“I get all the news I need from the weather report.” (Paul Simon)
Prior to going through the evidence regarding the body switch done with Barbara Walters in 1976, I am going to attempt to set the scene and describe the terrain on which such hoaxing takes place. Many readers know that my friend “Straight” and I worked for many months with David McGowan’s (fake death, 11/22/2015) book Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon. I contended that of the seventy or more deaths of rocks stars, actors and hangers-on described in the book, perhaps one or two might be real deaths. My reasoning was that these people were all young, so even if abusing drugs and alcohol (most of that was mere stage-setting for the fake deaths), it is unlikely they would die. Even in war zones, I told Straight, you don’t see that kind of mortality rate.
Something else was up. Straight is a man with a very sharp mind with a highly developed eye for fakery, and was a great research companion. Together we went through the deaths, one by one, in the beginning searching the Social Security Death Index (basic research that McGowan did not do), and looking for clues and contradictions on Wikipedia. I operated on the assumption that these people, admitted by McGowan (himself a spook) to have intelligence connections, were merely reassigned to less public roles, perhaps in embassies around the world or an office at Langley.
My timing memory may not be clear here, but I was shocked beyond belief when Tyrone McCloskey presented us with photos of a singer who faked his death in 1966, Bobby Fuller (I fought the law). He was our first “zombie,” or walking dead person. At that time all I could do was face splitting based on identical pupil distance, but the results were stunning. (Our search engine here will take you not to the original post, but a rework.)
That set us off, and we began finding others who were in the news or entertainment business under new identities. These included Janis Joplin (who became Amy Goodman), Brandon DeWilde (Thom Hartmann), Jimi Hendrix (Cornell West), Gary Hinman (Maury Povich), Freddie Mercury (Phil McGraw), and my favorite, spotted by Straight, Bruce Lee (Judge Lance Ito). For some others we had suspicions, but not enough photographic evidence – Pete Ham (Bill Maher), David Box (Charlie Rose), Minie Riperton (Gwen Ifil), and a few others. Buddy Holly led to Gram Parsons led to David Geffin and Jeffrey Katzenberg, a long and complicated slog of research. (All of this work can be found by use of the search engine, upper right.)
We encountered much skepticism, had to back away from some, but I stand by all of the above except Gwen Ifil, as I could not make it work a second time through. And that is a critical point – critics of this work need to use replication and falsification rather than off-hand dismissal.
It was hard work, but fun and exciting. But what was the point? So what if news people have fake identities, took their training in the music business? We all, or most of us here at this site anyway, know that news is a largely fabricated to misinform, mislead, misdirect and distract. Beyond the weather report, which can be shown to be accurate or not, it is not of any use. Who cares how the talking heads got there?
As time went on I was able to rise above it and get away from it. I no longer search for zombies. I came away with a much more profound sense of our perceived reality. Take two people on perceived opposite extremes, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!, and Rush Limbaugh (who appears to me to be who he says he is, though he has on occasion used a body double, probably for security purposes). Imagine that you are in the Truman Show, a motion picture subtly hinting about our reality. Imagine that closing scene where Truman makes his exit, opening a door and leaving the set.
Imagine now instead of one door, there are many. If he opens one to the “far left” he will find Amy Goodman waiting for him to escort him out. On the “far right” he will find Rush Limbaugh. Behind the “conspiracy” door he will find Alex Jones. For “intellectuals” awaits Noam Chomsky. Behind the other doors he’ll find Hartmann, Brian Williams, Melissa Block, Judy Woodruff, Diane Sawyer, Katie Couric, Wolf Blitzer, Charles Gibson, Nina Totenberg, Cokie Roberts, and behind barely concealed doors on the fringes people like David Ickes, Jim Fetzer and “Dr. ” Judy Wood. They are all “spooks,” as we like to call them, though false agents, operative, Intel, or just “lifetime actors” work as well.
The point is that the outer perimeter of the herd is guarded by fake newscasters, pundits, leaders, thinkers, even supposed scientists. They ride the fence line and usher back escapees and mavericks. They act as gatekeepers. These are all actors assigned various roles. There is no escape from our world of fabricated news and views. Our rulers do not care that we disagree and fight among ourselves and have differing points of view. They like that! They want it! It reinforces illusions – that we in any sense self-govern; that our opinions matter, and that we think for ourselves. Our opinions are all formulated elsewhere and fed to us by various authority figures in a breakfast bar of choices. It is total information control.
I quit searching for zombies, but did have one project I did that hung in the back of my mind and that I had never effectively sold. I had a choice of either revisiting or abandoning it. I elected to revisit it, doing better photographic analysis.
Back in our heady days when the work was new and exciting, I came across a beautiful woman who was married to Jim Morrison of the Doors (fake death 7/3/71) for five years. Her name was Pamela Courson (fake death 4/25/74). Both were on our Laurel Canyon list. We never found Jim (though there are claims he is “Jim Loyer” and now lives in Oregon – you’re on your own. It reads like a trap.) Something struck me about Courson, her hair, posture, facial features, and though I don’t remember how many comparisons I did before I found her and Barbara Walters as an exact match.
In those days we would merely write stuff up, throw some photos at the readers, and call it good. I had no idea of the amount of work goes on behind the scenes in crafting our news and sculpting our opinion leaders. I was satisfied knowing that Courson, like so many others, had faked her death, that she looked exactly like Walters, and so had probably stepped into her shoes. It was becoming common to us.
Little did I know the amount of planning and preparation that went into the Courson/Walters switch, which I now think happened in 1976.
If you can grapple with the list of names behind the escape doors I listed above, you will see the depth of planning in our Truman Show world. Our opinions are based on authority figures and images, but those images can be changed, removed, manipulated and subtly altered. In the case of Barbara Walters, there were indeed two of them, the original, and Pam Courson. However, if I were to ask any reader today to describe Barbara Walters, her voice, appearance and mannerisms, that reader would describe Pam Courson. The original Walters was removed not only from TV, but from the Internet and from our minds. Replacement Barbara Walters became the real one.
So please follow me now as I again go through the evidence, this time with a clear eye, as unlike before, when I only knew that Courson replaced Walters, I now have a photo of the original Barbara Walters, taken from a video supplied by Kevin Starr, who is not on board with my findings here, but who, as always, deserves credit as a thorough researcher and smart man.
Here is the video.
At first glance she sounds like our current day Walters, and I find myself wondering if Courson has overdubbed that video – this could be perhaps the only reason it has survived. We will see later with a book cover that spooks have reached far into the past to alter evidence. But this woman is not today’s Barbara Walters, and I will prove it. Here is a still of her taken at 1:29.
First, let me preview not the technology I am going to use on Walters above, but older techniques I used during the face splitting days. While it is inexact and prone to error, it is often useful as a directional indicator, and nothing more. My example is … me.
On the left is me in about 1980, and on the right perhaps 2015. The only thing I have done with these photos is to set my eye pupils at common distance in each photo. Note how over thirty years I have somehow made better teeth for myself, lost hair and grown longer ears, but that I am easily recognizable as the same person. It helps that my posture and smile have not changed over the years, and that the camera angle is identical on both photos.
But pupil distance is the key – everything about us ages, but our eyes do not shift or move about and our skull does not change in size after our late teens. So by aligning a common pupil distance in each photo before splitting the faces and placing them side by side, I was dealing with a constant in our appearance that does not change over time (unless we are afflicted with diseases such as ALS).
This is critical information if anyone wants to do this kind of work. We cannot simply place photos of people side-by-side and draw any insight from that. Imagine placing a basketball aside a baseball and trying to draw inferences about their relative features without knowing their actual size. We must have a constant to apply to each. In facial analysis angular distortions are a huge problem (along with Internet monkey business by spooks). If we are going to rationally analyze photos of people, we must at least try for an objective standard. Pupil distance is one such standard. (There are others – some use triangulation methods with eyes and base of nose, etc.)
You can easily see how well it worked on me above. In 1980 I had no idea that photo would be matched against a 2015 photo, and therein lay the value, monkey business aside. The evidence is objective. By setting pupil distance to a constant on both photos, everything else lined up because in fact, I am the same person. I have no power, and no reason, to go back and alter old photos. Spooks, as we will see, do have this power, and are all over the photo archives we randomly encounter on the Internet.
This at least allows me some insight in analyzing Barbara Walters in 1961 from the video, and Barbara Walters from anytime after 1976. The video to me appears unaltered except perhaps as to voice. I now use facial overlays, showing a comparison of all features. Below I start with a photo said to be of Barbara Walters taken in 1960, or one year before the video. Using Photoshop layering, setting the pupils at common distance on bother photos, I place one photo atop the other, and adjust opacity to create a gif.
We should see the same woman. We do not. We see two different women. In fact, the head shape is quite different. I aligned the eyes, but nothing else is in line. I froze the gif with opacity at 70% for five seconds so that we could see that we are looking at misaligned noses, mouths, chins … it is not even close.
Let’s try another – this is a photo of Walters in 1989 again against the 1961 video.
We have the exact same set of problems! These are two different women.
Who, then, is the woman in the supposed 1960 photo? Here is another comparison, the 1960 shot compared to the 1989 shot, both said to be of Walters.
That is how it is supposed to work! Those are the same woman at different ages, said to be 31 in the younger photo and 60 in the older one, a thirty year difference, just as with my own photos above. This woman shown in both the ‘1960’ and ‘1989’ photo is not the woman in the video.
Shall we do another comparison?
The wig in the b&w photo creates the illusion of a larger head, as it sits atop her real hair and so is piled on. Again, we are getting an exact match of features. The eyes, nose, head shape and mouth placement all align. The lips and eyes are identical. The color photo is Pamela Courson. The “1960” photo was probably taken in 1976 or so, as that is when the switch was made. The nose is less buttony, but placed exactly where it belongs. Jewish noses do tend to grow as they age, even hook. Spooks deliberately went back and got a 1960-style wig to make it appear that Courson, who would have been 14 that year, was actually the then-31-year old Walters.
Let’s try a profile of Walters and Courson.
The difficulty with profiles is to have an objective standard by which to set two images aside one another. It is easy to just arbitrarily adjust the relative sizes to make them match. with these two, however, I have already shown in frontal shots with pupil distance adjusted that they are almost identical. So it is not unreasonable to set skull size to a common distance for the mere purpose of comparison of features. So with the profile I used the distance between the tip of the nose and the extreme left of the eye sockets to adjust them to the same distance. I see exact alignment of features. The hair is even in touch in the two photos. (Unfortunately, there are no photos that I have seen in which Courson’s ears are visible.)
Pamela Courson, fake-wife of Jim Morrison for five years, faked her death in 1974 and was reassigned. Her role as the replacement for Barbara Walters was to act as gatekeeper. She was a “groundbreaker” in the nascent spook-influenced movement called “feminism.” (This is not the place to discuss merits of this movement. Suffice it to say I am a firm believer in exercise of free will.) Feminists, while supposedly making their escape, would encounter Walters, who would guide them back to the her to join Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, conspirators, right wingers and pwoggies, all fighting among ourselves, all under control of a watchful overlords. There is no escape.
In the comments below the replacement post I put up while this was in the works, a reader brought to my attention a book supposedly written by Walters. The photo on the dust cover, he said, is the same woman I claim to be Courson. But the book was published in 1970! At that time, Courson was still “married” to Morrison, and so could not be taking over the Walters name.
Indeed this is good evidence.
To start, and just an aside, Walters did not write this book. These people don’t undertake such projects. They don’t have to. Ghost writers are used for celebrity books, I would say without exception. JFK did not write “Profiles in Courage“, Nixon did not write “Six Crisis,” and anyone with a brain knows that George W. Bush did not write “Decision Points.” Walters was being groomed for her future work as groundbreaker, so a book had to appear and be favorably reviewed in the right places.
I have not read it, and will never go near it, but note that used copies of it are now for sale for $56.00! It is not a valuable book! Some other game is afoot. Below is a photo of Walters taken in 1968 or so, holding her adopted daughter, Jacqueline.
Look at her face – it is so much darker than the baby’s, and is lit from above while the rest of her appears to be suffering a flash photo (the flash not lighting up the shelves in the background). The photo is an obvious paste-up. But why? If Walters has better photos of herself and the baby, they should be easy to find. There are none.
Here are the two photos of “Walters” on the cover of her book, and with her baby.
I won’t bore you with the actual analysis, but merely confirm that they are both Pam Courson. I have viewed thousands of photos these past years, and see things easily that others might overlook. One is that smiles are not in the mouth, but in the eyes. In both of these photos, we are looking at angry eyes. These are not good photos, and would not be used on a book cover, which would require a professional session and attention to detail.
What has happened here is that spooks have gone back and altered Internet photos of the mother-baby shot and the dust cover of the book, substituting Courson for the real Walters. That is why there is a tell-tale halo around her hair on the book cover photo. That is a Photoshop effect, and not a dark room cut-and-paste, so it is of recent origin, not 1970. They have also bought up old copies, driving up the price to $56.00 for a worthless piece of pulp. The Barbara Walters project is a big one.
The only thing that will dissuade me from this view is an actual paper copy of the book in my hand. Good luck on finding one.
But why the elaborate ruse? Why not just rename Courson and use her in a different venue? I can only speculate, of course, but did you notice that the original Barbara Walters in the 1961 video above was effete and very feminine? I like feminine, but it is not a good attribute for a feminist. She was mocking French fashion, probably her assigned task (in 1961 feminism was on the horizon for us), but her gestures and eye movements were very much like a debutante, a frilly, silly female.
I wonder if it was seen that even though given the role of “groundbreaking female journalist”, the original Walters was not getting it right.
The photo below appears to me to be the original Walters, as she does not at all look like either Courson or our present-day Walters.
That would be a very hard angle to do a profile comparison due to the small size and bad angle. She does not look anything like the photos just seen above. But note her slumped shoulders and hands under the desk. That is a submissive posture.
What I am getting at here is admitted speculation that the original Barbara Walters was faltering in her assigned role, and needed to be removed. But you don’t conjure up a “groundbreaking” journalist, and then just fire her. It would create a firestorm and defeat the whole purpose of the Barbara Walters project.
So, you replace her. Pam Courson had recently faked death (not voluntarily) and was available, and so was chosen.
But how can they possibly insert one person for another right in front of our eyes?
It is not as hard as it may seem. Most people, especially passive television viewers, are simply not that observant and are highly suggestible when watching TV. Television is mildly hypnotic, and we are easy to fool when watching. And, frankly, I don’t think the original Walters had caught too many eyes – she just wasn’t that good.
Take a look at the video below, about three minutes. Saturday Night Live was a key element in moulding our perceptions of the (new) Barbara Walters.
That skit features Gilda Radner, another suspicious character who most likely faked her death in 1989. This is a 1976 skit done to lampoon Walters, making fun of the way she talks, the (then-recently invented) hair, and a lisp, undetectable to most of us, including me. She coins the phrase “Baba Wawa.”
We could not know it at the time, but this skit was (in my view) deliberately done the reinforce the switch that had occurred behind the scenes. SNL had a very young demographic who would not know the original Walters too well. Its cast members then and now are spooks or spook-related. Using that venue to introduce the replacement Barbara Walters to a young and non-news watching audience cemented in our minds the idiosyncrasies of the replacement, making Pam Courson forever in our minds Barbara Walters. In with the new, out with the old.
For older viewers, the original Walters went out of sight for a while after co-hosting the evening news with Frank McGee, and forever disappeared. Her replacement moved over to CBS, had a high-profile squabble with co-host Harry Reasoner (doing her “groundbreaking” thing), quit or was fake-fired after two years, and reappeared on ABC’s 20/20 in 1979. For the next 25 years, she would be the leading interviewer of famous real and fake people and witnesses to the fake events of our time. This was her larger role. Just as Anderson Cooper is the go-to for cementing false impressions in fake mass shootings and the like today, Walters did that task from 1979 to 1984.
She then moved on to “The View,” a whole ‘nuther discussion topic. I’ve never watched it so have no clue as to its true function. Nor will I.
One final word, age. I know that they can do great things on TV with wigs and makeup and camera angles, but they cannot hide an 88-year-old woman, which is what Walters would be today if still alive. By the time we reach that age, if any of us live that long, our skin has developed deep wrinkles, our posture slumped, bones shrunk, and our cognitive abilities have become impaired.
Take a look at the interview below from April of 2017, when Walters was said to be 87 years old.
You can talk all you want about the magic of television, but I have eyes and abilities too, and I am not seeing an 87-year-old woman there. Pam Courson’s official birthday was 12/22/1946, so that at every turn in Walters career when you look at her official photos, subtract seventeen years (her birth date 9/25/1929) from her official age. So the “Barbara Walters” we are seeing here is not 87, but rather 70, and now she makes sense.
Anyway, this blog post has been a long slog for me, as I had to come through lots of false leads and data, take wrong turns. I would not have made it through it without Kevin Starr, who supplied the 1961 video. Even as he does not agree with my findings, I thank him for taking the time to think about it and get in touch and supplying the video.
I rest my case. (My apologies to those who commented on the original Baba Wawa post, now in the trash bin. I cannot recover them.)
76 thoughts on “BabaWawa, the final cut”
Great intro Mark, but then I ended up with the photo comparison of “replacement Barbara big-nosed whig Walters” and “Ann red hair color photo Coulson”. You are not seriously saying those two women are the same woman???
Look at the nose! Completely different. The nostrils do not align, the size is different, no match, no way.
I agree, Gaia, the eyes also give it away, Barbara probably has had a lot of plastic surgery. Also, with Freddie Mercury and Phil Mc, the eyes say no.
If you want to make the case that a “Courson” was turned into “Walters”, then Judith, the alleged half-sister of Pamela, is a much better candidate:
“For those who wonder what Pamela Morrison’s birth family was like, here is the senior picture of Pamela’s only sibling, half-sister Judith Courson, born in Chicago in 1941 and adopted by Pamela’s father Columbus Courson.
Judy Courson graduated from Fullerton High School in Fullerton, California in 1959.
Who her biological father was remains a mystery…”
Gaia, this is disappointing. You have ignored a large body of evidence and picked up on one discrepancy, and thereby trashed the whole thing. That is, sir, a tool of two types of people, those of low ability in analyzing photographic evidence, and spooks. You are not a stupid man.
The very point you dispute, the nose, is proven in the gif directly below the one you are troubled with, where the noses are of exact same size and in in precise alignment. The discrepancy you see is mere lighting, as I have done many others. In fact, in the profile I used the nose as the focal point, and noticed that once it was in place, everything else fell in line.
Regarding Judith Courson, you’ve simply not done any credible work. Sisters seldom look alike – I have done lots of work in that area too, with Sharon Tate, Nicole Brown Simpson, each of whom was actually replaced by a “sister”, actually them as new people. Real sisters are not carbon copies. You’re grab bagging.
Who was it that wrote the following?:
That is your real task. Have at it. Don’t be a light weight. Bring your work back to me, and I will have a look at it, using teh same method, replication and falsification.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Please calm down Mark.
What I said is that that red haired woman is not Walters. Now, that’s the whole point; that particular photo can also be attributed to Courson, while it isn’t her. That is just reasoning through from your own reasoning; they can tag people on photos who are not them. The Saddam Hussein Easter Egg in the Charles Manson video comes to mind…
I am not dismissing your whole work with my comment. I am dismissing that THAT photo of the red-haired woman is showing the same person as THAT photo of big-nosed Walters with baby.
Of course, I admit I have not done “any work” on Judith Courson, never heard of those people before you talked about them. But “her” photo (at least THAT photo) looks more like big-nosed Walters than the ones I have seen of Pamela Courson.
The trouble I have with these zombies is that you need to rely on that the tagging of photos is correct. If there are many and there is video, fine. But with just a handful of photos, that gets problematic. And we know they tag wrong people in photos.
My position so far:
– “original” Babs Walters =/= later big-nosed Babs Walters
– that red-hair-green-eye photo tagged as Pam Courson does not represent the later Babs Walters and possibly is not even Pam Courson
– there is a huge age difference between Pam Courson 1974 and Babs Walters 1976. It may be possible with make-up and a diet to change someone so much (as is alleged with Hicks-Jones, which has me convinced, but I may be wrong on that one, many people have presented problems with it), but it also just might be a completely different person and that Pam Courson went for another task after 1974.
Calm down, you say, after wave-of-the-hand dismissal? Get real. That technique is insulting. I repeat, to be a critic of this work, you need to replicate and falsify, not glance and dismiss.
Please address the matter of the profile, wherein the noses are precise matches. I’ve got other stuff too, but my point was to 1) Show the original Walters, 2) show that current Walters is not the original, and 3) bring in Pam Courson as a replacement. In the initial post I pointed out many photos of “Walters” on Today and in other venues that were obvious forgeries. Why? Why bother to do that? Maybe you’re new to the idea of fake death, but I am not – it is very common, and Pam Courson surely did not die in 1974 any more than Dave McGowan died in 2015. Why? Why fake her death? If she was used up, she could merely go lead a normal life as herself. Why fake her death? Why?
Anyway, if you want to proceed with this debate, examine the whole body of evidence, replicate, falsify. Do not dismiss my hours and hours of work here (estimate, twenty hours beginning to end) with a wave of the hand. That is insulting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark, what evidence do you have of Dave McGowan not dying in 2015?
Circumstantial … he was very young, appeared healthy, wrote a book (more than one) that appears to be a limited hangout (Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon and Programmed to Kill, both of which accept the official litanies of public deaths without research or rigorous inquiry), seemed to make it a point to chain smoke while being interviewed (which I regarded as deliberate and predictive), and his date of death being a “spook marker” day, 11/22, one of the ’33’s. While I was suspicious due to the other matters, the 11/22 was the biggest tell. He’s been reassigned, as I see it, and will not appear in public again under that name, but he is still with us.
If he was/is a spook than almost everyone is that spreads anything non mainstream. Because he appeared to be totally on the cutting edge in Moondoggie, Boston Bombing, and Understanding the F Word. Reading those items will take anyone light years ahead of where they are now. Weird Scenes and Programmed went against the grain and questioned everything we thought we already knew. The pictures of him towards the end of his life looked like a dying man. I guess they could have been faked but at the time I didn’t think of studying them for fakery. Just because a guy dies on a bad date doesn’t negate the quality and volume of a man’s work. What percentage of all the days are spook dates? 10-20%. That is a pretty high percentage.
The better your research, the higher level of spook(s) you will attract. Stay the course, follow your gut.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Steve, your pst on the threatened lynx sort of got obscured here, so I encourage people to go back and have a look at it.
DCPs (Death of Celebrity Persons) are all around, where have I said those faked deaths do not exist?? Even in my last comment I said that about Pam Courson.
My observations with the profile comparison:
– Babs Walters obviously has had plastic surgery on her chin, so it is hard to tell, but they don’t line up (also they don’t in the frontal comparison; that “Courson” woman has an oval chin and Walters a more pointed one)
– Pamela Courson’s ear is not visible, but it seems far too low (taking the top of Barbara Walters’s ear, not the base) if you align them
Going back to the red-hair-green-eye frontal photo of “Pamela Courson” (1970), you really want to say that that woman (Courson or someone else) is the same woman as the clearly MUCH older Barbara Walters one from 1960 (10 years earlier)? The caption reads ““Barbara Walters” 1960 photo versus circa 1970 photo of Pam Courson“.
I wonder how carefully (or if) you read. I made it clear that the ‘1960’ photograph of Walters had been taken of an older Courson, probably around the time of replacement in 1976. I address the 17-year age difference in detail, but that is at the end of teh piece, so perhaps you did not get that far. I could have used several Courson shots to do the gif with the 1960 Walters, but chose one where the eyes were so dead-on that I did not see how anyone could not see what I saw. I think I will replace it now with a better one.
Regarding my need to calm down, the reason that I am not calm right now is that I am angry at you. I think I will maintain that posture. You’re covering now for your initial wave-of-the-hand dismissal, but that is still what you did. Of course I am used to that from drive-by’s, light readers and the like. But you portend to be something better.
Enjoy this gif, one I chose not to use. I am not sure it will work in a comment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Taking that “~1970 Courson photo”. I estimated 20-25 year young woman. Then checked her age and she was 23 then. So that fits.
Looking at that 1960 Walters photo, I estimate her at late 30s, early 40s. According to the mainstream, she was 31 in 1960. Seems that she aged very quickly then, but ok.
The only way to make this fit, if you rely on the correctness of the years the photos were taken:
– Courson was 41 in that ~1970 photo, which is highly dubious
– Walters was 10-15 in that 1960 photo, which is obviously crazy
The photo was taken later and back dated. I estimate perhaps 1976 at age 30, but it easily could have been later. After all, it was not until the arrival of the Internet that they needed to start monkeying with photographic history.
I don’t know when teh first photo was developed, but I imagine the second photo developed was a paste-up. As long as there have been photos, there has been fakery.
I read what you wrote, but went with the caption of the photo comparison. If you change that, it gets better.
Still, if you say “The “1960” photo was probably taken in 1976 or so, as that is when the switch was made.”
– “Pam Courson” (who I think is not Pam Courson, just a mis-tagged photo) in ~1970 was like 20-25 (officially 23), can we agree on that?
– Barbara Walters 2 in ~1976 was late 30s-early 40s (officially 31), do you agree?
What this means is that Barbara Walters of 1976 is 29 (official story of Coulson 23 in 1970), or 26-31 in my estimate!? That would make Barbara Walters age even more?
The 1989 vs “1976” (officially 1960) comparison:
– Barbara Walters looks like 40 in the latter
– the 1989 photo is hard to tell for me. Lots of plastic surgery and I cannot really estimate her age (big span possible)
But let’s say:
– the 1960 photo is from 1960 – makes 1989 photo 69 (is possible)
– the 1960 photo is from 1976 – makes 1989 photo 53 (is also possible, less likely imo)
I agree with you on:
– Barbara Walters with Trump NOT being 87
– Barbara Walters of the 60s TV is NOT Barbara Walters of the 70s+
I disagree on:
– the comparison of “red hair green eye” “Courson (mis-tagged)
– the comparison of other Coursons with the new Barbara Walters
Is it allowed to disagree Mark, or a reason to get “angry”?
Yes, there is reason to get angry. You’re now trying to do a more thorough analysis, but it is still off-the-cuff. I am used to dealing with drive-by’s, but get rightfully angry when hours upon hours of work is dismissed with a glance, especially dealing with only a small part of a very large body of evidence. You are yet to address the profile of the two. As to relative age, Walters, the original, was born in 1929, Courson in 1946. That does not mean that they label the photos on the Internet correctly. I see the 1960 photo as a fully matured Courson, who in 1960 would have been 14. So when was the photo taken? We do not know, and can only guess at her age, which is all you have done here. If 1976, age 30, if 1995, when the Internet was coming alive, 49. Or somewhere in between.
From my list of logical fallacies, lesser known, I take diminishment of importance of the important, dismissiveness, diversions (not answering the question), failure to provide significant evidence, fake open-mindedness, inappropriate selectivity. You’ve done all of this. I ask you now to go back, deal with the entire post (including the new gif replacing the green-eyed one), and address the body of evidence as a whole. I am either right or wrong, and not partially.
PS: Your allegation of plastic surgery, what is your evidence? Another commenter mentioned a controversy about that in 1983, but it looks to me to be misdirection. Ask the wrong question, the answer does not matter.
Mark, I am the last person you find to be “wrong in one, wrong in all” dismissive. My stance on Miles Mathis is clear. I have that same position about anyone, I take the points, not the person.
The reason I take this -in my eyes- wrong idea that “Courson became Walters” so seriously is just because I like POM, your writers and your work. I link heavily to it on Fakeopedia and invited you to write about POM.
Over at Fakeologist people question me for that, because they are of the “wrong in one, wrong in all” type.
Same why Fakeologist people question me for linking to Miles Mathis, who they call “a project”, “disinfo”, etc.
In this whole comment section I have merely given arguments and observations, nothing personal against you or dismissing your other work on hoaxes, etc. Yet, you get angry with me (your own words).
Now back to the topic. “Either I am completely right or completely wrong”, seriously Mark? Why can’t I agree with certain points you make and disagree with others?
This timeline contains pictures of Barbara Walters:
It is clear to you, me and what I’ve seen other commenters here too that 1960s Barbara Walters is NOT 1970s+ Barbara Walters, again visible in this timeline.
What I don’t think is that Pamela Courson became the new Barbara Walters. Pamela Courson did not die in 1974 (agreed), Barbara Walters got a new face (agreed), but it was not Pamela Courson to take that role (where we disagree).
The new comparison you put on is a bit more convincing, but it still is not the same person.
NEW Barbara Walters has almond-shaped eyes
Pamela Courson has sloping eyes. Given, quite some pictures of her show she is either drunk or stoned or so, that increases the sloping, but other pictures of her show the same sloping eyes.
Pamela Courson has a pronounced philtrum (the channel below the nose)
NEW Barbara Walters doesn’t have that
I think you have something right with this Barbara Walters, she is extremely suspicious. But not that she is Pamela Courson.
Look at this photo, tagged “Barbara Walters in 1973 in her office”:
Look at her hands! And her face, already with plastic surgery (chin lift).
– this photo is not from 1973 but much later
– this photo does not show the new or the old “Barbara Walters” (but yet another actress playing that role)
What I don’t see in any possibility is that this is Pamela Courson (who was 26 in 1973). There’s way too much stretch between these two women. Eyes, philtrum, ears, chin, age, everything. Voice I don’t know, might be a good next comparison.
What I think is an interesting thesis to explore that there are even more than two “Barbara Walters”:
– 1960s BW vs 1970s+ BW (we agree on that one)
– 2016 BW with Trump doesn’t look like 87 (idem)
– this “1973 BW” looks already much older (officially 44!) than original BW
This might well be a case like Dolfy Hiller that Tyrone McCloskey exposed nicely (I linked to his work on Fakeopedia). Multiple actors playing the same role.
But Pamela Courson = new Barbara Walters, I don’t see it. Again: that doesn’t mean that I dismiss anything else on POM a priori.
Photo is not evidence of plastic surgery.
As to right or wrong, it is not the same as “black/white” or “with us/against us.” If I am wrong and the original BW is actually the later BW, then there is no replacement, and all that follows is moot. She is a remarkably fit 88-year old, like Betty White.
If I am right that there was indeed a replacement, I dare you to find another person anywhere who matches her profile and facial features in the manner as I have shown in the gifs above. I have done thousands of these now, and it is rare to fine perfect alignment of nose, eyes, mouth and skull shape as I see above. So if there was a replacement, given all the other evidence, it was Courson. If not her, find someone who is even half as likely.
Your introduction of Judith Courson above was a grab bag. Your insistence that she has undergone plastic surgery above is without evidence. Your cursory examination of photos without Photoshop overlays is pointless. Give it a rest.
Your BW office photo has been messed with: the dark leg!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nice catch, Zoomah. That version of BW appears to have been an amputee.
After viewing the side-view of Walters’ nose in the video, and comparing it to side-views of Courson’s nose (from a whole page of Google images), I fail to see how it could possibly be the same person. Walters has the largish “jewish” nose and the stereotypical “jewish” look, while Courson has a cute upturned nose and the stereotypical fair-haired child look. With just a brief examination, the eyebrows, brow ridge and hair texture (Walters’ hair is much thicker and coarser, Courson’s is finer) don’t match, either, and those can’t be faked. I think the photo you’re using–the 60’s b/w one with a wig–isn’t Courson at all; in the comparison gif with the red-haired Courson, the nose noticeably enlarges. My gut says “no”. But that’s just my opinion, of course. (I can’t believe I spent a part of my day getting pulled into this, but I digress.)
Did you view the left-profile gif below? The nose is perfect.
Mark, yes I did, but see a slight change at the tip of the nose. Anyway, the eyes, lips and chin don’t match up at all from the side. I see two totally different bone structures, from the side and from the front–Walters has a stronger, more masculine-looking one. That photo of Walters is taken from a slight angle, too. Compare the two of them smiling, and you will see the difference. BTW, I am an artist and am told my portraits look exactly like the subject, so I have a pretty good “eye” for “seeing”. I can’t see that these are the same people.
I forgot another reason why I stopped doing these .. hours upon hours of work … I have good eyes, I know what I see and become very familiar with it. I suggest you spend not five, then or eleven minutes reviewing the material, but fifteen hours … dealing with unknowns from all angles. THEY know what they are doing, but for us to uncover their work takes some dedication and intelligence.
All of that grueling work and people come along, glance at it, and say “no, tip of the nose is wrong.”
I stand by the work, all of it. It forms a complete circle, absence of original Walters, fake death of Courson, incredible likenesses between new Walters and Courson, knowledge that others have been reassigned to news desks.
Except the tip of the nose, I guess. How did I miss that?
Mark, you could be right, of course. I am unwilling to spend that much time with the subject, so cannot qualify as an expert. For myself, I’ve learned that first glances and impressions are more truthful and telling than extensive, intellectually-minded analyses. But, please tell me how and why this subject matter is acceptable and legitimate, but the “transgender agenda” is not? Isn’t this “just people handing out photos and claiming they show something that is not there”, as you stated in a previous comment?
LikeLiked by 1 person
First glances and impressions can spot various anomalies, but are generally not as useful as careful examination of details.
This subject matter (and as I said in the post, this is just a revisit and the last I will do) is useful because it helped me understand the news business. I always wondered how they could find so many people to lie to us so easily, and when we ran across O’Reilly, Hartmann, Amy Goodman and the rest I saw the answer: Of course! They are hired actors. They are no more interested in reporting news than selling soap … they just read their lines. They learn their trade, which is lifetime lying, early on in music, or in Courson’s case, as a professional beard. Knowing this allowed me to see that our whole spectrum of opinion is managed, so that if we go to Chomsky, Hartmann, Limbaugh, Goodman or mainstream news, we are getting a gatekeeper. It is best to ignore them all.
That is useful information. It helped me understand my world better.
I suppose you could say the same thing about transgender, but like flat earth and Mandela effect and all of that, smells more like a psyop. My exposure to it has been limited to a few people who tell me that every other person in Hollywood is a tranny. I know that not to be true by my own eyes. I have to trust myself first. For this reason, I think it is a rabbit hole, but worse, if we go that direction on the blog (just as with Jim Morrison now living in Oregon), we might be falling into a clever trap.
We don’t know everything, don’t get everything right, and have to be cautious. Just one example … Bill Hicks did indeed become Alex Jones, but that was a trap as well, because the guy who ID’s that setup, Dallas Goldbug, then went on to make as many fake match-ups as he possibly could, such as JFK becoming Jimmy Carter. In that manner, he “blackwashed” the entire research field. It was deliberate. He was sent out to create a fog so that those who, like Walters, are really someone else, can do their job without pesky exposure. It is also why we do not allow his name to be mentioned in comments.
And here’s Courson’s smiling photo: http://doorsexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/pam.jpg
I have that photo, along with every other one of Courson. The bank of photos I used is around 100 photos, of which I used perhaps 20 … if that. Those are only the ones I grabbed – I looked at hundreds of others, but I am looking for certain facial angles, and some where Courson/Walters is not smiling, as Courson rarely has a smile on as seen in your photo whereas “Walters” is alwasy on camera and sporting a broad and fake smile.
I’ll tell you something else – if indeed you do spend as many hours on a project as I have this one, you develop an eye – I can instantly see now Courson and Courson as Walters. But it only happens gradually … I can instantly tell whether I am looking at Paul or Mike McCartney – there I have probably 60 hours into various McC projects. They become wallpaper after a while.
Anyway, not to be harsh with you, but considering all the time that goes into these projects, and this goes for Gaia too, it would be nice if you would read carefully, look at the evidence, and where you don’t see it as I do, gently suggest that I bring more and better, or ask even how I came to my conclusions. When you come here, do a quick read (and I know that is what you and he did), and then tell me I got it wrong based on a snippet of evidence you don’t like, I get very frustrated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I made a comparison with just a selection of photos. I am convinced that many actresses played “Barbara Walters”, already in this short timespan of years (older women I haven’t taken in, this already shows it):
LikeLiked by 1 person
You do realize that you need to do a careful comparisons of these images, and I appear to be the only one willing to do more than just eyeball them. I might do so tomorrow, but today I have other work to do. You might want to consider that eye shape is a product of makeup. In those where she is dead-on facing teh camera, no guessing is necessary. You can do overlays in Photoshop, first making sure the pupils are at common distance. I am wondering if anyone other than Maarten actually read the entire piece.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know eye shape can be changed with make-up. It doesn’t make the eye completely different though.
We all have different skills and interests, Mark. You have your methods, I have mine. I can already see those women are different people. You may be able to prove that further with proper alignment (I do not dispute that method), that’s great.
I don’t have any Photoshop skills. I use PowerPoint. So also there I acknowledge you have skills I lack. Great, no problem.
Still all that to me doesn’t make “Pamela Courson = Barbara Walters X”. That still may be true, but I am not convinced so far. No big deal, but my point is; it would be good to first recognize a “Barbara Walters X” set that shows the same woman (there are more than just 2) and then take that established set and compare them to other people.
There was only 1 Bill Hicks and 1 Alex Jones from what I have seen and how unique those people are/were. At least that’s my idea. Then the comparison is easy. With this “Barbara Walters” character, it is much harder.
I had projects around the house to do today, and see my response to Carri about about the time and effort that goes into these projects and why I get frustrated with instant analysis. That aside, I am going to do a photo collage tomorrow, maybe 20 various poses (it takes time to get them straighten them, adjust the eye distance), and ask you guys to tell me which you think is Walters, Courson, or the mysterious thrid or fourth Walters you are seeing (there has only been one since 1976).
If you cannot work in Photoshop, you might try Microsoft Paint. It is free with PCs. You cannot do layers or rotating of images or gifs and other fancy stuff, but it is very good for other stuff, like setting up grids to measure features … you merely move the cursor along the nose, if that is what you are measuring, and the grid on the top or left tells you how many pixels you are looking at. If you want to size a photo it is very easy – just tell it you want 110%. You can grab portions of a photo and paste them into other photos, great for ear comparison. (Ears are the best evidence around, unfortunately, there is not one photo of Courson where her ears are visible).
There are at least three “Barbara Walters”:
1 – early Barbara Walters, the frail woman, 50s-early 60s, doesn’t look like any of the others, you have made the case she is not the later one
2 – mid 60s Barbara Walters, you have convincingly shown she is NOT the BW of today, your “walters-walters-4.png” file
3 – BW of the 70s-later (almond-eye BW)
I found two photos tagged Pamela Courson that show at least part of the ear. Not much, but all I could find indeed.
Not enough ear to be useful.
Anyway, we’ll talk some more tomorrow. I have much painstaking work to do so it will be later in the day (MST USA).
Walters/Courson has been for me clear and easy to see.
Check out the Today youtube vid of Barbara Walters “presented” here by Kevin Starr, which Mark uses for his matching Courson/Walters evidence. There is major hocus pocus on that youtube vid. First, the title: her name is misspelled, probably a sign of a spook joke. Got ya! Moreover, there is major editing on it: the narrator is in a light colored suit with no glasses and ends up in a dark suit, wearing glasses! Barbara has the same nauseous, nasal voice and head/hand mannerisms but check out her left arm which is lost and skeletal in the beginning. Also the lanyard microphones are both different although hard to tell for sure due to clothes. Generally studios use the same in-house mics for audio.
The different man at the end of the vid can be explained. Since it was BW’s first appearance, they likely brought her back at the close of the show to thank her again.
I understand your point here, Mark. Rather than making a judgement based on merely eyeballing the photos, it would be appreciative to have some type of evidence that reflects the commenters belief; instead of simply saying one doesn’t agree based on a quick analysis of hair, eyes, or the nose, show a comparative analysis in the initial response-to say you don’t accept Walters as Courson without further study dismisses the entire piece.
Mark, if I can scrape together some spare time, I will poke around the used bookstores in town and see if I can find Babs’s photos in any old magazines. TPTB can’t memory-hole that evidence as easily as they can internet archives.
(Which, upon reflection, involves little more than tweaking the algorithms on the big search engines. It could be that all kinds of damning photos are online, but inaccessible to us . I have often wondered if perhaps there is another working group like POM out there somewhere, but we just can’t find it due to search-engine interference. I still remember searching for and not finding the discussion on POM of “Langley-esque typos” … until I posted a comment about that failure, and then it showed up the very next day in my search. It’s that easy for them.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, Maarten. BTW, Vexman wrote a really interesting piece on the hidden Internet, easy to locate on his blog.
Also check thrift stores, garage, moving and especially estate sales of persons who have passed on. But, if the Mandela effect is to be believed, you’ll just be wasting your time…lol! wink wink
After reading the comments here I found myself wondering: “wouldn’t it be great if we could pull up the metadata on these internet photos?” Sure enough, there are ways of doing this online. I found this site: http://fotoforensics.com/ and submitted the following Barbara Walters picture URL:
I then viewed their ELA (Error Level Analysis) and saw indications of photo editing. I will try to post the resulting photo:
There are red and blue squares, or patches, all over the bookcase behind the female subject. Also, the child appears to be under vastly different lighting than female subject, indicating the photo was edited. If you look closely at the top of the female’s hair you can see a sharp outline, as though her head has been cut and pasted in front of the bookcase.
The website explains signs of editing (using a sample photo) at this link: http://fotoforensics.com/tutorial-ela.php
“The red/blue patches are rainbowing. They are a tell-tail sign that an Adobe product was used on this picture. This is confirmed from the metadata: this picture was last saved with Adobe Photoshop ‘Save-for-Web’ (and not ‘Save As’) and the user selected a quality level of 60%.”
“In this picture, the background is completely black, but the person is not. That means that the background is at a different quality level compared to the rest of the picture; the background was digitally modified. In this case, it was enhanced to make the white look brighter.”
Perhaps this website can serve as a useful tool to anyone interested in photo analysis. A word of caution, however. Be careful what you submit. Under the site’s FAQ it reads:
“By uploading a picture, you consent to having the picture viewed by FotoForensics, Hacker Factor, and research partners for analysis-related purposes. If the pictures contain illegal or potentially illegal content, then the site administrators may have an obligation to share the information with law enforcement.”
Thanks for this. I messed with this program some time back but sort of set it aside, as I didn’t think I was doing anything but reading a Rorschach. The colored pattern in the bookshelf, according to the program, is a tell that an Adobe program was used, but how do we know that? It is kind of a black box for me. I am glad you understand it, and glad that may naked eye analysis, that thenphotos is fake, stood up. I will start using it again just to see if anything jumps out at me.
Also, it says not to use PNG’s, which I use exclusively, as they cannot be tracked to their source, as you did with this photo.
Always more to learn about this stuff. But there is no shortcut to developing our eyes and brains to catch photo trickery. Here is one from watching Jeopardy last night that just jumped off the screen as fake.
Anyway, thanks for the input. Well done.
This is the “Error Level Analysis” that IB is talking about. It doesn’t do much for me, but apparently teh colored pixels are a sign that an Adobe product has been used. Differences in lighting can also be accented by this method.
In addition to the colored pixels, the metadata listed indicates an Adobe product was used. If you use the Analysis tab in the top left corner and click on “Metadata” you’ll find the information listed below the picture. You can see it here:
A heading reads:
Adobe Save-for-Web (Ducky)
Comment BARBARA WALTERS AND DAUGHTER.© GLOBE PHOTOS, INC.
I’d say that’s conclusive evidence that an Adobe product was used prior to the photo being uploaded to the internet – most probably Adobe Photoshop. Now, does that mean that all kinds of trickery occurred right before the photo was uploaded? Not necessarily. Perhaps someone got a hold of the photo, already edited with Adobe software, and then simply resized it in Adobe Photoshop before uploading it online. The point is, we cannot use the metadata to prove conclusively WHEN suspicious edits were made, only that the photo passed through an Adobe product and the file was saved for the web. However, I’ll argue that given we have metadata showing Adobe was used, AND we have the colored pixels around the bookcase in the background, AND the baby appears black in the “Error Level Analysis” while bright white in the original photo, this image has been tampered with using an image editing software program.
P.S. Good catch with the “We March with Selma!” picture, Mark. Out of curiosity, I looked for a copy of that image online and ran it through FotoForensics.com but saw nothing to indicate digital manipulation. The photo is obviously a fake (lighting problems galore!) but the methods used to fake it are older and pre-mass computer era. Having spent some time in a darkroom in college I think it actually takes a lot more skill to manipulate a physical photographic print than it does to manipulate a digital image file using image editing software. Just imagine how painstaking it must have been for earlier spooks to have to fake their photographs without the help of computers! Nowadays they’d have a much easier time creating the “We March with Selma!” picture.
Hi Mark, that was Rendar and not me talking about the photo, but seeing the rainbow outline of the section of the book shelf, it looks like that whole background has been dropped in, for what it’s worth. Why would anyone have a few blankets in the middle of a large wall of books? Could have been some random picture of a woman and baby that they took and put the new head on and dropped into another scene altogether. For what purpose, I have no idea…
The video from 1961 does seem to have the later BW’s voice inserted. It’s cleaner, with a wider frequency range than that of the male counterpart. He sounds like he’s talking through a tube.
It’s probably just the power of suggestion because of the voice, but while the original looks very different, she has certain facial expressions that remind me of the latter BW. Probably just typical jewish, expressive facial patterns.
I do remember the Baba Wawa SNL sketch clearly and would guess that was my first exposure to “Barbara Walters” and so shaped my later impressions of her, just as you say.
As for her supposed age being 87 for the most recent Trump interview, there’s just no way. Not everyone deteriorates badly by then, but the exceptions stand out.
I’ve been wondering about Tony Bennett, recently featured in some PBS specials, including a Lifetime Achievement Award with fete at the Library of Congress attended by the DC bigwigs. If that’s not a “service to TPTB” sendoff, I don’t know what would be. He’s supposedly 91, yet still has a big, powerful voice, and even moves pretty well on stage. He looks better now than in his younger days, judging by the pictures shown during the special…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do you think, IB, that the overdub on the video was done by a computer program? They can do that sort of thing now, alter voice patterns to imitate other people. Otherwise I would think that we would be able to tell visually that she was being overdubbed. That would mean this alteration is relatively recent, and that would explain why we are still allowed to see the video.
I’m sure it would have been done recently since the video wouldn’t be seen anywhere before the internet became popular, and more recently as “conspiracy” circles have grown. My guess it is done by computer, based on the demos I’ve seen of how they can do that now with video and not just audio. It may be that the noise in the background was added to try and cover the obvious difference in quality between the two speakers.
Maybe they have interns do these things as “training exercises” and laugh about them to keep their minions ignorant of their real designs. Or maybe they are just screwing around to find something to pass the time, since there aren’t any real threats…
I see it! Its dubbed. I fell for it. The voice made me believe the mannerisms were BW, but it’s only the voice (esp. at 1:20 where she says “the French designers.”) That woman probably sounded nothing like this.
Well IB, you just exposed my crucial piece of evidence as a fraud. I’m so glad I didn’t try to make a Federal case out of this because it would have fallen like a house of cards.
Mark, I know that you mentioned the possibility of an overdub in your article, but the video was such a stumbling block for me that I couldn’t get past it. IB’s expansion on the idea inspired me to give it a closer look. I’m going to need to regroup and look at everything again with this new perspective. Great work, guys.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kind of a synergism going on here, some really great commenters.
Barbara Walters is a spook project with many actresses in my opinion. RE: Tony Bennett. The voice goes too in the aging process. There’s lip synching and correcting microphones too as used by many singers like Barry Manilow, who can’t stay on key.
Yes, the voice does go, usually decades before 91. Maybe the whole thing is a pre-recorded production. I saw a Broadway touring production a few years ago with a lot of tap dancing, and was told the taps were all pre-recorded even though the dancers did all the steps, there was no good way to mic it.
I often wonder about these big venue celebrities and ponder how in the world they keep going, because they were ancient when I was toddler.
So what does a goofy-looking comedienne pretending to have a speech impediment in jest of some news babe have to do with saving the world? I’m glad you asked! The electrical “airwaves” and their ilk, which enable radio and television and so on are a commons. They [should] belong to the citizenry of this nation and the world of nations. To simplify, they are used to share information or entertainment. The FCC pretends its mission is make sure this is done correctly. Let’s say for a moment that they are not idiots and corrupt scum: surely, one important watchdog task would be to ensure that news, the dissemination of factual information meant to inform the citizenry, is factual. Therefore, if you allow a purported-to-be-journalist to be replaced by a body double, as in a cowboy show saloon fight, you are allowing a lie to go forth into the nation. A big lie. If I were to complain about this deception, most people would trot out the aluminum foil jokes. So, that would be a lot of people thinkin’ what’s so, ain’t so, and that ain’t good. This is criminal behavior at the highest levels of our government and, yes, you should care.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The other edge of the sword regarding “factual” information is that government would have to decide what is factual. I see all kinds of problems with that, which is why it might be better that there be no law that news tell the truth. It is up to us citizens to use our brains. Of course, TV being a mildly hypnotic and passive medium, by definition people are not thinking when watching it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why do these people do this? Is it because they couldn’t make a big name for themselves as one person so they had to kill that identity off and invent a new one? That wasn’t the case with Paul McCartney/John Halliday. I’m wondering how many of the big Hollywood stars started out as just some sleazy producer’s beard. This is disgusting.
I have a copy of Scavullo on Beauty copyright 1976. On page 186 there is a full page B&W photo of the Original Barbara. The portrait bleeds into the next page. To my eyes it looks like the Barbara I remember.
I also have the 1983 edition of Off Guard, a book of candid celebrity photos that was originally published in 1976. On page 27 there is a photo of the 2 Super Spooks Walter Concrike and Babs. This pic in the 83 edition clearly shows the Babs/Pam/Mystery Mama woman in the photo. Since the original publishing was in 1976, the same year as the Scavullo book, that when the 83 edition came out they made some photo swaps. Since Scavullo was no longer popular there was no real worry about the book being reprinted.
I don’t know how to upload pics to the comments section but I can email pics to whoever has the knowledge.
I also did a 70s celebrity search on Pinterest. I didn’t use BW as a search term. I did Streisand interviews, women in broadcasting, NY socialites, and TV superstars. I saw quite a few pics of the strawberry blonde BW that I grew up with. I think the switch was made in 1976. If someone can find any video of Streisand being interviewed for The Main Event or A Star is Born there should be clips of BW and Jon Peters or Streisand. That woukd be around the end of that Barbara Walters.
Someone who knows HTML well needs to give a little seminar on uploading photos into comments. For myself, I cheat, loading them first into WordPress and then capturing the HTML code and pasting it in. It is always a long and involved code, and it relies on the photo having been uploaded into the photo archive for the blog. Only editors here can do that sort of thing. We need comeqthing simpler for commenters.
Sorry to disappoint you, but there is no simple way to upload a photo from a personal source (i.e. from the folder on your local drive). The photo in WordPress comment in general template (like Pom’s or my own) can be attached to a comment only if it is already uploaded to some server with direct web address (i.e. http(s)://…jpg, or .png, .tiff or other picture file format).The option, where a commenter has a possibility to upload his own pictures into the comment section, has to be pre-programmed into the template to allow it. Even when it is done so, it technically means that the chosen picture from user’s private folder gets uploaded onto the receiver’s server and receives its direct web address, which is then inserted into the comment section. Unfortunatelly, there is no simpler workaround. So if anybody wants to share his/her private picture here, there are 2 options: a) you send them to Mark and he’ll upload them or b) you upload them yourself so the picture has its own web address and simply copy/paste that address into the body of comment text (as shown above).
Is this the same Vexman who responded to my frustration about not being to upload a video in the Jennifer Connelly article with:
**Not sure I’m getting it…
You can link a YT video simply by copying the vid’s web address from a browser into the comment section,without using any special wordpress command. The pictures would be linked in the same way, like this:**
Yep, that would be me 🙂 But linking to an already published video is not the same as sharing a video from your own library. The difference is that the former has a public web address, while the latter does not. That’s why I said it’s simple and easy to share a pic/vid which is already published on the web – it has its own web address, which is essential in this context.
If you want to share (or link to any comment) a private pic/vid, you need to upload it first. There are numerous free-of-charge options where anybody can have their pis/vids uploaded for public sharing, like for instance https://www.dropbox.com/ or https://www.megaupload.us/.
Just heard back from Josh – the website I was thinking of is called imgur.com – he warns that the photos you upload will no longer ever be private. I ahve used it, so if that is the case, it must be easy to use.
Well, the jokes on me, because I can’t post ANY pics or vids to WordPress at ANY TIME. But I view this as a blessing in disguise since it forces restraint, thereby saving me undue embarrassment. 🙂
That’s strange. But I assume you’re trying to post a pic from your PC. It is not an option, usually. You can only LINK to a picture in a comment, like in the case of a “normal” link, copy/pasting it into the comment section. That’s easy and it works 100%, always 🙂
When you see a picture here in the comment section (or anywhere else on the web for that matter), it means that picture has a web address, which is essential.
Do you mean like this? https://www.google.com/search?q=monkey+on+keyboard&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS755US755&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiazYX99eTYAhVtja0KHagbCVoQ_AUICigB#imgrc=BjklzgEpMYQSWM:
Ahaha, that made me laugh out loud! I’m posting it here for the fun:
Josh a long time ago gave me a website that is sued to upload photos for this very purpose. I am close to thinking of its name, and have emailed him to tweak his memory.
For hosting pictures, you guys might want to take a look at: photobucket.com & flickr.com, but not sure, as MM would say, those are CIA backed.
In your blog, you can do it yourself or have your website designer do it for you:
I’ve officially been converted. I believe my video submission to be dubbed. With that stumbling block out of the way, I reread this with an open mind, and I think you’re correct. It’s my opinion that the original BW was likely just too much of a “debutante” as you stated and got bored with the assignment or just wasn’t working out. The early 60’s and the late 60’s are like different eras. By then, they had invested so much time into her persona that they merely used another actress and smoothed it over with that broad impersonation by Gilda Radner. I guess that the original BW had probably disappeared from the airwaves for a few years until the public had less of a point of reference. Much like how, over at the Jackson thread, we are considering the replacement of Eric Clapton after he disappeared (due to heroin) from 1970 to 1974. He then returned with a completely different approach to his music.
Outstanding presentation Mark. Like I had stated before, this gives me a whole new angle to consider when doing my research. Thanks for that. In fact, the work you have done here is the reason I could make the Clapton connection at all.
These efforts are always collaborative and I depend heavily on constructive feedback. The fact that you held back even as you provided excellent evidence is merely the mark of a critical thinker. When you told me repeatedly that you could not get on board, I took not the least offense. I have just learned during the wizening years to stick with it, see where it leads, often, nowhere. And, I am not afraid to be wrong. Being wrong publicly stings, but mistakes are still the best way to learn. (I see our focus in schools on testing and grades and SAT’s and ACT’s as deliberately teaching kids to fear being wrong, so that they never learn how to think properly.)
That said, Tyrone has been communicating with me behind the scenes and has brought forth more videos to confound the picture, and new insight into what might have happened there. So there will be more to follow. For right now I want to clear out and allow Maarten to continue with his music series and I sort of smunched all over Steve Kelly’s post on the threatened lynx. So we can pick up next week on Walters.
Today it is snowing all day and there are two football games on, probably fixed. See ya!