photoshop than face chopping. Anyway, I don’t see a jutting forehead. I merely see an aging Intelligence asset who has lost much of his hair.

      Like

      • graemebird says:

        He’s a dead ringer alright.

        Like

      • graemebird says:

        But I think since that issue is not clear, maybe you ought to focus on it if you have the time. To dispel even the tiniest doubt. I think they are the same person. I’d like to be able to prove it absolutely to the nth degree. Its just that the split you have still allows for that objection. I know I cannot expect people to do my homework for me. Actually the real thing thats niggling me is Jim Morrison/Rush Limbaugh. I would like that falsified so I don’t have to dwell on it any more. So far it seems good to me. And its an important matter. Its a biggie. Its not a small thing.

        Like

        • Morrison/Limbaugh is a Goldbug fantasy. Don’t go there.

          O’Reilly – I have to leave for a few days here, but I think I will take a look at it when I return. Like Brandon DeWilde/Thom Hartmann, I am very confident in the work.

          Like

          • graemebird says:

            Okay so thats the source. Goldbug. And you say he’s unreliable. But if you have the skills to line up the photos, and show that the skulls don’t match, why not take the time? Because its important, and you are a person who goes with evidence, not with …….. whatever ….. right? So the source is not the thing. The evidence is the thing. And you have the capacity that I lack …. that is to say to line it all up and make it clear one way or the other.

            Like

        • You were banned temporarily, and for no good reason. I apologize for that. All is restored.

          Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s