A short while back we put up a post called John Lennon Family Photos. Some interesting anomalies turned up. I will highlight three of the photos:
The man standing behind the two children is called the “boarder.” But more importantly, the girl has been pasted in. (Her whites are too white, arm lines too sharp.) That was done to hide something.
Again the same boy and girl, and the “boarder.” This time the man on the left is pasted in (his head is too big), and again, this is done to hide something.
What can we surmise given this fakery? As commenter Brandon reminded us recently, maybe nothing. We do not control the photos. That is indeed a fair take on this kind of work. What do we know about John Lennon other than that information given to us by his controllers?
But I am going to push forward anyway on the assumption that these photos were given to us after being worked over by intelligence in order to provide the Lennon back story. Tyrone speculates that the name “Lennon” is an invention, meant to sound like “Lenin,” since his public image was going to be the “working class hero.” Further, they did not think that the photos would ever receive any more than a cursory glance from the public, and certainty not the news media, which they control. I speculate that the “boarder” is the real father, and the girl could well be his real mother.
The official back story, that his father abandoned the family, that his mother was hit by a car and killed, that he was raised by Aunt Mimi, all served to hide his true origins. I speculated that he was a member of the Stanley clan, a powerful British family from whose lineage a certain Barry Soetoro (Barack Obama) was also drawn, if that is a true relationship. The back story is consistent in this regard, calling the mother “Julia Stanley.” So I speculated that his real name was not John Lennon, but perhaps John Stanley*. We have no way of knowing, however.
One more photo from the Lennon batch completes the circle:
[Updated – see comments below: There is lots going on in this photo. We are looking at what appears to be a set of twins; Aunt Mimi and George are centered in the back, George looking a little tipsy and nearly groping the woman who may be his daughter-in-law. She is possibly the mother of the twins. George’s hand sticking out is pasted on, his arm too short. His fingers suggest a cigarette out of sight complimenting Mimi’s cigarette down lower. The mugging boy on the left was pasted in. They have removed a person from the photo, probably the “boarder” from the photo above, who then would be the husband of the woman on the right, and the father of the twins. The grass around the shoes was darkened because one set of legs and shoes had to be removed. In other words, this is a family photo, possibly grandparents, son and daughter-in-law, and the twins who we came to know in adulthood as “John Lennon,” not their real name.]
At this point it helps to know that John Lennon’s death in 1980 was faked. The link is to a 53-page paper by Miles Mathis. Some time further down the road I am going to look more thoroughly at the character “Mark Staycer,” but for now just understand that he is not John Lennon. Lennon stepped in and out of the Staycer character in a typical intelligence double-blind operation when they made the 2009 movie Let Him Be. (You might want to watch that dreadful movie soon, as I don’t know how much longer YouTube will allow it to play.)
I did not have to search far for John Lennon twins. I was given a set of photos by Daddieuhoh, and they jumped right out at me. My dilemma is that while I can see the differences, it is going to be difficult to pass the information on to readers. Today I am going to give it a shot. In the near future I intend to look for more Lennon twin shots, as I need to know if and when they each performed with the group. After all, we know the McCartney twins, Paul and Mike, each stepped in and out of the role of “Paul” even up to 1990 or so. I cannot say with certainty which twin played Lennon in Let Him Be, or if Mark Staycer is in reality the other twin. That all lies ahead.
For now I am going to use two photos that I know to be the two different men, and compare them from three different angles.
First, I am going to do the traditional face chop that we do here – with some cautionary notes. Imagine two balloons, un-inflated. On one you place two black dots, one half-inch apart, and on the other two dots one full inch apart. You then inflate the balloons so that the dots are the same distance apart, say three inches. To achieve that, the balloon with the one-half inch distance dots has to be blown up larger.
In essence, this is what we do with face chops – we set the eyes at equal distances on two people, using that as our constant. If the two are the same person, all other features align. That is how we identified our Zombies on the list to the right. On the other hand, if the other features do not align, then we know they are different people, often enough twins.
Often the misalignment manifests as one person having a larger head than the other, the balloon effect. This does not mean that head sizes are different, only that eye sockets are not spaced the same.
Here are the two photos I used for this experiment:
In the photo on the right, his head has been pasted on another body, since the neck is missing, but we can ignore that as we are only dealing with faces. I have placed the pupils of the eye at exactly one inch apart for both, then did the face chop.
Notice that the left half is slightly bigger than the right. That is the balloon effect. In real life, the two men look very much alike, and their heads are about the same size. By using the one-inch common distance, I have introduced distortion to highlight differences. Notice now that in aligning the noses of the two, we have misaligned eyes, chin, and ears.
But that is not enough, as most people do not accept that photographic comparisons like that are valid, as they are at odds with our governing perceptions. So I thought I would take another tack on this.
Using the same two photos, seen below again,
I looked for a common measurement not involving the eyes (as it was the eyes I wanted to measure.) I drew a line through the face using the tip of the nose as the center, and measured the width. The result was 163 pixels for the one on the left. I then adjusted the size of the one on the right to that distance. I then measured the difference between the eyes on each.
You should be able to see with your naked eye by now that the twin in the right has eyes that are slightly further apart than the one on the left. After setting the heads to standard size, I measured the pupil-to-pupil distance. Left: 73 pixels, right 81. (I noticed this same distance in the family shot where the twins appear, shown high above, where the twin on the right has slightly further-set eyes.)
But I realize that is hardly convincing, as pupil distance could be a photographic distortion. I will never be able to fully overcome the objection that Internet photos are not reliable. But it is all we have. Still, I took the above photos to Photoshop and did some highlighting and coloring, as follows:
That is the one on the left. I then took the one on the right and overlaid it, and reduced the opacity so that we could see the one in color through the overlay. Again I aligned the noses.
Now the differences are apparent in the larger chin (seen in gray below the color), the different placement of the mouths, and the most obvious difference, the low and slightly narrower eyes, seen in gray below the other set of eyes.
That’s it for now – I am quite satisfied that there were/are two different John Lennon’s, that “Lennon” is not the family name, that his back story about the deadbeat dad, Julia and Mimi is fiction, and that on December 8, 1980, neither was killed. If the birth date is accurate, always an uncertainty with spooks, the Lennon twins are now 76.
And oh, by the way, Mark David Chapman, the alleged killer, is also a set of twins. Neither are in prison.
*Thanks is due to Miles Mathis for his yeoman’s work in genealogy, exposing the Stanley background in both his work on Lennon and Barack Obama.