Note to readers: After receiving the video from Kevin* today of Barbara Walters’ first appearance on the Today Show in the 1960s, I slowly came to realize I had much of that scam wrong. While Pamela Courson did indeed become Walters, in my view, what I thought were surviving photos of the original Walters were in fact, again, Courson.
*To be clear, though Kevin supplied the video, he does not see what I see in it, and is not on board with my conclusions.
So I have more work to do – it appears at this writing that the entire Internet has been scrubbed of photos of the original Walters, but that is the work that now lies ahead of me – to see if any survived. Just as an example, the photo to the left here, which I took to be the original Walters, is actually Pam Courson in a 60s wig and done in black and white. It was said to have been shot in 1960, but more like 1976. She will end up looking like the Walters we all know, shown on the right.
And, from Kevin’s video on the right here is the original Barbara Walters. Those with trained eyes should easily see that she looks nothing like the woman pictured above, and my work ahead will be to see if she looks anything at all like the Walters we came to know in the 80s and 90s. I doubt it. This is the woman who disappeared from view in 1976.
This post will reappear in a couple of days after I have worked over all the available old photos of Walters to see if any of them are of her, or a cleverly disguised Courson. This project, replacement of Barbara Walters with Pam Courson, was much deeper into our psyches than I imagined, the work that went on to sell Courson as Walters extensive.
In the meantime, there are some comments below the original post to the effect that last night’s Minnesota-New Orleans game was a fix. This is an old topic, long discussed here. There are three schools – that the games are real, that some of them are fixed – the more important ones (my view), and that all of them are fixed. Discuss away.
Piece of Mindful 
Hi. I don’t know whether my last comment got through; my first on here, indeed my first anywhere. I have a response detailing where I think Babs number 1 went, yet couldn’t paste in the appropriate pictures. I asked for an email address to forward it to you, or if preferred, tips on how to affix the pics. I’m a long time user/consumer of the web yet a novice participator and a technophobe. I have never added my two cents to a blog or forum before and wouldn’t do so without a damn good reason. I have one. Please let me show you.
Many thanks guys for all your honest work.
Sincerely, Richie.
LikeLike
I confess I am not a big football fan, and I have never really followed the NFL. Until now, I guess. My husband is a huge Jacksonville Jaguars fan, and as I’m sure most people know they are playing the Patriots this weekend.
I’m curious, I believe it was somewhere on this site where I read interesting comments alleging that somehow Brady is propped up as QB. My sense (whatever that’s worth) is that “Deflategate” may have been a hoax, but I also think there is something funny going on there. How would something like this work? And what specifically, should I look for during a game to find evidence of this?
LikeLike
There is a book called Hype by Steven Aronson from 1983 that has a chapter about Barbara Walters. There are pictures of her pre and post facelift, which was a big deal at the time. I also think there are childhood photos of her too. I have it somewhere and I will scan in the pictures if I can find it. Another way to go about getting photos of the O.B. would be to Google the morning show she started on, maybe the Today show, or Ron Gaelea the paparazzi dude from the 60s and 70s used to take pictures of her all the time. Check his book Off Guard for candids. Rona Barrett Hollywood magazines from the 70s will definitely have her in them. Check Etsy or Ebay.
LikeLike
Facelift sounds like misdirection – I was supplied a video of her first appearance on the Today Show, and indeed it was not the woman we know today as BW. It will be up on teh blog first thing in the morning.
LikeLike
Mark, I tried to leave this comment earlier. In about 1972 I read a book by BW called “How to Speak to Practically Anybody About Anything” written in 1970, the cover photo for which (See online amazon for this book) shows the woman you think is the second BW. If published in 1970, Pamela Courson was still alive and with Jim Morrison, so she presumably cannot be on that cover.
LikeLike
I found the book, and the cover photo indeed is a match for Courson, who would have been 24 at the time, but not for Walters, whose photo I have from 1971. I cannot be sure that the dust cover was the orignal with the 1970 book, as they have gone back through the Internet and cleaned up all those photos, so an internet photo of the dust cover would not have been overlooked.
So I have to sleep on this … the Walters from the 1961 Today Show interview is definitely a different person than the person on the picture of the cover of that book. What we need is the original book. Libraries by and large do not save dust covers.
LikeLike
By the way, Morrison and Courson were hired actors, and I doubt they were either lovers or married. She was, as I view it, his Jane Asher, hired to be with him in public, and also with the replacement Jim Morrison who turned up in Paris photos before his fake death – this for continuity. (I am going on memory here – and I don’t want to get into Morrison anymore.) (Jane Asher was a beard, hired to appear in public with both Mike and Paul McCarteny, the twins, for continuity.)
LikeLike
That does make a lot of sense, and I know anyone who lived on Love Street in Laurel Canyon literally in the shadows of Lookout Mountain Studio is probably suspect. Note the Doors even recorded the song Love Street about location of an apartment supposedly shared by Pam and Jim.
LikeLike
This is interesting. Take a look at this photo:
That is supposedly Barbara and her baby in 1968. Now take a look at closeups of Barbara on the cover of her book (color) and the baby shot.
I think it pretty obvious that the baby photo above is a paste-up – take a look at how dark her face is compared to everything around her and the baby’s face. It looks like a flash photo, everything is so white-bright but the shelves behind her are unaffected. The line on the dress sleeve looks unnatural and there is an unnatural shadow between teh baby’s head and the mother’s sternum. It looks very fake.
Given that photo to be fake, now look at the other two, the face of the mother in the baby shot, and the book cover. In both cases the smiles are very fake – odd for a book cover, odd for a new mother. (Smiles can be seen in the eyes, and each of these shots has angry eyes.) Though supposedly two years apart, they sport the exact same hairdo. Maybe a wig, maybe she keeps it trimmed to that length.
Anyway, I have more to sleep on now, but I think that given the baby photo is so obviously fake, the same image from the same photo shoot became stock and was used on the Internet to change the picture of the book cover.
LikeLike
Photos are out of order but if I edit the comment, the photos disappear.
LikeLike
Mark, I also thought that when I saw this photo you posted (with the baby). But I am not so sure. The baby’s face is inclined upward, towards the light. Barbara (or whoever she is) is inclined downward causing a darker tone on her face. Look at the bright spot on the top of her hair (that looks like a whig and if she’s jewish -as she looks- it could be, as religious jewesses wear whigs). That is where the light falls onto that otherwise would fall on her face.
The frail beautiful woman you showed (“the original Barbara Walters”) doesn’t look like the later Barbara big-nosed Walters at all, so that is not my point. Just this photo.
LikeLike
The light appears to be from a flash, so that head angles are not affected. Her face should be as bright as her baby’s.
LikeLike
The football playoffs that I saw had lots of ridiculous/unbelievable plays.
Obviously the last play of the Saints/Vikings game was the topper. But Big Ben throwing not one but two fourth down bombs for touchdowns was pretty hard to believe. Not only are they low percentage plays for fourth down, but just not normal. The Steelers coach made a number of boneheaded moves all through the game, such as the onside kick at the end.
The Eagles quarterback couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn for the first quarter or so, yet the Falcons kept interfering with the receivers to keep them in the game.
Last week at the end of the Buffalo – Jacksonville game, there were all sorts of odd calls on the last drive. Buffalo had no timeouts, and had a receiver tackled in bounds but the ref stopped the clock as if he went out of bounds. The announcers were confused about the 10 second run off on the clock for a penalty, and didn’t seem to notice.
One of the games, the off-field ref had to run on the field to correct the down as the crew goofed it up. They’ve gotten so bad at seemingly remembering the rules, it makes me think they are waiting for outside instructions on what to call at the end of the games, and either getting confused or trying not to mess up the script.
It’s hard to know what they’re trying to achieve this year. Probably another Patriots title, as the Eagles are all but unwatchable and the Vikings will have a home game for the first time ever in a super bowl, in their brand new billion $$ stadium. Maybe that was the payoff for getting it voted in.
LikeLike
Mark, I saved the original Bawa piece on the 15th as a pdf if you’re interested. The last comment I grabbed was by Steve January 14, 2018 at 8:01 pm: ‘ the marcus williams play at the end of the saints vikings game is the smoking gun, the nail in the coffin, the nfl is fake,scripted,rigged. Its kind of sad for me, i loved championship sunday and the super bowl’
LikeLike
Yes, please forward it to me and thanks. tokarski underbar four twenty at proton mail dot com.
LikeLike
Unable to send via my email. Invalid Contact Address. Set up another email account and it’s the same story.
LikeLike
Full text of original:
Baba Wawa
Some time back, while I was still enthralled with face chopping and identifying people who mysteriously
exited the Laurel Canyon scene by means of fake death, I came upon one who I suspected had been used
to replace an aging icon, Barbara Walters. Her name was Pamela Courson, and she is seen here with her
husband, Jim Morrison. She is very pretty, of course, and appears very young in this photo, maybe midteens.
In fact, this photo would have been taken before July 3, 1971, the date of Morrison’s alleged death at
age 27, so that she would have been 24 or younger.
With other photos we see a somewhat older girl, a more mature face. Courson is said to have died on April
24, 1974 of a heroin overdose. She was 27 years old, and was said to still be in grief over Jim’s passing
almost three years earlier. A major motion picture by Oliver Stone, The Doors, indicates that by the Zal
Rule, these events are all fake. (That rule, given to us recently by Tyrone McCloskey, is as follows: If there
is a major motion picture of a “real” event, you can be certain the event is a hoax.) Jim Morrison is said to
be living now in Oregon and goes by the name Jim Loyer – do your own research here, as it feels to me
like a trap.* I am more interested in what became of Pam Courson. I know she did not die.
I do not remember how or why I stumbled on the first indications that Courson had reappeared as a later
version of Barbara Walters. It seems odd – perhaps someone planted a bug, but as far as I can tell, I am
the only one who has ever advocated this position. I was swayed in my belief by the remarkably close
match I got by face chopping, seen to the right here. I saw the same eyes, perfect alignment of skull and
mouth, and only a slight upturn in Courson’s nose due to camera angle. The hair fell on the forehead in a
nearly identical manner. I was sure I was looking at a mature Pamela Courson in the rebirth of Barbara
Walters.
From this point forward, I will refer to the “original” Walters, a woman now 88 years old if still alive, and
“replacement” Walters, whom I believe to be Pamela Courson, now 71. Why the switch was done is
speculative, of course, but it could have to do with Courson’s looks and confidence. The original Walters
may not have been up to the task assigned her, to bear witness to the false events of our time via
interviews with famous people, and to advance the women’s movement. Feminism, while not exactly fake,
was staged and hyped by unseen power.
These days I know what can be done with Internet photos is always suspect and should be held at arm’s
length, so in revisiting the matter of Courson/Walters, I am looking for other evidence. My first thought was
that given enough resemblance between the two to pull off a switch in broad daylight, they might be related.
So I did some research on their family backgrounds. In true inductive fashion, I was hoping to stumble on a
common ancestor that would make them cousins.
Note: I reviewed the genealogy of both original and replacement Walters, and found them to be unrelated
to one another. Without making too much of it, since my abilities in this area are still in development, I
conclude that the Courson line goes back to France, an Walters to Poland and Russia. I was hoping to find
common ancestors as a reason for the choice of Courson as replacement Walters, but there are no links
that I can see between the Courson and Walters (Warmwassen) lines.
I then realized that Courson doesn’t really look like the original Barbara Walters at all, so my research on
those lines was pointless. What was done in this switch is far more elegant than mere body replacement.
The woman we know as “Barbara Walters” was subtly inserted into our consciousness, and original Walters
removed in the same manner, with photos of original Walters altered so that even if we look back to the
1960s and the Today Show, where she got her start, we find now Courson, and not Walters.
Fortunately, a few photos of the original Walters survive, as we will see.
The Career of Barbara Walters
Gilda Radner had great fun lampooning Barbara Walters, as in the above piece (1976) in which John
Belushi does a very poor job of being Henry Kissinger. (Regulars here might note that Radner, Belushi, and
Courson, the replacement Walters, all faked their deaths.) Few people had noted up to that time that
Walters had a slight lisp, which Radner exploited to great effect. Replacement Walters, as I see her, does
not exhibit that lisp. This skit, then, was probably done to bring attention to replacement Walters, help her
career take off, and seal in our minds that replacement Walters was the real Walter. Original Walters had
left the building.
The younger version of the original Barbara Walters was a glamorous woman, as seen in the photo to the
right. (Please note, I am not going to do face chops here, but instead attempt to distinguish original and
replacement Barbara via straight observation of features.) I note here a light widow’s peak, full and
sensuous lips (note to self – stop drooling!), a wide nose and high cheekbones.
Here’s another shot of her with full body on display. I am picking up here a glamour girl of the 50s, with
“permed” hair – have any of our older readers ever experienced going to a girl’s house after a perm job and
noticing the odor? Horrible!
Original Walters was born in 1929, and would be 88 today if still alive. These photos appear to be a mature
woman in her 20s or early 30s, placing the time at about anywhere from 1950 or 1960. The phone on her
desk tends to say early 50s, but might be decorative.
Original Walters then would come of age in the 1960s, and is considered a groundbreaking in terms of
television news, the first woman to have a prominent position as a talking head. Her career line says she
became a reporter on the Today Show with Frank McGee in the mid-60s, and in 1974, at age 43, co–host
beside McGee. Photos of Walters and McGee together show either original Walters, or have replacement
Walters’ head superimposed on the orignal’s body.
To the left here is an early shot of original Walters on the Today Show set. This is in my view the same
woman as shown above, same nose, ears and eyes, but forehead no longer visible, so we cannot see the
slight widow’s peak. She would, thinking her outfit suggests mid-60s, be in her mid-30s.
Here is another shot, to the right, the body of original Walters with her adopted (and only) child, Jacqueline.
Here we begin to see monkey business, as the face of this woman is in completely different light than the
baby. Daughter Jacqueline (Gruber) was born and adopted in 1968, when original Walters was 39 years
old. However, the photo does not look like the original Walters above. Without benefit of face chopping, I
am going to do a side-by-side analysis.
Keep in mind that the public switch has not yet happened when the photo with the baby was taken in 1968.
All they have done here is edit some old photographs, superimposing an older Pam Courson’s face over
the original Walters’. This work would have to have been done some time in the mid-90s, even as the
actual physical switch happened in 1976, as I see it. In the 90s the Internet was coming to life and old
photos would be accessible to the public, so alterations had to be made.
(I did take the trouble to set the eyes the same distance).
The distance from the pupil of the eye to the chin differs on these two women, 151 pixels on the left, 160 on
the right. The width of the face (since both have open mouths measuring right through that area) is 169
pixels on the left, and 151 on the right. That is significant. Most glaringly, the woman on the right, in reality
Pam Courson’s, has a much larger and longer nose. The length of the nose on the woman on the left is 73
pixels, and the woman on teh right 97 pixels. That is also significant. These are not the same woman.
The photo above is the original Walters alongside Hugh Downs and Joe Garagiola. Try to keep this image
in mind as we go through now some Today Show images where the monkey business people have been
doing their work, where the head of Pam Courson, replacement Walters, is superimposed on the original
Walters’ body.
Here is the most obvious. Notice how clear and distinct replacement Walters’ face is compared down
Downs, who has a slightly more blurry texture. Walters is lit from directly above, Downs from slightly more
to his right. This is a paste-up.
Below are some more obvious ones,
The one lower right with Gene Siskel Shalit and Frank McGee is so poorly done there ought to be some
embarrassment at Langley, or wherever this kind of work is done.
Conclusion thus far: Original Barbara Walters was a real woman who really did work as a television
journalist, first on the Today Show, and then later alongside Frank McGee on the evening news. She would
then vanish.
Below is a screen shot of Walters doing a special on her retirement from 20/20 in 2004 after 25 years as a
host.
In 2004 original Walters would have been 75 years old. Pam Courson was born in 1946, we are told, and
so in 2004 would have been 58 years old. This is not a clear photo as it is a video from thirteen years ago,
but this woman is not 75 years old.
The special, which can be seen here, is an hour and twenty-five minutes, and covers all of her interviews
over the years as a 20/20 host. I watched it hoping to see a mixture of original and replacement Walters
over the years. It was all the replacement. But more importantly, I came away realizing that replacement
Barbara Walters has been part of every fake event from the 1976 forward. I therefore offer up, in
conjunction with the Zal Rule, the GalPal Rule, by which we can say with assurance that if a major
interview is done with a person and aired on TV, the person being interviewed is fake and/or is part of a
fake event.
(Interestingly, in her interview with Fidel Castro on the video linked above, he says admiringly of her that
she has not aged since her last interview with him, 25 years earlier.)
The switched happened, as I see it now, in 1976, or a mere two years after Courson’s fake death.
Replacement Walters co-hosted CBS Evening News with Harry Reasoner. Courson was seventeen years
younger than original Walters, so the switch might have been made simply to have a more comely person
doing the news and interviews. Other reasons … we can only speculate. Below is a photo that might offer a
hint.
This is the original Walters, who doesn’t even vaguely resemble her replacement. Note her shoulders are
slumped, her hands below the table, a submissive posture. Perhaps she wasn’t cutting it in a man’s world,
and TPTB decided that she had to be replaced by a real ground breaker. It is, however, just one photo.
The replacement Walters-Harry Reasoner experiment lasted only two years before she went on to host
20/20, where she would become a well-known face interviewing all of the newsmakers of the next 25 years.
The question is why they did not merely fire Walters, give Pam Courson a new name, and go forward with
her? Why the elaborate switch, even using SNL? It could be that having established the Walters persona
as a “groundbreaker” that even as she was not cutting it, they could not let her fail. So they brought in a
replacement.
We saw with some of the fake Laurel Canyon deaths that these young “musicians” were actually in training
for careers in our news business. They took on new personas for good, or “lifetime actors.”
Janis Joplin became Amy Goodman.
Bobby Fuller became Bill O’Reilly.
Brandon DeWilde became Thom Hartmann.
Gary Hinman became Maury Povich.
(There are more … we just stopped looking for them. It takes a trained eye and tons of hard labor. There is
so much deception around us that this pursuit seemed like a side road. I suspect that our most famous
journalists, who are nothing but actors anyway, all have secret pasts.)
Pamela Courson, then, fits the mold, trained for five years as the (fake) wife of Jim Morrison, learning to act
and preparing for a (probably then undetermined) role in the news business. When it was seen that original
Barbara Walters was not cutting it, was not very good, the decision was made not to ax her, but to use
Courson as a replacement. The groundwork had already been done in establishing her as a news “anchor,”
though she had not made much of an impression. Pamela Courson as her replacement was younger,
fresher, better looking, bolder and better.
How could they pull this off in broad daylight? It’s television! Were you alive for 9/11? These people own
our minds and can make any deception seem real.
Walters Interviews President Trump
Last April Replacement Walters, by now a fixture in our minds, interviewed President Trump in the White
House.( The GalPal rule applies, and so we know Trump is fake.) What interests me here however is not
the interview, but rather Walters’ appearance. She is supposed to be 87 years old.
I gathered up photos of women of that age, seen below.
I think it safe to say that most of us know people of that age, and that the eighties has got to be a tough
decade for folks. The face develops deep wrinkles, the body slumps, bones deteriorate along with cognitive
abilities. I want no part of it myself.
The woman interviewing Trump above is not 87 years old. In April of 2017 Pamela Courson was 70 years
old. Here are some typical women of that age.
The skin is still mostly smooth and robust, and mental deterioration is yet to set in for most people. The
body maintains it posture, and these people are still vibrant and energetic.
Conclusion
It is my contention that Pamela Courson became Barbara Walters in 1976, two years after she faked her
death. We do not, cannot know what happened to the original Walters, though Brazil is certainly a
possibility. At age 88, she might be dead or senile. the new Baba Wawa was given her prominence in
television journalism in order to enhance and accentuate the major fake events of our time. Part of the
reason might be her ability to do a lively interview, another part her good looks.
She ended her full-time career on The View in 2014. Below is a list of awards has been given over the
years, with the understanding that journalism awards are handed out like candy by journalists to other
journalists.
I assume that the 1975 award was given to the original Walters, but cannot be sure. If so, it would be the
only such award she ever earned in her entire career. Original Walters was not making any waves.
Perhaps the SNL jibes at “Baba Wawa” were done to get our attention, bring her replacement into the
limelight. Timing is right for that. The rest of the awards are all Courson, and I don’t have to tell readers of
this blog that those awards, like “Barbara Walters” herself, are fake.
*Earlier work here on the Morrison family led to my belief that his name was not Morrison, that he was
not the admiral’s son. He has been inserted in family photographs by means of darkroom trickery. He is an
enigma.
5 THOUGHTS ON “BABA WAWA”
1. ZOOMAH SAYS:
January 14, 2018 at 4:20 pm
Photo of Baba and Frank McGee is with Gene Shalit, not Siskel. She would have had the best surgery on
her face like Jane Fonda (80s) so age is only apparent if you view the whole body. The face, neck and
hands can be changed.
1. MARK TOKARSKI SAYS:
January 14, 2018 at 4:29 pm
You’re right … it is Shalit. I mixed him with Siskel the movie reviewer in Chicago.
I am trusting my abilities here in viewing her … 88 is very hard to hide, as there is more deterioration
than just physical appearance – bone structure and cognitive abilities go too. I stand by my claim that
this is a much younger woman and that there was a body switch, seemingly in 1979.
2. INSIDE BASEBALL SAYS:
January 14, 2018 at 5:23 pm
Interesting article, Mark. Did “Walters” stop lisping after 1979? I guess that SNL piece embedded that lisp in
my mind. I would swear that she did lisp much more recently, but I can’t recall the last time I paid attention
to her, must have been on 20/20. Amazing how they can plant this stuff in our minds…
A couple of minor things that will help with clarity, as they caused a little confusion for me. You refer to the
“younger” Walters meaning the original, but had me thinking the “younger” would be Courson, so I had to
re-read that part a couple of times.
Also, you meant “replacing” in this sentence, I believe. “All they have done here is edit some old
photographs, placing new Barbara with an older Pam Courson.”
Not trying to be picky, but both these places are key points to the article, and you’ve spent a lot of time on
this, which is much appreciated.
N.B. A third rule might be if they appear on PBS for a lifetime “achievement” award. I’m thinking here of
Tony Bennett, who looks and sounds incredible for a 91 year old man. He has been on PBS specials the
past couple of weeks, with Lady Gaga and the aforementioned program.
1. MARK TOKARSKI SAYS:
January 15, 2018 at 5:30 am
Well, IB, one little change led to what amounts to a compete rewrite. You might want to review the piece
again, as I awoke this morning with fresh insight, if that is the right word to use.
3. STEVIE SAYS:
January 14, 2018 at 8:01 pm
the marcus williams play at the end of the saints vikings game is the smoking gun, the nail in the coffin, the
nfl is fake,scripted,rigged.
Its kind of sad for me, i loved championship sunday and the super bowl
LikeLike
Thanks Alice. I just sent you an empty email from the Proton address. Please respond if you got it. Otherwise, I may not be getting mail.
LikeLike