The John Lennon twins [Six Beatles and counting]

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:

1116-batch-4

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.

1116-batch-6

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:

1116-batch-5

[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.

lennon-13a-15a-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.

twins-head-shotsYou 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:

lennon-15-in-color

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.

lennon-13-15-overlay

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.

About Mark Tokarski

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

75 Responses to The John Lennon twins [Six Beatles and counting]

  1. Ruben Angel Botta says:

    2016-12-17 10:41 GMT-03:00 Piece of Mind :

    > Mark Tokarski posted: “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 ” >

    Like

  2. Ruben Angel Botta says:

    Ithink these are the two Lennon.

    2016-12-17 10:41 GMT-03:00 Piece of Mind :

    > Mark Tokarski posted: “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 ” >

    Like

  3. Brandon says:

    Mark,
    Forgive my ignorance regarding photo analysis, but I had a question regarding the above photo where George’s hand is hovering in an unnatural position. It does look like it was once resting on a shoulder… but how does it work when removing the image of the person upon who’s shoulder the hand was resting? Most of George’s hand would never have been in the picture (obscured by shoulder), so in order to see his fingers now, they would have had to add them in later, right?
    So, why add in hand/fingers that look like they were once on someone’s shoulder?
    It almost looks like George could be holding a cigarette between his first two fingers to me.
    Mimi’s jacket line is certainly suspicious, I agree.

    Like

    • That was my first take – that he was holding a cigarette, but there is no cigarette. I think now the arm rested on a shoulder, the thumb and forefinger visible, and that they added the back three fingers – notice how the inside of the hand is completely black. This would complete the circle as he has his arm affectionately around the woman I think is the mother of the twins. Touching the husband while expressing affection for the wife is appropriate behavior, where a warm squeeze for the Mom while ignoring the dad is not. His arms extending like that make this a warm family shot.

      This is all open to interpretation, of course. Others may see things differently. I am not sure the entire kid on the right was not pasted in, but if he was, it is a very good job.

      Like

  4. lux says:

    It does look to me like he’s holding a cigarette that is pointed back behind his hand.

    But, his fingers look oddly webbed and the area of the lady’s jacket sleeve below looks like it has an area missing. Also, George’s arm look too short.

    Like

    • I do not see the cigarette, but thanks for the input … I appreciate thoughtful analysis from you two. It is so easy to overlook and misinterpret things, so four, six, eight or more eyes are better than two.

      Like

      • tyronemccloskey says:

        I lean towards the cigarette being in his hand (the angle of the fag is obscured by the fingers) for the simple reason that the older woman also has a butt going- People were always lighting up back then, and the old bugger looks a little bit lit anyway- The biggest tip off that there is a body missing is where the older lady is standing- She’s clearly in the center, flanked by two figures on her left and one ghost on her right, otherwise she’d be a little more to her right to balance the composition and integrate the boy on her right- People just naturally herd together like that for a group photo, IMO-

        Liked by 1 person

        • This is supposedly Mimi, the aunt who took care of him due to Julia’s inability to raise a son. She is obviously a matriarch of sorts, a real person in his life, but not the role assigned to her. She could be a grandmother. These people seem to genuinely like each other and I agree, she is at the center of the family. So they wrote her into the backstory.

          I did not see the butt in her fingers, and I agree, his fingers are in such a position that there could well be a ciggy behind them. I grew up in that era. Smoking cigarettes was done everywhere by everyone, in movies, on airplanes, and even in college classrooms. I went to see my brother’s campus, Carroll College in Helena, in the early 60s and the auditorium classroom had an ashtray in each seat. I thought it was pretty cool, and also that my brother could blow really awesome smoke rings at the dinner table when he came home on breaks.

          Like

          • Michelle says:

            Hi would just like to point out that that woman is not mimi , it’s John’s aunt Harriet and her husband Norman . The young girl is john’s cousin Liela , and young cousins bavid birch and Michael.

            Like

          • Thank you, Michelle. These thoughts have been expressed before, and the point of this piece is to express doubts on Lennon’s real name and origins. I suspect we don’t know his name, that he is one of a set of twins (like “McCartney”), and that his entire background is a literary creation to divert our attention. In that vein, we noticed that the picture of him and his mother is a horrible fake, making me suspect she was invented as misdirection, and then “killed” to remove her from the story. This would mean that his father, Alfred, was a hired actor, and that the other people in the photos are not who is claimed, but perhaps his real family. (We have discovered that Paul McC’s brother, Mike McGear, is just an actor used to replace Paul’s twin, Mike, who was then used to step in and out if the role of “Paul” to this day.)

            The Beatles were an Intelligence operation, a contrived group with manufactured identifies, twins and body doubles.

            Like

  5. lux says:

    I believe the hand with the cig was pasted in. It doesn’t make sense when you look at how short his arm appears. It looks like there was an adult standing beside the woman who was cut out of the photo. So they put the hand with the cig there to make the empty space look more believable.

    Like

  6. lux says:

    ^ That’s why the fingers look webbed. The hand was sloppily cut out of another photo and pasted into this one.

    Like

  7. lux says:

    ^ Of course, the boy on the left was pasted in too.

    Like

    • That seals it then … the photo is telling because of the presence of a set of twins, and the identity of the person removed from the photo. This is the third photo of the “Lennon family” that has a person superimposed out of the blue to hide the removal of another.

      The way that George is close to groping the woman in the right indicates that he may be a little tipsy, and that it is not his daughter, but possibly a daughter-in-law, the old lecher. If I had to bet, I would do so on a family portrait of a set of grandparents, a son and daughter-in-law, and their children, a set of twins who we came to know in adulthood as “John Lennon.” The son, father of the twins, was removed from the photo.

      “Alfred Lennon,” 1912-1976, was a hired actor. “Julia Lennon” never existed, which is why the backstory script called for her early death.

      So we are now up to six Beatles, and counting.

      Like

      • lux says:

        I believe there were at least eight. Possibly more. This is my subjective opinion based on their physical appearance and mannerisms. None of The Beatles who appeared on The Ed Sullivan Show were a part of the group when it ended. So, not only was Lennon’s death faked, “Lennon” himself had been a fake for years prior.

        By the way, the alleged “rooftop concert” was faked. They were lip syncing and pretending to play. All covered up via lots of clever editing and multiple camera angles. Most of this footage has now been removed from YouTube so you have to buy the DVD to study it but there is still a little bit left on YT. Why did they fake it? My guess is because those guys may have looked like the Beatles but they couldn’t play and sing like them, not without lots of studio help.

        Like

        • Lucas Simon says:

          Here it is in full – its NOT lip synced or faked

          Like

          • lux says:

            Sorry to disagree but it most certainly IS lip synced and faked.

            Like

          • Lucas Simon says:

            explain how you think its lip synced

            Like

          • tyronemccloskey says:

            It’s very good lip-synching if that is what it is- My only suspicion over the years is how the Get Back single, presumably a studio recording, and the “live” version are so exact, note for note- There is the banter at the end in this version that isn’t on the single, but that is just an edit-
            Then there is the matter of filtering out wind, heckling, cheering, etc- It’s the Beatles so presumably they had the best mixing equipment available- To my ear it doesn’t sound quite live- I have to say I’m on the fence-
            And what is that guy kneeling in front of Lennon doing? Is he holding up a lyrics sheet? Is that evidence of live, or a feint to make it appear live?

            Like

          • lux says:

            The “Get Back” studio version and “live” version sound identical because they are the same recording. Simple as that.

            Of course, this is all my opinion but I think anyone who has played in a rock band outdoors, especially on a very cold windy day, with the gear available in the 1960s would at least be highly suspicious of this “concert.”

            By way of comparison look at a real roof top concert done within weeks of this one and in similar weather (in NYC) with similar equipment:

            Notice how terrible they sound.

            I just don’t believe what I’m hearing from the Bealtes is being played outdoors on a rooftop in icy wind in the 1960s. It just sounds like a studio recording to me. Again this is my opinion.

            Notice also that the NYPD shut down Jefferson Airplane in minutes yet the London police couldn’t do the same for nearly half an hour? That doesn’t seem realistic to me. The whole bit with the bobbies bumbling about looks staged. How long does it take for a police force to go to a rooftop when something illegal is going on? Did they stop to have tea?

            Notice where the bobbies are entering the building at 16:50. First the camera is behind them. Then it cuts to inside the building with the door closed and then the door is opened to let the bobbies in. So, the police would have had to stop and let the camera in the building ahead of them. And then the door would’ve been closed on the police. And then the police would have to knock on the door and be let in. Does that seem like how real police actions are done?

            Liked by 1 person

          • daddieuhoh says:

            Of course not. Good catch! Because so much of our reality is filtered by TV (and increasingly, so-called reality TV), most people just accept these kinds of jump cuts and continuity issues without a second thought. The camera becomes invisible since we’re so accustomed to seeing the world through cleverly edited camera shots.

            Like

          • Brandon says:

            I agree, it is clear from the camera work that this was a planned publicity stunt, and none of the footage can be trusted as real or spontaneous.
            While the footage of the police, and all the nonsense going on down at street level doesn’t necessarily prove that the performance above didn’t happen as presented… it makes it waaaay more likely that is the case. Add to that the impeccable guitar playing, and lack of any major mistakes in the performance…
            I suppose that it’s possible that the performance actually happened as shown, and it did sound like crap, and they just “released” it, so to speak, with an entirely re-recorded soundtrack?

            Like

          • Vexman says:

            If I may add here, I have my ears trained very well as a guitarist in the past decades – look at 3:14 in the above video, the Lennon’s solo on the guitar is just not what you can hear as being played in the solo. Moreover, during the whole video, on multiple occasions, one can see how his delay in movement of the hand on guitar’s neck just doesn’t correctly correspond to the notes being played, timing is noticeably off. His solo seen in video is not what we can hear, not in timings of notes nor in tones themselves. In the same Lennon’s solo, we are shown Harrison playing his guitar, but I can tell you with 100% assurance that what George is playing does NOT correspond to what we see in the video. The tones he is holding would sound different if actually played then what we can hear in the particular recording. In addition, where is the keyboard instrumentalist in the “Get Back” song in the video? And not just in this particular song, live recording with a virtual keyboard player hidden from stage and view? As the shot is zoomed out at 5:30 in “Don’t let me down”, we get a chance to see the whole rooftop stage, but there is nobody with a keyboard there. As last, I’m not sure what kind of microphones are used in this live session video recording, but I strongly doubt that any singer could lean back / away so far as we see in the video, and get his vocal recorded with no affect heard because of it. Just impossible.

            Like

          • lux says:

            Thank you, Vexman. I agree completely.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Brandon says:

            Vex,
            I was curious after reading your comment about the keyboardist, because I thought I remembered seeing a brief shot of him when I watched the show yesterday.
            I went back, and sure enough, right at the 9:00 mark, there is a brief shot of (presumably) Billy Preston’s face. It looks like from that shot, that they have him positioned behind Paul.
            Indeed, at the 13:00 mark, there is an angle shot where you can see Preston’s head as he is playing, as he moves it briefly from behind Paul.
            So, it seems Preston was positioned at an angle, behind Paul, to his right.

            Like

          • Vexman says:

            As I went back to 9:00 mark, I saw a face enjoying a music played, that’s for sure. As I’m no Beatles fan, the name Billy Preston you’ve mentioned was completely new for me. I went on to search about him and noticed he was actually playing with some big names in the ’60s, Beatles included. I think that’s why I missed noticing keyboard’s player in the setup – he still can’t be clearly seen with his hands on the instrument though. YT has a better video of the same rooftop concert, where Billy can be seen, not playing though. But I guess we could assume that Preston was there and not just nodding his head to the beat.

            I even assumed until few moments ago that all keyboard tracks and playing in Beatles was done by Lennon… my modest thank you for all.

            Like

          • Yeah, I cannot speak to the performance, the instruments, other than it appears that John’s lead guitar is much better than I ever thought. He does some pretty intricate guitar work there where with the early Beatles he was just a strummer. Paul (actually Mike) is not highlighted that way, usually shown with finger work obscured. I saw some in-studio supposedly candid ‘Beatles at work’ stuff and noticed that Paul/Mike’s hands were always presumed to be working but not seen, playing piano or bass guitar with his back to the camera or the piano between us and the keyboard. He might be a total fake.

            But aside from John’s work, which looks intricate (and could easily be fake, like him), most of the intricate guitar notes come off-camera sources, not what we see on camera. The crowd below, the bobbies showing up to break up the show, the remarks from psssers by is easily seen to be fake. Hard to Imagine that amplifiers ten stories above would do a ninety degree turn and fill up the canyons below. That part had to be bumpkins.

            Like

          • lux says:

            [Mark T said] “Hard to Imagine that amplifiers ten stories above would do a ninety degree turn and fill up the canyons below. That part had to be bumpkins.”

            Reply:
            Speaking of those amplifiers, the amps beside George and John have no mics on them. How then are their guitars being recorded? In recording sessions you have to place a mic on each guitar amp in order to record it. You do NOT plug the guitar directly into the recorder as some might think. The amp is part of the instrument and must be miked or it won’t be recorded.

            In the rooftop “concert” the vocals have mics and the drums have mics but I don’t see any for the guitar amps. They probably didn’t bother because most people have never been in a recording studio and wouldn’t know about miking guitar amps.

            And, speaking of recording, there is no recording equipment visible anywhere in the film. Studio recorders in the 1960s were big with big mixing boards and at least one engineer controlling it all. One might argue that the sound was “piped” downstairs via cables to the studio below.but that again raises the question of how the guitars were recorded when they didn’t even have mics on their amps. So, while I will grant that it is possible that the Beatles may really be singing in the film, I don’t see how it’s possible that they are really playing the guitar parts that we are hearing.

            And, no, the cameras do not have recorders built into them. They are using 16mm and/or 35mm film movie cameras and these have no built-in sound recorders.

            Like

          • Vexman says:

            Mark, if you look here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCzqtnOmINo , you can see Paul with a band (or whoever that person is, actually, I wish he was the same as in the video we were discussing previously) actually playing. at 35:34 you can see him playing the end of a song on piano. It looks rhythmically correct, most probably the tones are correct too (can’t confirm 100% as the angle of recording doesn’t allow it). At 40:59 he takes an acoustic guitar and starts to play – he actually plays those tones rhythmically correct and tone-wise as well. I checked the whole video in this link, he even plays ukulele (the mini hawaiian guitar) and of course, the bass itself. It looks legitimate enough to say, that when it comes to Paul McCartney personae, whoever is acting him, can play the instrument for real. If you ask me, he sure is a talented musician/performer, much more talented than i.e. all those punk-rock figures that were decadently placed on the stage few years later.

            Like

          • I take your word, Vex. I just watched part of that and have watched him in other performances too, and said in the “Sir Faul” piece from long ago that he appeared to be a very good performer. This is perhaps why he was chosen over the other original Paul to be the permanent one.

            However, if you watch the movie Help! (after the opening sequence, which is original Paul) you will see camera trickery to disguise the face connected to the arm playing bass in some songs. (It is not necessary for most songs, which are lip synced, but for closeup in You’re Going To Lose That Girl they disconnected face from arm, showing only the back of the bass player.) That was the first time Mike stepped forward as Paul in anything other that quick cuts, the major introduction of the replacement.

            In Beatles songs after that Paul/Mike was seen behind the piano, which requires neither left or right hand dominance. Paul was a lefty, Mike a righty. I would imagine that he has learned his instruments since then, so that by 2009 he had become very good.

            Just in case you don’t know, I don’t truck in Paul is Dead or any such silliness. THere were two of them from the beginning. I used a photo in the Faul piece of a 1963 performance in Sweden that was Mike, and not Paul, little knowing that John was involved in the monkey business too.

            Like

          • Vexman says:

            Oh, thanks for the additional info. I think I’ve read that “Sir Faul” piece, I just replied to your post above mine that he might be a fake musician. He isn’t , as we agree about it. But I still don’t know who is who 🙂 that’s why I said it in my previous post as well, I wasn’t implying anything about “Paul is Dead” nonsense. That would be truly confusing, as if it already wasn’t confusing enough with what they did with twins setup. I never watched Help! movie, and to be honest – after I learned about the Beatles from you, that movie is just something I’ll never play in order to learn anything additional about them. I trust your judgment enough to skip it, so thanks for that as well.

            Like

          • Miles said at one point “enough McCartney!” or something to that effect. He said at the conference that he had more reactions to his Paul is Twins piece than any other, and I think he was a bit discouraged by that, though I am not a mind reader. I hope we can walk and chew gum here, as Straight and Daddie and Maarten are exposing the reality and fake reality of wars, far more substance than Beatles stuff. But this piece has drawn 536 reads so far, so I guess that is where our heads are at.

            The stuff excites me – I was a devoted Lennon fan until I realized what a fake he was, never much cared for McC – as my daughter said one time, “They shot the wrong Beatle.” ANyway, here is a post that contains, as best I can tell, the earliest photos of the two McC’s after their 1940s childhood photos.

            https://pieceofmindful.com/2016/09/27/more-mccartney-stuff/

            And by the way, Vex, I enjoy your comments. You add a lot to this blog.

            Like

          • Brandon says:

            Mark,
            I remember Miles mentioning that, as well. And while I see his point, I don’t believe that investigations into things like The Beatles is without merit.
            At the very least, it could bring people into the fold, who otherwise wouldn’t even consider fakery in the first place.
            Everyone needs an “in”, so to speak. If it has to be the more pop culture angle that does it, so be it.
            It’s all about unwinding our fake history. Proving that The Beatles “story” is a fake one, would arguably open more minds than just about anything else.

            Like

          • Great perspective. I did not think of that.

            Like

          • daddieuhoh says:

            Nowhere in Mark’s post does he say that the Beatles could not sing or play instruments. He’s just saying the Beatles are not who we thought they are. He’s not saying they didn’t exist. So posting this video saying ‘here they are not lip syncing or faked’ is completely beside the point. What is the point you’re trying to make? Do you even have one? Or are you just trying to derail the conversation?

            Like

          • Simon came aboard, fake identity, fake FB page, to explain to us that all if the photos were real (even offering two more paste-ups), and that the rooftop,concert was real too. He says he’s got forty years of Beatle devotion behind him, yet is FB page is a man in his twenties. He knows all the names the of the relatives. He refused to address the pasting-up issue. He was a spook sent not to derail, but to debunk. He failed.

            Like

  8. Jen Moore says:

    Let Him Be has a lot of ‘actors’ who look like they are part of the “Lennon” family.

    Like

  9. Lucas Simon says:

    The family picture is Mary Elizabeth Smith’s (Mimi) sister, Harriet Stanley, who married Norman Birch. John Lennon is the lad with the cap on, the smaller lad next to him is Harriet and Norman’s child David Birch, and the younger woman is Leila Harvey, another cousin of John. This picture was taken in Edinburgh, Scotland 1952.

    Like

  10. Lucas Simon says:

    Here is John with Aunt Mimi and Uncle George Toogood Smith

    Like

    • Perhaps then you can explain all the monkey business in these photos, paste-ups and paste-overs. We are yet to find one that has not been monkeyed with.

      Like

      • Lucas Simon says:

        Thank you for thanking me for pointing out who these people really are ….. Oh you didn’t!
        Why not? Its pretty easy to reverse search google images to find multiples sites and references to the identities of the individuals, and I wonder why you didn’t do that?

        Show me and your audience where the paste ups are, but I pose the fair question that if you wrongly identify the individuals in the pictures, when their names can be easily found then I would, and rightly so, question your statement of pasting and monkey business!

        Ask me anything you like about the Beatles, I have followed them for 40 years. I might not know everything but I will try to be accurate and informative

        Like

  11. Lucas Simon says:

    i think you are sadly deluded!
    They are not paste ups, if so highlight them to us all!
    and I am NOT fake, lol

    and you have still not admitted that you have got the names of the individuals wrong
    Why not admit that

    I like and believe some of the stuff on this site, but you guys are wrong on this one

    Like

  12. Lucas Simon says:

    I have given you a couple of hours to test what I have said about the photo, and yuo obviously dont know either how to use Google Reverse Image Search, or you cant be bothered to give or correct information.

    You claim it to be “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”

    I didn’t get a thank you or acknowledgement to who I said it was, and I was testing you to see if you really wanted to check the details – if you had you would have rejoiced in telling me I was wrong!

    So …. I am getting bored …. here are the correct details of who is in the picture

    Cousin Stanley took this picture of young John with Aunt Mater, Uncle Bert, and Cousins Liela, Michael, and David in Edinburgh in 1952

    Aunt Mater was Mimi Smith’s sister, Bert her husband
    Prove me wrong!

    Like

  13. lux says:

    Please eject the troll.

    Like

    • Lucas Simon says:

      Why cant you deal with the truth – you cannot publish articles with schoolboys errors, that when pointed out still go uncorrected or even acknowledged. Such errors just make your site and other good articles here questionable.

      Like

    • He’s not a troll so much as a spook, lux. Word got back to MI5 or whatever about this post, and they sent out a low-level guy, barely disguised. If you look at his FB page, you’ll find he is presented as a man in his 20s with exhibitionist tendencies. Yet he claims to have been following the Beatles for 40 years. He knows all the family names for the back story, and refuses to deal with the photo anomalies, obvious paste-ups, even bringing in two new ones. We will dispatch him, but for now, it is useful to figure out his angle – apparently to add authenticity to the fake photos. He might have had some credibility but for that creepy Facebook page.

      Like

      • lux says:

        I’ll take your word for his FB page. I’m not an FB member so I am not allowed to read it and I don’t want to join.

        Gosh — he followed the Beatles for 40 years. Him and 4 billion other fan-tards.

        Like

        • I have seen this several times before, a FB page with virtually no posts, no friends … a construct. In this case the guy is in his 20s, is gay, is near naked, and then is seen in deep embrace with another man of the same age. Highly charged, and not at all a normal FB page. These type of of pages pop up when a spook needs a cover. They assign a page that has been ginned up for situations like this. Why it had to be so gay is beyond me. Maybe the low-level arts and crafts people are like Hollywood, mostly gay.

          Like

        • Lucas Simon says:

          Highly amusing comments – a troll, MI5, Spook! I love it, so funny
          As if MI5 are really interested in your incorrect ramblings.
          I look forward to you working out how I really am!

          Like

  14. Vexman says:

    Go bark at another tree, Lucas, the only thing that you’ll get here is your virtual ass kicked out. Be nice and go tell your owners, that they need to send in somebody with IQ’s value above that of room’s temperature. Is there anyone left from you spooks with decent ability to think at all? Before you leave, tell me one thing about your nick there, is it pronounced Luc-ass or Look-ass .I’m confused with it….

    Like

  15. lux says:

    Funny that his screen name is “Simon.”

    Like

  16. JoAnn vR says:

    Good call, Mark. Just tried to watch the”Let Him Be ” video. The trailer is there, but the movie is”unavailable”. Sigh…

    Like

    • It could be a copyright issue, and taking it down could be legitimate. Then the question would be being able to buy it, as I did. I have tried twice now to buy the soundtrack CD to the movie, with no success. They take the order but the transaction, with Abracadabra Productions, never goes through. The songs in the movie are fairly decent.

      If you go to the Mathis paper on Lennon, somewhere towards the end he links to the place to buy the movie CD. Maybe that still works.

      Like

      • JoAnn vR says:

        Thanks Mark.

        Like

      • Inside Baseball says:

        The singing is pretty poor on the CD. While the voice has Lennonesque qualities, it would never pass today as professional, except as coming from an impersonator who looks like Lennon. There’s no support at all, and while he can stay on pitch for the most part, shows no technique or training. Perhaps it’s a non-musical Lennon twin who is doing it. Singers can age pretty well if they take care of themselves, often losing range but not technique.

        It’s probably less apparent when watching the movie, as the other elements keep one distracted from the pure music. Kind of like buying a CD from a bar band or group you hear live, and finding it just doesn’t measure up to what you remember from the live experience.

        Like

        • That, or it simply lacks the slick production values that the Beatles had in their day.

          Like

          • Inside Baseball says:

            Yes, that could be. Or perhaps he was purposely singing with bad technique to try to hide his identity. The older Beach Boys sure sound awful, so maybe they were never any good live. Could be the same with the Beatles…

            Like

          • I listened to CSN without Y on Tonight Show a while back, older and sounding really bad. All three played acoustical guitar and had not progressed much since their heyday. I suspect a lot of monkey business making these groups, including the Beatles, sound better than they were.

            Like

  17. Inside Baseball says:

    Mark, the soundtrack is on Rhapsody, so I downloaded and am listening now. If it disappears we’ll know someone is paying attention here…

    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