This house is clean? Maybe.

I spent my morning going through old posts, and deleted many. At one time I was going to review all of the twins, but finally decided face splitting, while somewhat useful, was not reliable enough to make bold conjectures. More evidence was needed. So on the menu on the left what is left of twins are those in which I am confident I am on to something. Drake, Lindsay Lohan, Rihanna, for instance – we have photos of the two of them together. The others – McCartney, Dr. Phil, Buddy Holly, Joplin – I have worked very hard on them and stand by the work.

Other work that relied on others more than myself – Elvis, the Challenger disaster, Stephen Hawking – gone, with some regret as those are real hoaxes that need more work. I want to do that work, but since others hit on it first and I am just a sweeper behind their parade – well, go read Mathis or Clues Forum. They were there first.

The “Zombies” column I mostly left alone. Maybe more work is needed, but in my view Janis Joplin is Amy Goodman, to name just one, and I will defend those findings. I want to do more work on some of them, David Box, for instance, but think the initial posts, though perhaps relying too much on face splitting, are on a scent trail that needs to be followed. Something very big is going on there. All the world’s a stage.

In total I deleted perhaps fifty pieces.

14 thoughts on “This house is clean? Maybe.

  1. Janis Joplin was suspiciously untalented and the band Big Brother and the Holding Company was suggestively-named and suspiciously lame.

    “Democracy Now!” is an obvious controlled-opposition outfit/fraud.

    I was independently, and separately suspicious of Janis Joplin and Amy Goodman.

    Janis/Janus = two-faced?

    Joplin = ragtime and Janis wore rags.

    The name “Amy Goodman” seems contrived to radiate Quaker benevolence and simultaneously suggest a nice, middle-class Jewish girl grown up with “honest gray hair” like a left-wing Barbara Bush. Goodman’s frumpy image seems contrived to convey substance.

    But I never thought to connect the two.


    1. Very insightful … and who would think to connect the two? Had it not been for McGowan’s Weird Scenes book, the question would never been asked … what happened to all these dead musicians … really?


  2. As a long-time sceptic of AIDS I viewed the death of Freddie Mercury with suspicion.

    My suspicion was that he didn’t die of AIDS but of AZT: a high-profile casualty of what John Lauritsen called “Iatrogenic genocide”.

    I never thought to suspect that his death was faked.

    Dr. Phil has a heavily-backstopped marriage to a wife with suspicious siblings.


    1. Freddie/Dr. Phil is a tough one. I know that. I think it was Straight who spotted it, and our later work on the matter tends to support it. That he has a son who is a rock musician who sings falsetto is a tell, if it is really his son.


  3. Mark, I think this decision and self conscience makes your site stronger.

    I hope you have saved the texts, including the comments, as that indeed can be useful information, or you just hid the pieces only for your eyes to later be able to put them back on when you have more clues?

    I think many of those purely frontal facial comparisons based on just a few photos are not strong enough as evidence. You have done some profile comparisons too (with Jimi Hendrix I recall), but that should be standard in every facial comparison you make, just to build a stronger case and be more confident yourself and also as a site in response to criticisms. Same for voice. You have pointed out that voice comparisons can be tricky because of the editing processes in the studios. That may well be true, but is that a reason to completely omit the method? Why not try it with some ex-samples of real known people as a test?

    The only real convincing one, but that was my personal feeling, which doesn’t say anything about how good it was, is Bill Maher and Pete Ham, who are still there under the Zombies section.

    A second point I am struggling with, is what would be the need to re-use all those people? Hollywood, or the entertainment industry (the name says it all) is a machine, a factory. Constantly new puppets (that’s where the term pop music [i]actually[/i] comes from…) are being sculpted to “stardom”. Why re-use the old pranks that “died” long ago?

    With the exception of John Lennon and Miles Mathis’ great piece on him; there it is just obvious trolling by the Elites who laugh their bottoms off about our gullibility. But there it’s clear and the second “zombie” not widely promoted like Anderson Cooper or the -sorry but that one is ridiculous, especially on the voice, body build, style etc.- Hicks-Jones transformation for instance.

    To me the faked deaths are clear, the twin use too (like they also did with ships, Titanic…), the zombie revival I don’t see the need for; just vacationing “dead” Kennedies (et al.) and new old television trash that trashes the brains of those watching is enough.


    1. We have struggled with the question of why use these people. That begins to fill in as backdrop as MM takes us down through the generations of peerage – these people are all juiced, connected. Why use real people, really talented people, when you can have people entirely under your control, and whose talent can be manufactured and faked? I would venture to guess that anyone who attains fame in music is juiced.

      Why the fake deaths? Operation Chaos. The undermining and destruction of the antiwar movement, which seems to have created some concern, was a front and center cause for drastic action. Agents, part of the peerage, who might have served other purposes were called forth to become rock stars (with Phil Spector assembling the Wrecking Crew at the same time, real musicians, to ghost for them). After the threat subsided, they were no longer needed, and only those who actually had some talent (CSNY, Denver, Browne, Baez) stayed on. The rest faked their deaths and moved on to new assignments, some of which we have uncovered.

      That is my take. I am not the final word.


  4. I agree with your whole case for faked deaths, for the motives to use these people (infiltrate and steer the anti-war movement), promote these people (Operation Chaos), etc. That they are being re-used in a new (back-office) assignment too. No problems there.

    What I am struggling with is the use of them in a public assignment. They have thousands upon thousands of these Brave New World bred babies; the (crypto) jewish peerage pond is large enough.

    The amount of work and detail you put in for John Denver makes a strong case. You have so many blog posts like that, especially your work on Columbine. But also there the whole case ends with the -far-fetched- comparison with these SouthPark guys. IMHO that damages the work you did before, you see? And I’ve read in the comments I am not alone in that view.

    Take Bill Hicks becoming Alex Jones. Hicks was a great comedian, really sharp, talented and funny and probably staged, I can see that. But a very remarkable smart personality. Alex Jones also has a remarkable personality but very very different. His style is different, his looks are different, his voice is different. The only similarity is that they both are from Texas (where there are enough people) and they vaguely resemble each other in their faces.

    Why not build a “John Denver like” case on those two (or any other zombie couple you are strongly convinced is real)? Tracing back Jones’ youth, where did he grow up, which schools, which former assignments/jobs, etc.?

    The fact a known controlled opposition clown like Dallas Goldbug came with this proposal also doesn’t really help in making a strong case. You’re essentially saying “he was wrong on everything, except this one”, which doesn’t really convince. If he is wrong about all the other cases, why not about this case of these two very remarkable people too?

    I am new to this “blogosphere” but have years of experience on forums, lately promoting your site there too. On forums there are always people who think Remarkable Character B is a sockpuppet/clone of Remarkable Character A. While both may have very different styles and topics of interest and in many cases I’ve seen those ideas or even accusations are flat-out wrong. Look at the Cluesforum and Fakeologist gang (at least some of them), they attacked you and the other guy who met Miles Mathis personally and still don’t believe you now.

    A “John Denver-” or “Columbine-“quality case would really help convince a lot of people of this zombie idea, more than “face Y resembles face X when seen in front” and that’s it, done.


    1. Points taken … I think back to our first discovered zombie, Bobby Fuller/Bill Reilly. I had the same kind of disbelief. Had i simply let that guide me, I don’t think my understanding of how our world really works would have advanced much. I don’t claim to have answers, but do think I am ahead of most of the pack in terms of coming to grips with the strangeness of it all. Just because it strikes us as strange does not mean it should be disregarded.

      [Addition: Bill Hicks, looking back, was a classic psyop. There has long been an unspoken rumor, that was pushed by Jack Ruby’s supposed death, and again by Judith Vary Baker’s “Me and Lee” and by James Fetzer and a few others that the CIA has the ability to subtly inject anyone they want with cancer. Hicks used to speak openly about the JFK assassination, mimic the head shot, and in an enraged manner question the Warren Commission, on stage, in-your-face. Then at age 32 he develops a very aggressive cancer and is dead. Then he emerges with the same manager as Alex Jones. I don’t have a problem understanding that. They grate his voice by some electronic technique on Prison Planet, and he has had some plastic surgery, but we matched the teeth, and it was a perfect match. All other features align. Classic psyop.]


  5. I don’t really have a problem with the twins and zombies. The era since WW2 is probably the greatest social engineering era in the history. The zombies are very valuable agents belonging to elite families. They probably had special training in their youth to become public personalities. They are also probably selected because of their looks and various aptitudes or abilities. Not every elite sprog can be a public personality (funny that “sprog” means also “a recruit”). Once they had experience these agents became even more valuable, so it is not hard to see why they were recycled. I believe that most were recycled to a position that has to do with forming the public opinion, which makes sense.
    If you look at the era after WW2 you can consider the social engineering regarding war movements, racial issues, demographic changes/immigration, Cold War/Geopolitics, gender issues, technology, terrorism, conspiracy movement and others. The 60’s seems to be the era when a lot of these things exploded or accelerated in a very fast manner. Just think about the work required to social engineer the population from their state in 1945 to their state in 2017.


  6. Ack, I didn’t realize you have to match pupil distance on both images. When you do that Coulter doesn’t match up with Carpenter at all. No wonder I was getting so many positives! But redoing these with the pupil distance method confirmed my suspicion that the high school Lester Bangs and the adult Lester Bangs are not the same person, and the young Lester Bangs is in fact Bill Nye. Have to wonder where that image comes from, it was just one website that claimed it was Lester Bangs. You might think the site simply mixed up Bill Nye’s and Lester Bangs’ pictures, but I googled ‘Bill Nye high school pic’ and that picture is nowhere to be seen!


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s