Inspired by this comment.
Addendum: Not everyone pays attention to photos as we do here, so I assumed that everyone reading this would instantly know this photo is a paste-up. Imagine taking a photo of your family, and when the photo comes out, only two people are affected by the flash, everyone else remains dark. It does not work that way. The light from the flash travels out over a broad area, hitting everyone in range.
In this photo, only the three people in the foreground are lit up. That is because that part was a photo taken somewhere else and then pasted into the photo to make it appear the she is actually on a gun turret. (Her eye is also out of line with the sight.) The three were probably photographed in a studio, as the lighting is so even – there must be a light shade in use to produce such even and delicate lighting.
When I saw Tyrone’s photo of Kent State (the “comment” blued above) I wondered if the Hanoi Jane photos were real or paste-up. It was no surprise. They are fake, as is she. “Hanoi Jane” was Intelligence, sent to discredit the antiwar movement. This photo angered most Americans. That’s why she did it. She’s a spook.
61 thoughts on “Knowing what we know now …”
Really. I’ve been questioning how much real war was going on there too. There were many Viet Nam vets in my neighborhood. I thought it was very real growing up, but as I look back on it, they seem to parrot exactly what was shown on the TV screen nightly. All you need to do is get a bunch of 18 year olds full of testosterone, stage a few fire fights, show them a few body bags and then “debrief” them and let them know this is going on all around them. Who would say otherwise??
I don’t think Mark was suggesting that the Vietnam war was faked. But that Jane Fonda dancing on the tank was either a complete hoax (done in a Hollywood sound stage or some such) or that it was arranged by TPTB as a Psy Op. Which also suggests that they controlled both sides of the conflict, which we know is already probably the case. I expect many aspects or famous incidents about the war were invented, but I don’t think the war itself was. It fucked a lot of people up good. I don’t think a few faked firefights is enough to do that to people.
I knew a vet who saw his squad get blown up boarding a helicopter- It put a dent in his psyche, no doubt- On the other hand, Stanley Kubrick thought maybe 10% of the troops saw any action- If true, I suspect, like today, the majority of troops in country were guarding American interests, like the Folger’s coffee plantations, along with the ubiquitous poppy fields and the Pepsi bottling plants that were processing the heroin- Rolling back Communism was just a cover story, of course-
Right – I merely suggested with this photo that Jane Fonda was pasted in, so that her whole 1972 trip to North Vietnam could have been done at Lookout Mountain. It was done to inflame the American public’s passion against the antiwar movement, which Fonda surely knew and went along with. She was a false leader.
I think the Golden Triangle and control of the world drug supply had a lot to do with that war. After it ended the action merely shifted to Afghanistan.
My brother did have one long time priest friend who was defrocked due to an incident involving some kids. His explanation made sense to me (I found this information on the Internet after my brother’s death, and never discussed it with him) – he said that he had been put in the seminary in early teens – they did both high school and college on that 12-year campus. Every night was lock-down, no talking until morning prayers. Penalties were severe. He said (he was gay, I should mention) that it affected his sexual development, that when he was ordained, he merely picked up in development where he left off.
While that of course did not justify anything, it did, to me, seem a reasonable explanation.
About Advertising. I know this isn’t relevant to this article, but i just saw this and felt the need to post it somewhere.
M&T Bank just sent me a flyer with the headline “Identity Fraud Strikes Every 2 Seconds”. I already did the math. That comes out to 15,768,000 people per year. Within 10 years, that’s nearly half the people in the US. How many people do you know who’ve had there identity stolen? It’s kind of like Oprah saying that 800,000 children are reported missing each year and google search confirms that. In 10 years that’s 8,000,000 children. Are you kidding me??
Calm yourself, for a few shekles more you can alleviate your fear. Sold daily by right-wing royalty on corporate-AM radio.
I wonder if there is anything that happens anywhere on this planet that wouldn’t be quickly determined as a hoax.
I also wonder why the brother of a Catholic priest is so quick to dismiss Pizzagate.
you never answered my question at my site, Mark, did your brother fuck around with kids, or just help cover-up other priests in Montana who did?
A new low, I suppose. My brother was a priest in Montana for 42 years, and during that time there was never a hint of impropriety. Never a hint. The people of St. Pius X Parish in Billings built him a beautiful memorial that stands as a tribute to his personal integrity. Very much fuck you. That’s just awful.
I did not go back to your site, thinking I should not have gone there in the first place. SK adequately answered you, I should have shut up.
You simply don’t know how to read the signs of a public hoax as you are yet inexperienced, perhaps on a righteous tear too. One, it is getting its legs from mainstream media, which is completely controlled. Two, it sources on Wikileaks, again a fake opposition site used for just this purpose, to add credibility to purposeful leaks. Three, there is no evidence.
Are there pedophilia rings? I do not know. I know that there are no efforts to find or curb them if they do exist. I tend to think almost all people are good and decent.
The Catholic church scandal is, I am beginning to realize, a result of a long-running battle between the Church and Intelligence, or Freemasons, if you will. No doubt the church is corrupt in administration, but at the lowest levels offers guidance and assistance to people in need. If you wanted, you could join today, never offer them a penny, and they would freely give you help, comfort, even money if you were destitute. Intelligence does not like such power and wants to tear it down, as it is a counter force to the state. Perhaps it wants to end religion in general, which has been under attack from every venue. When I saw the movie Spotlight get such accolades and nominations, etc., knowing as I do that we do not have a news media of any use, I knew something was up. But I have not gone down that hole, and probably won’t. By teh way, I am not Catholic, nor atheist. I am infinitely curious about things.
If you cannot look at the photo above and see a hoax, all I can say is that you’ve miles to go, and I hope you do use your brain, talents, curiosity and imagination to learn more of how our world really works. Now go your way, and sin no more.
I couldn’t agree with you more. This is also a microcosm, but I went to 3 years of Catholic school, hated it and hated church, but I never even heard of anyone being molested (not that I believe it never happens). This whole thing is mostly an invention of Hollywood.
If anyone deserves to be banned from the site, it’s this guy. Not people who ask honest questions.
You’re not banned. You’re just requested not to talk flat earth.
I understand. I wasn’t actually talking about me. I was talking about Aurora. I don’t know if he/she is banned, but unless there’s something I missed, what he was asking seemed genuine. This Skink guy is over the top insulting.
Aurora hung around and commented on a few posts, but has voluntarily left as far as I know – that is, I did not ban him.
I was raised in the church, had priests among family and friends and nothing amiss was even suspected- It wasn’t until I attended a progressive Christian Brothers high school in the 70’s that things seemed a bit off- But, this was the 70’s when everything was under review and people were expressing themselves in a whole new fashion, including sexual orientation- This affected the Brothers to an extent and some hormone overwhelmed gay teens- Frankly, gays of both gender have never worried that much about age of consent- I think in Italy it’s 15 years old- Anyway, this is no brief for the church as I think on some days they are a death obsessed cult- But, the good works part of faith+good works is a positive thing- I just wish priests could marry and a lot of this would vanish-
Celibacy isn’t really at issue in the pedophilia situation. The Orthodox Church has married clergy, but the rate of child sexual abuse is about the same. The difference is that in this country the Orthodox population is tiny compared to the Catholic, and so one seldom hears about it.
Fact is, molestation rates are about the same in every church or religious group. I ran into an Amish elder once, and he volunteered that they also have issues from time to time. Likewise in the synagogues.
I keep reading reports that the highest rate of pedophilia is among public school teachers. I guess Skink will use that datum to make an ad hominem argument against anyone related to an educator …
LikeLiked by 2 people
there is more actual evidence of pedo-networks than there is for twins/fake-death/re-assignment theories put forth here. when I worked at the shelter, there was a man who was awarded a settlement due to the molestation he experienced by a Catholic priest in Montana. but I guess all courts and judges and lawyers and alleged victims are part of the fake hoaxing of fake everything.
Yes, I get that, and know there are real incidents. What we are talking about is a normally in-the-flow type of abuse. While no one approves of or encourages the behaviors, banks allow for some embezzlement, schools are insured against teacher improprieties, and the chuch is aware that at least a third of the clergy is gay and that any profession that works with and has power over children will attract pedophiles. When things happen they try to cover it up. No one wants the publicity. But it is mostly due to large enterprises, large groups of people, allowing for a small percentage of deviancy despite best efforts. People are very good at masking.
So I am not denying there is pedophilia, and am only saying that when something gets blown up as big as this stuff has been, there is a good chance a psyop is at work. With the Pizzagate stuff, it is an obvious psyop. Anyone who pays attention to spooks in action can see it, easily.
By the way, the object of the Pizzagate psyop appears to be an attack on independent media, as they keep saying the affair and the later gun-brandishing incident (also fake) were the result of “fake news.” Keep in mind, these statements are made with full awareness by people in mainstream media whose job it is to spread fake news. There’s been quite a bit of real news getting out via the Internet, and the object appears to be to clamp down on real news in the name of stopping fake news. That’s why it is a psyop.
Pizzagate is also about luring and then discrediting conspiracy theorists.
I am saying it was mostly fake. There were certainly squirmishes, which will inevitably happen when you’re stealing resources from other people’s countries. One of the best movies where they reveal this is called Jacob’s Ladder. They might have used LSD to enhance the propaganda forced on the troops on the way home as well. They used it on my own aunt who was a paranoid schizophrenic back in the 60’s. She wrote letters about it to all of us, but back then we chalked it up as her being crazy. It later came out that Spring Grove Hospital in MD (where she was) was doing just that.
Wow. The world is complicated. One thing that sucks about being a “conspiracy theorist” is that I do run the risk of getting wrapped around my own axle.
The controllers have amazing techniques. Basic propaganda of course. But also the false flags, the disinfo, the controlled opposition. It makes it hard to sort it all out. One thing that happens to us, I think, is that we become more open minded once we realize some of this stuff goes on. Which is great. We’re no longer cattle in the chute. But our open mindedness can lead us astray…into believing little traps like Pizzagate, for example. Or following a controlled opposition guru (McGowan, or Alex Jones, or whoever) who gives out 75% truth or some real amount but not all the truth.
So, a few thoughts on this thread:
1) Pizzagate is interesting. I fell for it at first…not all the way, but a little. I guess some part of me wanted it to be true because I hate these people (Hillary, Podesta, the elite establishment, the liars, the fundraisers, etc.) Now that you mention it, it does feel like a put on–tons of circumstantial evidence but no real evidence. But there are a few details…Alefantis is gay, he got a big payoff from his ex-lover David Brock, who is a super-creepy professional liar and embezzler. Alefantis was in the top 50 people who matter in DC…as a “bon vivant”…4 years ago. Clearly he’s connected. Maybe they aren’t pedo-ing out in there. Maybe it’s just a restaurant for Intelligence meetings. But he’s in the thick of it. Also, it’s weird that this started to come out a week before the election. Although I guess the powers that be wanted Hillary to lose and so hurting her in the last week as part of this psyop on fake news wasn’t necessarily a bad thing.
Child molestation in general is interesting. I get Mark’s take–most pedos are probably isolated weirdos. Why on earth would they want to do this with other people. Also, I like Miles Mathis’s take–the establishment likes to hide their banal crimes of theft behind Satanism (oooh, spooky) and maybe child molestation is part of that. In a weird way Hillary’s service for the globalist warmonger banker whoevers is actually softened/hidden/obscured if people worry about her witchcraft and satanism and child molesting.
Also, I agree about the movie Spotlight. They are trying too hard. And now that editor from the Boston Globe is at the Washington Post…railing against fake news! LOL. And I totally agree that Intelligence/Masons/the STATE hate the catholic church. Just because it is an organized source of community and power that is not the State. They’ve been undermining the church since Luther. And now all the catholic charity hospitals are gone, and the parochial schools ae going too. It’s working great. (As an aside, read De Jouvenel. It talks about how the central power always wants to secure its power by destroying all subsidiary powers. Always the high and the low against the middle. Not necessarily because they are evil….but it’s the nature of power.) Also, child molesters are like serial killers. They destroy community. No-one can trust their kids’ teachers anymore. The nursery schools are blackwashed, the churches are blackwashed, the neighbors are blackwashed. Perfect for atomizing people. No-one trusts each other, they all just have a personal relationship with Jesu….Obama. Were they blackwashing….football with Jerry Sandusky? Could be. Or it could have been real. Hard to know. Anal rapes in the locker room showers, though? Seems awfully over the top. And seriously? Would people really want to cover that up and keep him around? At a minimum wouldn’t they have quietly fired him?
But…still….they deliberately flooded the Catholic church with gay priests. They were already there because celibacy/good place to hide. But then the Soroses of the 1970s whoever they were arranged for a shit ton of gays to enter seminary. And the church has never been the same. And, even though it’s politically incorrect to say it, gays are MUCH more likely to be molesters. Disagree if you want, but at least consider the perspective, which I believe the statistics bear out.
And the concept of powerful people wanting blackmailable puppets in government makes sense. The Jeffrey Epstein operation of getting underage sexy types (not kids, but hot 15 and 16 year old women) for Bill Clinton etc. smells like a professional spy operation. Would they really go to all that trouble just to trip up conspiracy theorists? Or do they LIKE having sex addicts in high places?
Also, what about Hillary in Haiti, and her connection to this Laura Silsby person? The source on that is Wikileaks, which you say is totally compromised and I believe it. But still. Is there such a person, involved in child trafficking, and Hillary knows her and helped her legally? Or is this yet another very complex detail put there just to trick researchers like us?
And some of these evil corrupt elites really MIGHT believe in drawing energy for themselves from the young. And that God is real but Lucifer is the king of THIS world. All this stuff about “The Enlightenment” is Luciferian. Maybe the war against the church wasn’t JUST for money and power.
Okay, sorry to ramble. The point is, I could see this kind of thing (pedo rings) as real or fake, I just don’t know.
As for the original post…yes, the photo is clearly fake, Jane Fonda is clearly pro-elite and pro-war, and she was used in this role to draw the ire of “the silent majority.” Mission accomplished.
Anyway, who has thoughts on how to wade through the contradictions about all this pedo stuff?
” I get Mark’s take–most pedos are probably isolated weirdos. ”
Not so. The erratic behavior of abused children can very easily be spotted by any Kindergarten teacher. Pedos have to be very careful and tend to form networks.
Pedophilia is a very organized business. Elite pedophilia is the glue that binds highest-level secret societies, Intel agencies, mafias, politburos together.
Pizzagate is very real. So real that CIA & Clowns will hoax Pizzagate into a sting operation in order to clamp down on internet free speech. Interesting times ahead!
I have thought about it, but I really don’t know. Some years ago I stumbled on a blog, Rigorous Intuition. They guy there talked a lot about this stuff and its links to Satanism and MK-Ultra, etc etc. That was one of my first exposures to conspiracy stuff. I read everything he wrote and many of his links. And then he stopped writing and I kind of just tucked all that in the back of my head, not being sure if any of it was true, and went on with my life.
Now while the blog no longer exists, there is a rigorous intuition discussion forum. But if you go there you find that they are unwilling to consider that all these current terrorist attacks, etc. are hoaxed. Like, you can’t even discuss it on their forum. I find that to be a big red flag, not just regarding the forum but regarding all of this stuff. Also Dave McGowan sold us Satanic Ritual Abuse in his book that also sold us serial killers as real, but ask victims of SRA and MK-Ultra. It has also been used to explain Sirhan Sirhan and other “assassins” who I now believe to have been involved in fake assassinations. Now, it’s possible that these people were really “programmed to kill” but were given blanks or pop guns so they could do no real harm. But it sure seems like a lot of extra time and money rather than hiring one of your stooges to act the part of the patsy. So to the extent that this stuff is used to sell us the reality of FALSE conspiracy theories, it seems that it is probably false as well.
I am pretty sure that pizzagate is 100% manufactured. Not so sure yet about Elite Pedo networks. But if you’re going to investigate, I would say go look further back in time and older stories and scandals. It’s the only way to possibly get the proper perspective.
I don’t agree with this photo analysis and I don’t see that it is “obviously a paste up” though I do agree that Jane Fonda is a spook as are all the other famous Fondas.
First of all, a light area alone in a photo is not necessarily evidence of a paste-up. Tonal levels in photos are often manipulated to highlight certain areas. Today it’s done in Photoshop and in the 1960s it was done in the darkroom and called “dodging.” It’s simply done to focus attention on the intended main subject in a photo which would otherwise be confusing to the eye.
Secondly, you didn’t show the entire photo which is here:
As you can see the men directly behind Jane (if that really is Jane) are in the shadow of a canopy and thus would be rendered darker as a result. There wold be no reason to use flash in a photo like this as you suggest since it is a daylight exterior photo with plenty of sunshine. The standard films used for photojournalism (ISO 400) in that era could easily handle a photo like this without the need for flash.
Also, the people in the foreground are simply wearing lighter colored clothing than the men behind “Jane” and so their clothing registers lighter than the men wearing dark uniforms.
And, there are a number of different photos taken of this scene from different angles which are easily seen by searching Google Images for “Hanoi Jane.” It’s doubtful that paste-ups would have been done with all of them. All of the obvious paste-ups I’ve seen have been single photos with no other alternate angle available.
In my opinion, if the photo is fake it would be due to that woman not really being Jane Fonda. I’m not saying it isn’t Jane but, to me, it doesn’t really look all that much like her.
Wow, very good observation. I had heard of “dodging”, now I’ll look it up.
It’s actually “burning & dodging.” Burning darkens an area of a print and dodging lightens it. These are physical manipulations done between a photo enlarger and the print during exposure in the darkroom.
But I don’t think this was done with this photo. The tonal levels of the people in the far background match those of the foreground people. It’s just the guys under the canopy that are darker and that makes sense as they are in shadow. And, the overall soft lighting is simply from an overcast sky.
Thanks Lux, good thoughts. But I will add another layer – first of all, I did see a photo of “Jane” that looked like her face had been pasted on. And, as I deal with photos things only slowly unveil. So you could well be right.
Consider this: Propaganda is the universal language of spooks and governments. So the North Vietnamese would know that Jane was a US government agent, and would no way allow her in the country, as they know she is there to do American propaganda.
So they faked the whole trip. Jane never left the country. That was easily done then as now. But would not North Vietnamese not blow the gig, tell on her? If all American news outlets are controlled, which they were, it would not get aired. Only a few would know.
But more than that is a standard understanding in propaganda, that people automatically disbelieve anything said by the enemy.
Another thing to consider, if she was in North Vietnam, then they let her in knowing what she was up to, and agreed to let it go on. That would imply cooperation at very high levels.
Another clue that it might be pasted, however, is that her eye and the sight she is supposed to be looking through do not align. Her head needs to be perhaps six inches further to the right, but in a two dimensional paste up, that is not possible.
But of course you could be right, and we agree that Jane, Peter and Henry are spooks. No further information needed to understand this little psyop.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I lean towards “cooperation at the highest levels”.
They probably just faked the trip to save time, money, and avoid any accidents. Lookout Mountain is full control. It’s always better to film from your lot than some jungle.
Good analysis Lux.
I suspected it might not actually be Jane as well but after overlaying these two photos and slowly bringing up the opacity, I’m pretty they’re both of the same woman.
Those two pics had a similar head position.
If that’s a double in the main pic, it looks like it could be Geraldine Chaplin- Given her father’s sympathies for those commie bastards, and her grandfather’s commiserations with John Reed, this would be just another job for her family’s business-
It’s possible “Jane” is there from the shirt up- Those aren’t her legs- They seem too short- Nothing overlaps her shirt, arms or head- The girl looking at the camera looks the part- The rest of the soldiers were probably hired from local Asian restaurants for the day and dressed at the Universal Studio backlot with old army surplus from the prop department-
Am I the only one here who is entertaining the obvious hypothesis: Jane is twins.
It is this photo that is causing trouble – it does not line up with the others, which line up with each otehr reasonably well.
I also suspect that the whole trip was faked but I don’t think the position of her eye is of any significance. See the microphones being held up to her? Notice that her mouth is open? These things indicate that she is talking while being recorded which means she is probably being interviewed which means she is probably looking at the person who just asked her a question.
Now, after reading the above paragraph, look at the photo again. Doesn’t it look like she’s simply talking to someone out of frame while others are recording her answer?
But, if you want a real PASTE-UP photo of Hanoi Jane, here’s one:
Yep. See below.
There are complicating factors that tend to bolster your argument, one being the amount of detail in that part of the photo I claimed to have been pasted in.
But Jane was/is fake, and I am resting now on the idea that she never left the country.
I like your work, am trying to do more overlay and less face splitting, but a question: If the face is pasted in the photo, then the overlay will verify that it is her, but not that it is a paste-up?
Here are some more:
Paste-up. Has to be.
Looks suspicious, as if her face is pasted on there. It is the perfect vehicle for such a trick, as she is wearing a helmet, and it is all darkness behind the face.
I tend to think Lookout Mountain, that she never left the country.
I’ll skip the photo analysis part as I can’t add there. Just a comment on the first picture – if she did that gesture as the picture suggests, I suggest she’d be sent home in a zipped bag. But that’s just me.
What got me was that Lookout Mountain mentioned. Few days ago I went to read again Mathis’ piece on The Doors (http://mileswmathis.com/kilmer.pdf), he mentioned there a guy by the name Dave McGowan so I searched to see what interesting could be found. Well, unbelievable find for me personally, there’s just so much there to read and contemplate it’s crazy. But I’d like to stick to this Lookout mountain and what may be in connection to it and the area where it’s nested, and to share some interesting things about it. Maybe and probably some of the contributors here know this already, but I think it’s a well spent bit of your thread here.
As McGowan puts it here (http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/inside-the-lc-the-strange-but-mostly-true-story-of-laurel-canyon-and-the-birth-of-the-hippie-generation-part-iv/): “What would become known as Lookout Mountain Laboratory was originally envisioned as an air defense center. Built in 1941 and nestled in two-and-a-half secluded acres off what is now Wonderland Park Avenue, the installation was hidden from view and surrounded by an electrified fence. By 1947, the facility featured a fully operational movie studio. In fact, it is claimed that it was perhaps the world’s only completely self-contained movie studio. With 100,000 square feet of floor space, the covert studio included sound stages, screening rooms, film processing labs, editing facilities, an animation department, and seventeen climate-controlled film vaults. It also had underground parking, a helicopter pad and a bomb shelter.
Over its lifetime, the studio produced some 19,000 classified motion pictures – more than all the Hollywood studios combined (which I guess makes Laurel Canyon the real ‘motion picture capital of the world’). Officially, the facility was run by the U.S. Air Force and did nothing more nefarious than process AEC footage of atomic and nuclear bomb tests. The studio, however, was clearly equipped to do far more than just process film. There are indications that Lookout Mountain Laboratory had an advanced research and development department that was on the cutting edge of new film technologies. Such technological advances as 3-D effects were apparently first developed at the Laurel Canyon site. And Hollywood luminaries like John Ford, Jimmy Stewart, Howard Hawks, Ronald Reagan, Bing Crosby, Walt Disney and Marilyn Monroe were given clearance to work at the facility on undisclosed projects. There is no indication that any of them ever spoke of their work at the clandestine studio.”
There is so much more there in the same article and in generally on what was going on inside and in vicinity of Laurel Canyon, just behind LA and Hollywood. Considering what can be read and consistently tied together, Lookout Mountain studio was more that capable of producing all those photos both a paste-ups and surely as “a real thing”. What could be more fun that few days of setting the scenery together, to get the ‘Nam touch about it and then take a few photos? That’s not a challenge, actually, after what they did with Trinity project and other alleged nuclear weapon mockery, is it? It’s like a sick pervert’s game to play with all who come to realize, that it was all fake. Sure, but dig this if you can – paste ups or studio fake?
Anyway, what is really interesting beyond usual, as there are really tons of thrilling pieces of information at McGowan’s site, is what he found there in connection to Laurel Canyon and Lookout Mountain. In vicinity there is a place called Rustic Canyon where at the bottom of it, there can be found a very interesting compound built in 1920’s. As it seems and as it can be read about it, it was built by Herr Schmidt (note the last name, there is no first name allegedly that can be associated with this last name to correctly identify the man, hence). According to Marc Norman, Schmidt “convinced her (Winona Stephens , the owner of the compound) that the coming world war would be won by Germany, that the United States would collapse into years of violent anarchy and that the chosen few (read: the Stephenses, the certain gentleman and other true believers) would need a tight spot in which to hole up, self-sufficient, until the fire storm had passed. Then they could emerge not only intact but, thanks to the superiority of their politics, rulers of the anthill and, not incidentally, the origin of its new population.”
Sound familiar? More is here: http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/inside-the-lc-the-strange-but-mostly-true-story-of-laurel-canyon-and-the-birth-of-the-hippie-generation-part-x/. I’d recommend starting with part 1, especially those of you who keen on modern music history.
McGowan is what brought Straight to this site, and that eventually led to Daddieuhoh and Tyrone and Maarten. I had read his work and realized at a certain point that all of those musicians he wrote about could not be dying, and so began the search that began the list so Zombies on the right above. His work was tantalizing, but stopped well short of any important discoveries. It was all known, not by us, but by enough people that he, as a spook, stepped in to cap the research and prevent anything devastating from getting out, a limited hangout. He is probably still alive, and reassigned.
I must say Lookout Mountain facility from the outside is unimpressive.
Agreed about Lookout Mountain. But if what McGowan writes about it is true, then there must be a massive complex beneath the ground, which I see as plausible.
Is there anything more on Dave other then circumstantial to be read? I will sure try to dig deeper as I’ll have time later, all I could find was his wikispooks webpage, which is not exactly remarkable find so to say. I noticed he speaks about 9/11 hoax as if there were actually planes hitting them, although he remains suspicious of what brought them down in reality. Which could be suspicious viewpoint in general, but still I feel unsatisfied. Maybe it’s hard to accept it, that he might actually be a spook as you suggest, I just don’t see or comprehend that. Yet.
As we’ve experienced with some others, who were seeding misdirection and fog around, I sometimes find it irrational to do so. In example, as it may be with McGowan’s case, if it wasn’t for him I would never be digging into some topics. Which is exactly why I find myself scratching my head in times as this, but it may be exactly why it is supposed to be so. It still amazes me though, as Miles and you confirmed by your own research about many topics/personae that McGowan pointed them out in so many cases. But I guess it was not that pparticularly good to pull Dave into the focus after all.
I suppose we’d all be surprised if allowed a tour inside this Lookout whatever, if by some probability the truth about it’s purpose is at least 1/2, it should be amazing to see all the toys at the disposal of a chosen few.
Yeah, he has some really, really good stuff. I like his moon landing and Boston work especially. The question is whether he was a limited hangout or not. He took all the serial killers as real and the Manson murders, tying it into Satanic ritual abuse and MK-Ultra. It’s easy to see how someone looking into these issues might have swallowed that bait, along with the ‘alternative’ history of the conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln. But it’s entirely possibly (even likely) that McGowan was purposefully misdirecting on many issues, even as he was feeding us some very good information. Anyway, whether he was just wrong on some counts or purposefully misdirecting is difficult to say…and in some sense doesn’t much matter as long as you realize he was apparently wrong about a lot of things.
It’s interesting how much we struggle with the “McGowan issue.”
I agree, Daddieuhoh, that his Boston Marathon stuff is excellent. No one has gone through as many pictures of that event, pointing out all the obvious staged aspects, as he has.
Limited hangout or legit researcher… much of McGowan’s work was extremely influential in waking people up.
The main reason why I am hesitant to label McGowan as a spook is that I can remember a time when I didn’t know about/understand fake events, and it’s not difficult for me to imagine that when Dave wrote Programmed To Kill, he was in a similar place.
The fact that he wanted to defend that work as time went on, and fell prey to confirmation bias in order to do so, is completely believable to me. (I’m not defending it, understand… but it makes sense that someone who spent years writing a book, wouldn’t want to go looking for evidence that would then discredit that book)
Basically, if you read McGowan’s stuff in chronological order, you can see a progression toward being more open toward fake events being real/possible. His progression somewhat mirrors my own, so I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I specifically asked him about his hesitancy to consider that the Lincoln assassination was faked. As it was his most recent work, I found it very odd that he wasn’t going there, despite the fact that he’d discovered the Boston Marathon and the Moon Landings were faked. Obviously, he never finished his Lincoln series… but it seems clear to me that the obvious conclusion he should reach while investigating it, was that the murder never occurred.
Dave didn’t answer me, which I found a bit discouraging.
Nevertheless, McGowan had a huge influence on my perspective, and I definitely would not be open to the things I am now, if it wasn’t for him, his site, and for interacting with other people like us on his facebook page.
If he was purposefully disinfo, I say, bring on more like McGowan! I think he did more good than harm.
Hard to disagree here, and if he had not died of lung cancer at a young age, the old Bill Hicks psyop, I would be less suspicious.
It works as follows: A dissident voice is heard and given wide exposure, even doing good work and developing a following. That voice dies young, leaving behind the lingering suspicion that he was murdered by Intelligence, who have laid the groundwork by suggesting through Judyth Vary Baker and Hugo Chavez and others that cancer has been weaponized. So we walk around in fear and despair thinking that anytime someone speaks up, they get offed. It kills hope.
That would be McGowan’s spook role, as I see it. But we never really have certainty.
regarding the weaponized cancer psyop, you very well could be on to something.
That McGowan was diagnosed and then died so quickly, could be seen as a red flag.
And you are correct, his brother was immediately posting on facebook that both he and Dave suspected he was “attacked” with cancer.
Dave’s daughter then scoffed at that notion, and banned Dave’s brother from posting.
The whole interaction seemed legit to me as it happened, but perhaps it was a script, meant to intimidate the followers of McGowan.
Ironically, the fear they would be trying to induce is wasted on most of us, and probably many of Dave’s fans. As with most of the story of McGowan… if it was a psyop, I believe it failed miserably.
Perhaps “they” could sense it was failing, and that’s why the plug was pulled on the whole operation?
Nothing would surprise me at this point.
That little vignette, son claiming he was given cancer by spooks, daughter banning him, has all the makings of a little psyop. How better to plant the seeds of suspicion?
My suspicion is that McG was a spook hired to peddle serial killer fear porn to guys like me, distrustful of the MSM but supportive of self-published conspiracy theories that seemed unique- That status held for a long time and he was at some point assigned Laurel Canyon as another limited hangout, like the serial killer phenomenon (He lived in the area, had writing skills, and was obviously not doing this pro bono)- When that started to flake off and crumble he was sent out after Miles Mathis to paralell MM’s work- It all came to a head when Miles dropped his Lincoln bomb right on top of McG’s stall tactics on the subject- Seeing what a rout the head to head match-up was, they pink slipped Dave, got him on a diet (he already appeared to have had quite a lot of nipping and tucking done) and he’s now enjoying the cool breeze off the Atlantic down in Santa Catarina- Too old to return, his legacy will remain quite influential on one of the last stops before new readers either breakthrough to POM level analysis, or settle for the McGowan view, case(s) solved, back to bed-
LikeLiked by 2 people
So, yes, I agree that there are fake paste-up photos of Jane in Viet Nam but I don’t think the one at the top of this thread is one of them. It may be a double or it may have been taken somewhere other than where we were told but I don’t see it as a paste-up.
BTW, in the photo I just posted (pensive Jane on right with war torn background) you can tell it is a paste-up by studying the edges of her hair.
Well, we seem to be posting simultaneously which may be confusing to readers.
Some “Hanoi Jane” photos are indeed paste-ups which strongly suggests the whole trip was probably faked (because why else would they fake the photos?).
But in those photos of “Jane” near the anti-aircraft gun (or whatever that is), I strongly suspect they used a double. They don’t read as paste-ups to my eye. I just don’t think that is really Jane Fonda in those photos. I’d like to hear the audio of her speaking if there is any.
I admit the helmet photo does look suspicious but I don’t see any specific trace of a paste-up that I can put my finger on. But, on the other hand, that doesn’t prove it wasn’t.
It may also be “retouched” to make it look more like Jane. That is, they used a double and then altered the photo a bit. I lean toward this as the most likely scenario since there are quite a number of different photos taken of this scene. Paste-ups were much more difficult to do at that time and are usually seen in solitary photos.
Photo retouch artists were very skilled in those days. They used dyes and fine brushes and other tools to alter facial features and make other alterations in photos.
But, in any case, there is enough photo fakery evidence to point to the conclusion that the Jane Fonda Viet Nam trip was fake.
We agree on that, and thanks for your input. A good learning experience for me.
Here’s some more pics from the war, including the famous napalmed girl- https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2015/apr/22/vietnam-the-real-war-a-photographic-history-by-the-associated-press-in-pictures
This video is apparently the same naked girl- Does she look like she’s in pain and hysterical?
[DEAR READERS: WE ASK THAT YOU USE THE SEARCH TERMS “ITN Source war in Vietnam Napalm dropped on village” TO SEE THIS VIDEO. IT CONTAINS IMAGES OF A NAKED AND UNDERAGE GIRL, NOT PRURIENT BY ANY MEANS, BUT RISKY FARE FOR ANY BLOG THAT WANTS TO STAY ONLINE. THANKS FOR YOUR INDULGENCE.]
Am I looking at fake wounds? The skin falling off seems to be plastic. But the firebombing looks real. What is going on here?
I don’t know- Some of the B&W photos look too dramatic to be true- The fire bombing might be the ubiquitous drills that pass for so much of history- Perhaps staging for the TV back home to show a war going on- The Jane thing does the same thing- There’s an actual war going on, folks- Here’s how you should feel about it, from all possible perspectives-
Just when I think I have had revelations, along comes another.
Good lord, what a find Tyrone! Still not sure what to make of this. She definitely doesn’t seem hysterical like in the picture. Though in principle they may have just chosen a shot with her shouting something. And in the video we see someone who looks more like she’s in shock than hysterical. Or at least that’s one interpretation. But another is that she looks like a child actor taking a water break. Are they putting the jacket over her to protect her as they might (or might not) if this scenario is real? Also pouring water on her seems like something you would do if somebody was really burned that badly. But why would she be so calm? And why would she run into the arms of the same army that just blew up her village? Or was she simply taking a break between takes?
It sure seems like the latter. The whole feeling of the scene there is one where they’re setting up for a photo-shoot. Like the older woman with the baby. She is walking down the road and towards the end we can see a couple of soldiers and a huge group of villagers. Are they all being corralled there? Or are they onlookers trying to get a peep of the photo shoot? I suppose both narratives are plausible, but knowing what we know, I lean towards photo shoot with Hollywood-style makeup meant to look like burnt flesh.
Video does not do B52 size and noise justice.
Finally figured out why you put this up … I am trying to figure out if little girl Phan Thi Kim Phuc is also the grown woman. But the planes in the original video look more like WWII vintage.
The “peeling skin” looks exactly like latex to me. The type that movie makeup artists use for prosthetic “appliances” as they are called, It sticks to the skin but peels off easily and, of course, painlessly. I worked as a movie extra in Hollywood for 15 years and have had it applied to me and to many of my co-workers. The girl was probably dehydrated because one can get quite hot working under that stuff.
It’s also funny how they napalmed that road for no apparent reason (except for a photo op) and the photographer seemed to know where they were going to drop it.
Do we even know, Lux, that that film footage was shot in Vietnam? And what was that bright blue structure in the middle of some of those shots?
Good point. The foliage does not look like what I would expect to find in Vietnam but I’ve never been there and I’m no botanist.
I also don’t know what the blue thing is — a shrine?
going back to the original photo and comment at the top, that is not a flash. those three are in sunlight and the gun and its trigger men are under a bamboo/metal shelter which is shading them. also in that other pic you say she should be shot for – she is putting her fingers in her ears as i suspect the gun is quit loud