Eva Peron: The plot thickens

Below are photos of Paul McCartney (1959) who performed live with the Beatles in the 1960s, Mike McCartney (1957) who stepped in and out of “Paul’s” shoes, and eventually became the permanent Paul McCartney we know today.

1957 1959

I can easily tell them apart. Others, including facial recognition expert Joelle Steele, insist they are the same person. The reason, I suppose, is career-related. If she were to assert two Paul’s, she’d never be called upon to offer expert testimony again. I am not calling her a liar, but do know that evidence is often tainted by the need to make a living. But for most other people, recognition of two different people is hard because of the glassy-eyed manner in which they view the world, never really stopping to both think and examine evidence. It is what they are told it is.

Above are twins, real names unknown, called “Janis Joplin.” The one on the left was the stage performer who was said to be extremely gifted, but was just having epileptic seizures on stage. Power of suggestion was all that made people think she had real talent. The other was shy, demure, and probably did some interviews, but never appeared on stage. Today we know the one on the right as “Amy Goodman” of Democracy Now! (though the one on the left occasionally fills her shoes).  Again, I can easily tell them apart. Most others turn on me and say I am bonkers. There’s always that possibility.

Above left is Eva Peron in her early to mid-20s, and Madonna Fortin Ciccone, taken from one of the few existing photos of Madonna Louise Ciccone (her daughter, the entertainer, or “Little Nonni”). These are the same person. I have done a detailed analysis, but I am tired of hanging all my evidence out there only to have drive-by’s stopping to tell me that I got the eye color all wrong. Either trust me, or better yet, perform your own analysis.

Ciccone Family 2

Above is a photo of the Ciccone family (heretofore the “Three-child photo”). Note the hand-written names: “Martie,” “Silvio,” Tony’s given name, written on top, which I will use from now on, and “Madonna-Madonna Louise” (our Little Nonni) and what appears to be “Tony G” on the bottom. The woman in this photo is neither of the women in the two photos above, but importantly, this appears to be a real photo. I see no evidence of forgery, though others might. And of course, I cannot tell from a baby photo who the child in the mother’s lap is. I do question why everything is written on the slick front of the photo, which does not hold ink, rather than the back. I also must question why we are allowed to see this photo, and suggest the handwriting is being used to hide the truth.

Ciccone Family Portrait

And above is the photo (“Five-child photo”) covered in detail in the prior post, a forgery in every way. Notice on Silvio, the dad, that his right ear is blackened. There’s a reason for that.

We can all easily see these are the same man. But there is something more important than that going on: These are the same photo of the same man. Silvio’s head was lifted from the family photo with the wrong wife and three kids, and pasted into the “Ciccone” family photo with five kids. He was also given new hair. Look closely at the photo on the left – see how the young child’s head blocks part of his face and ear. When they moved the photo and pasted it, they used a smudge pen or marker to supply the missing portion of the ear. Little details like that tell big stories.

That is Silvio Ciccone, young and old, and as far as I can tell it is the same man. That is important because this same man is sold to us as Little Nonni’s Dad, as in photos like the one below. He was said to have fathered six children by Madonna Fortin: Anthony (birth date unknown but pre-1957), Martin (6/15/57), Little Nonno (8/16/58), Paula (8/22/59), Christopher (11/22/60), and Melanie (1962). Melanie, then, would not be pictured in the five-child photo above.

Finally, here is a photo of Eva Peron on the left, and the younger Eva on the right. No one disputes that these are Eva Peron, but the assumption of some commenters is that they are not the same person. But they are. Do your own analysis and prove me wrong. Which means that the following two people are the same person, knowing that if A=B and B=C, the A=C.

Indeed they are the same person, and I again ask that you do your own analysis to prove me wrong.

So what is going on? What can we know for certain?

  1. Silvio Ciccone is a constant throughout. In the photo with three children, he is with a different wife, but the children are properly named Martie, Madonna Louise, and Tony. I have to rely on that as an anchor. The photo appears real, but the hand-written names could be a ruse, as this photo is one of only two made public, and we know the other one is fake.
  2. The five-child family photo, as described in the earlier post, is a complete paste-up. The two girls, Paula (1959) and Madonna (58) look to be reversed, that is, the one on Tony’s lap looks younger than the one standing by Madonna Fortin’s. But they otherwise look very much alike. I wonder if they are both of our Little Nonni.Ciccone Family Portrait
  3. Eva Peron is a match for Madonna Fortin, but not for the woman sitting with Silvio in the three-child photo.

PaulaFrom this I conclude that the family photo with three children is real. Madonna has a brother, Christopher. Is she related to the rest of the Ciccone’s? Possibly.  The photo to the left, said to be Paula, has Little Nonni-like qualities to it. She too could be a child of Eva Peron.

Since we know that the family photo with five children is fake, we must then look at the prime difference, two different mothers. What on earth is going on here? The “mother” inserted in that photo is Eva Peron in her former life. Here is that mother, and the mother from the three-child photo:

Just the facial shape tells me these are not the same woman. And again, judge for yourself, do your own analysis.

So why would Eva Peron appear in the fake Ciccone five-child family photo?

On the right is Joan Ciccone, Silvio’s second wife whom he supposedly married after Madonna Fortin “died” in 1963. Again, do your own work, but the resemblance is strong, if not definitive. What gives?

The best I can do is offer a working hypothesis. I will change tracks for a moment to examine another prominent family, the Kennedy’s. There are at least two odd ducks there, the one we know as John-John, or John F. Kennedy, Jr., who does not remotely resemble his father, but looks suspiciously like a young Aristotle Onassis.

From Miles Mathis we have learned the probability that President John F. Kennedy was gay, so that Jackie was his beard (even as Carolyn looks like a Kennedy). Jackie and Aristotle become a formal couple in 1968, so perhaps were lovers all the way through Jackie’s bearded marriage to JFK. Perhaps John-John (fake death 7/16/99) is the child of Jackie and Aristotle.

Patrick Bouvier Kennedy was born on August 7, 1963, said to have been premature, living only 39 hours and dying on August 9. We know that the fake assassination of his father was in planning stages long before that time, given the intricacy of details involved. Robert F. Kennedy was said to have had eleven children by his wife Ethel. However, we know of at least three fake deaths in his background, Kathleen, Joe Jr., and JFK. Therefore, it could be that Robert’s family was an orphanage, housing some of his own and children of his older siblings. (This idea was first put forth in Tyrone McCloskey’s JFKTV.) Patrick could well be one of them, the mostly likely candidate Christopher,  said to have been born July 4, 1963.

Why am I taking this detour? These families of nobility are not ordinary families, what with all the fake deaths and hidden twins that go on. It is sometimes necessary to shift children to different households. So suppose, and this is raw speculation, that Eva Peron had two or three children, but for unknown reasons decided she could not raise them properly and so farmed them out to the Ciccone’s. There is a family resemblance between Eva (right) and the mother in the three-child photograph (left).

 

That’s one idea, but does not cover all the variables, one that there are no extant photos of the Ciccones, all in one group. Suppose then that Eva, mother of two or three, wanted her children to be able to have a public life, but since she had faked her death, knew she could not be seen in public too much. Suppose she asked her handlers, those who oversaw her public life and death as Eva, for a way to help her. Suppose that the road chosen was not so much Silvio Ciccone, as his wife Joan. This we know about her: Nothing. Her maiden name is said to be Gustafson, her genealogy is scrubbed.

The Ciccone family was chosen to be the fake family of Madonna Louise (Little Nonni) and Christopher, possibly Paula as well. This would explain the insertion of Eva Peron in the family photo, the use of two different mothers in family photos, and the absence of any other photos of the family in one place at one time. It would also explain Little Nonni’s devotion to Eva Peron and the decision by powerful Hollywood Moguls and Andrew Lloyd Weber to give her the part in the 1995 movie Evita, even as she lacked requisite talent.

That’s all I got. May this project now die a natural death.

65 thoughts on “Eva Peron: The plot thickens

  1. I think you’re working from photos that have far, far too low resolution to be definitive. And in this case, I think one of these comparisons is flat-out wrong, the one showing young “Eva” and older “Madonna” (the mother, not the singer-lady). I don’t see where you did any photo-comparison other than with your eyes and mind, which is fine but allows for great bias. Our mind sees one thing, our eyes see another – unless one trains their eyes to see what’s actually there, of course. But meanwhile, we have tools to deal with the discrepancies.

    [img]https://i.imgur.com/UaaXNI4.jpg[/img]

    First, you need to scale them to be roughly equivalent. Then you need to adjust your gamma so that the contrast matches. Adjusting contrast/brightness/exposure won’t do the trick because it washes out details – you have to adjust the gamma itself. In this case, by .65 or so. Only then can you overlay them to see the actual differences.

    Then you run a “difference” blend on the two, which shows you what’s actually different in the shapes. We have no colors to work with there, but we have shapes. And sure, the angle and expression are different here, but I think close enough for some comparison – just not accurate or precise comparison, obviously. But all the WHITE areas you see in this image, in the face itself, are the actual differences at the pixel level. This is how you compare images digitally. It helps to remove bias.

    Their noses are very, very different. Young Eva’s is full and round, not terribly pointy, whereas Old Madonna’s is very chiseled and pointy as well, with flares above the nostrils. Almost a beak. Noses get bigger with age, not smaller, but of course surgery could be a factor. Young Eva has different, bigger eyes and very different eyebrows. Eva’s eyes are spaced further apart – something that cannot be changed or “corrected” by surgery. Her face is rounder, whereas Madonna has a much pointier chin. Eva’s mouth is bigger as well. Her smile lines are softer, which could be due to the younger age of course, but they’re also wider.

    To me they don’t look like the same person at all even before I ran it through Photoshop. Young Eva is cute, pretty. Old Madonna is not.

    Regarding your older-Eva vs the same older-Madonna, Eva’s face is much rounder, her mouth is rounder too. Nose, softer and not pointed. Nostrils not flaring. Eyes rounder and bigger. Eyebrows completely different – and they look pretty natural, whereas Madonna’s of course look made-up. I see no match at all between those. Their features don’t line up horizontally or vertically, but we can’t do an overlay due to the angles. The ratio between her mouth and eyes is different than Madonna’s. Her lower lids are thicker. She’s also much, much prettier.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Everything is covered. I deliberately left out my methodology, which includes every photoshop tool you describe, including opacity, overlays, facial splits, as I was tired of drive-by’s who don’t even read the article before attacking. There is also a somewhat useful program called Forensically. At the bottom you say “not even close,” and that is what the naked eye sees, but is wrong. They are indeed the same person. You at least heeded my word, “do your own analysis.”

    The younger Eva and older Eva merely reinforce the notion that Eva/Madonna in 1963 was not 30 years old. I have photo of myself then and now, thirty years apart, and if you saw it, you’d realize that in the aging process we do not change the shape of the skull or location of the features, which are stationary. Pupil distance, unless affected by accident or ALS or some other disease affecting bone structure, does not change. And of course , camera angle makes a difference, which changes the appearance of the shape of the nose, for instance. I have paid good attraction if Eva’s Nose, which is pointed downward, but it the camera is at a slight upward angle, that is not picked up.

    I’ll run the photo of me later. For now I need to add one more thing, that you have to look at ALL the evidence, which I have done, and more thatn a cursory overview of the photos. You are wrong, in my view, in your conclusions.

    Like

    1. I mean you keep stating that “we” are wrong, that my analysis is wrong, but what you’re doing here is making an emotional assertion on a matter of pure conjecture. “They are indeed the same person.” is not evidence, it’s conjecture. They don’t look remotely like the same person to me, a professional CGI and photography person. If I were modeling the (older) two faces in Maya, I would use completely different edge-loops and topography, because the faces are very, very different.

      Nor did you address any of my points of differences, nor did you address the “difference” overlay – which is the most important way you can possibly measure photos. That’s why it’s called “Difference” in Photoshop, you know.

      This is a matter of opinion, not fact. Your opinion is that the faces are a close enough match to call your opinion “right”. My opinion is that, as I stated, we’re working from garbage resolution photos to begin with and that’s never, ever enough to be definitive – BUT, the difference between THESE photos is more than enough to cause reasonable doubt.

      You’re really getting upset over this one and I think it’s demolished your objectivity.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I defend my work with the same vigor that you attack it, as I am no shrinking violet. But I am not feeling anger or divisiveness. I merely defend with vigor something that I’ve seen many times before, and in which I have great confidence. Attack me hard, I defend me hard.

        Your appeal to authority is noted, but I should add that I have been at this for a few years now, thousands of hours behind me, successes and failures alike absorbed. So right back at you. Were you able to see at a glance two Paul’s, Two Joplin’s? That’s why I put that there by way of introduction, that the eyes lie, are overruled by the mind, which is governed by media.

        As to resolution of photos, we have three, one of which (three-child) I think we agree is not Evita. That leaves two, one fake and which if you observe closely, the texture varies throughout along with the lighting. We have many photos of Evita. I did “difference” overlays, as you call them (I merely call them “overlays) and look through a photo to see the other, and can spot all differences. That is what I do with all photos these days, as it is so telling. It is how I was able to ascertain that three-child Madonna was not five-child Madonna, and two photos of Silvio, young and old, which were CLAIMED to be Silvio, were indeed him at difference ages. The eyes, nose, mouth, basic head shape do not change.

        With Three-child Madonna and Joan Ciccone, vastly difference ages, the overlay merely said that the features all aligned. Since I regard the story of Silvio marrying his housekeeper poppycock, I instead asked the question … what if he was married to the same woman throughout, and the Eva Peron kids were thrown in the mix because that is what nobility does? That is why I introduced the Kennedy monkey business.

        Then of course, we have the matter of head and camera angles. You don’t get clean results in this game, or such results are rare. You have to address 1quite a bit of otehr evidence, which I introduced and you have not addressed.

        This family existed, we are told, in the late-fifties and early sixties, and they were not poor. Why no photos, and why of the two we are given, is one fake? Need an answer. Why is there no trace of Madonna Ciccone form 1952 to 1957? Why was Madonna cast as Evita even as the part screamed for one of ALW’s Broadway singers?

        Like

      2. Okay, but your diction alone shows that we’re not talking about the same thing here, Mark. I don’t just call it “Difference”. It is the mathematical difference between values, and it’s an actual Photoshop layer-blending overlay. It’s why my first overlay and my second look so dissimilar – one is a blend, as you’re doing, and the second is the DIFFERENCE. Since you weren’t aware of that, here’s what it looks like in Photoshop:

        That entirely black image is the DIFFERENCE between the entire image I posted earlier and itself. It’s flat black, because everything subtracts out.

        For the faces to match, once gamma-corrected and then rescaled, we should thus see a lot more black or dark values – since the difference of something and itself is always zero.

        Now that doesn’t necessarily make them definitively different people, but it certainly does nothing the other direction either. What that tells us is that there ARE differences in the faces. Not just the photos, but the facial structures themselves. Again, it’s only as accurate as the input, which isn’t terribly accurate. But it supports my points about the facial structure which you are keen to ignore.

        Do you believe their noses look similar?

        Like

        1. Young Evita is looking off to her right and the head angle is not right, which I had to deal with intuitively. We are also dealing with a small universe of people here wherein corroborating evidence has to be factored in. Your lighted differences are not enough to sway me. I suspect you are looking for a mechanical way to overcome native intuition, as it appears you missed by a tenth of an inch on the whole face, uniformly.

          Like

  3. Very nice work Jared!

    I see:
    – 2 “Eva Peróns”; the younger Evita, I call Evie and the older woman (Evanona, “nona” means grandma in Spanish) who NO WAY is “30/33 maximum”, early-mid 40s makes more sense
    – also because they play 2 different roles; Evie played the role of eye candy alongside Juan, very much into fashion, etc. Evanona is the one speeching for the workers and dressed accordingly; simple and greyish
    – like we seen before with Hitler, Barbara Walters, Michael Jackson and others not uncommon to have designated people for designated roles

    Mamadonna 3 kids and Mamadonna 5 kids are obviously 2 different women
    neither of them is neither of the Eva Perons for the reasons Jared stated, especially eye and nose shapes
    the girls of the 5 kids photo are copies, probably the right one is 1 year older or so and pasted in with her younger version. It’s a horrible paste job I agree with Mark
    Papadonna indeed looks cut out of the 3 kids photo and pasted in the 5 kids one

    But no, the Mamadonnas are not the Evitas. Actors, yes all of them.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Mark, I really don’t understand why you get so upset, and especially with this subject. Like Jared said; it is about opinions (rather; points of view) and not about facts. What is the problem with people disagreeing with your POV?

        About Evie/Evanona (do you really think these are the same person??) vs Mamadonna 3 & 5:

        there are tons of photos of “Evita”, but there are only a handful of Mamadonna
        this means you have very little material to work with
        this means any firm conclusion is tricky
        two photos we’ve seen show already 2 different women (Mamadonna 3 and Mamadonna 5)
        you have shown with your photo analysis that two people who are allegedly the same actually are not. I think it is very useful to point that out and I agree with your POV on those ones.
        the opposite case; trying to prove 2 people who are allegedly not the same, actually are, is much more difficult and in many cases inconclusive, especially if you have small datasets to work with.

        I know you as a good researcher, Mark, that is not the point, but sometimes I am baffled by your lack of logical thinking, imho THE most powerful weapon to the perpetraitors, who are highly illogical and count on the fact that many people are like that too. Some examples:

        “you have to agree 100%, not just with parts of my conclusions” – on Barbara Walters, and I feel you do it here too – that is a fallacy (and a mild threat even)
        “I cannot read Simon’s book because I cannot read long texts on a screen” – how do you read Miles Mathis’s papers then? They are long in many cases and much more text on one page than Simon’s book. Do you print them out? Why not do that with Simon’s book too then?
        you said about Jared “appeal to authority” (when he speaks of his own expertise, something I have no reason to question) and then start doing the same “appeal to experience” (when you speak about “the many hours” you have spent on this subject) – don’t you see how that is illogical?

        I have merely shared my observations. That they differ from yours and probably from many people in this world, is not a problem, not an argument, it is just a different point of view. It doesn’t mean anything about what I think of the rest of your research, of richardjuckes, or anything.

        This truth seeking business is a hard journey, but there is no need to get upset about it. Only in the cases where real BS is spread, like FE and gematria. I agree wholeheartedly with you both these topics are BS and good you do not allow that here, it keeps your blog sane.

        But if you say “you have to fully agree with me” isn’t that exactly what the mainstream does? Presenting an “official story” you cannot divert from? In other words; shouldn’t we, truth seekers, be wiser than falling in such a black-and-white trap?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I have no problem with people who take me on head-to-head, but that rarely happens, though Jared came closer than most. I have asked you repeatedly to replicate the work before you go after it, as the naked eye is not a good point of reference. You don’t do that. Jared’s appeal to authority was just that, him saying that he has expertise so I should bow down. I answered in kind, the subtleties lost on you, perhaps because English is not your first language. Appeals to authority are fallacies because they do not carry with them information. They are empty vessels.

          You ask if I really think these are the same person? Yes! Do you think I pull numbers out of the phone book and ask for photos? This is a small universe I am dealing with, so the evidence tends to be tight and coherent. Eva the person faked her death. If you cannot see that, I cannot be of further use. She had to go somewhere, as she was just acting a part. We had no clue where except perhaps Spain, and then Richard showed up with photos indicating that she was Madonna’s mom. In the phone book world that means nothing, but in the noble world of “all the world’s a stage” you’d better check. So I went looking for other evidence, which you are yet to address. You look at the photos, get dismissive, and I think you’re just doing lightweight work. Your opinions without research are not worth much.

          Regarding Simon Shack, it is a light 150 page work and I will read it when it comes out in print. With Mathis, yes, I do print out his papers. I do not read them on the screen. I hate screen reading. It is cumbersome and I keep wishing for the end, which never seems to come. Books I can touch and feel and take in at my leisure, knowing what is left.

          Like

          1. Except in the case that the “authority” actually knows more on the topic and is able to show exactly how, why, and what that authority entails. I understand it as a logical fallacy, but in this case it was just logic.

            The difference of those two images should have been much darker, as close to black as possible. That’s called subtraction. 1-1=0. I have shown that we have great differences in their facial structure using a technique which was not available to you – due to my expertise on imaging technology.

            So you may call it an appeal to authority, but that rebuttal only refutes my statement that I am an expert. The verbal points I made, you completely dodged. No response other than to attack me – when I wasn’t attacking you to begin with. I was attacking your logic, your analysis, and your conclusion. That’s called debate. You were unable to defend it and resorted to emotional conversation, demanding the readers agree with you while still dodging. That’s what you did. It’s not personal, it’s right there on our screens. I’m fine with you and think highly of you, just disagree with you here.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. I did not attack you, so stop trying to put me on the defensive. You attacked me. Your words on the last two pictures, “not even close” were an attack, so are you passive aggressive? Do you think I’ve Schiffer brains where it cannot see normal differences? I had to overcome them knowing that different people at different times and angles look different. I do not credit you with expert status on your say-so, as I’ve never before seen you doing this kind of work, which is both mechanical and intuitive, that is, hundreds of hours trying to make sense of things, understanding camera angles, facial angles, Internet photos, and the essential element that you seem to want to ignore, a desire by certain elements to deceive. All the world’s a stage.

            Now, in an attempt to reach a mutual ground, I will tell you that photos are a minefield, and also that they are much more useful at discerning differences than similarities. Thus I can say with certainty that the woman in the three-child photo is not the same woman as in the five-child photo. The age factor is hard to deal with, thus it is difficult to say with certainty that young Silvio and old Joan are the same people as their counterparts. At that point you have to look for a narrative.

            What is up with these photos? You’ve ignored everything save your Photoshop results, and have not addressed the matter. Why are there two different mothers in family photos? Why is the five-child photo such a mishmash of (professional) fakery? If this is a normal American family of that era we should have some consistency. Instead we see conscious effort to deceive us, as seen in Silvio’s black ear, where we can easily see a conscious effort to distort images. Did you read the post? If it is a normal family, where are the normal photos?

            So broaden your scope! I know how to read Wikipedia, and could see that glycerine and wax images and a second wife dying at cancer at a very young age meant fake, fake, fake. I also understand controlled opposition, and how controllers use people like Juan and Eva to contain rebellion. I understand fake deaths, and know that those who do them are often stressed and find it hard to be non-persons, Sharon Tate, for example. So Eva wanting some personhood, even if in a fake photo with her real children, made sense.

            All of that other evidence in mind, I knew that there was no way the pop singer Madonna would get the part in the high budget Evita naturally, and coupling that with photo images where Madonna Ciccone and Eva Peron were near matches, was convinced that we had uncovered a fake fest. I am still.

            It has taken time and effort to understand the entire picture, and am much closer now than before. I do not trust that your images tell me anything more than my eyes naturally glean, that the facial features of the two women are very, very close. A slight positional adjustment will change your values.

            Like

          3. “Not even close.” is not a personal attack – further evidence you’re reacting based on emotion and ignoring logic here. You’re not being objective. I was – absolutely and entirely, based on a comparison you erroneously made. We were comparing two photos and your analysis fell short, to me, and so I said so. It was and still is just an analytical discourse. You’re being emotional about it shows us that you’ve lost your objectivity here.

            As for my analysis which you are still ignoring, but then say I ignore everything but my Photoshop evidence:

            “Their noses are very, very different. Young Eva’s is full and round, not terribly pointy, whereas Old Madonna’s is very chiseled and pointy as well, with flares above the nostrils. Almost a beak. Noses get bigger with age, not smaller, but of course surgery could be a factor. Young Eva has different, bigger eyes and very different eyebrows. Eva’s eyes are spaced further apart – something that cannot be changed or “corrected” by surgery. Her face is rounder, whereas Madonna has a much pointier chin. Eva’s mouth is bigger as well. Her smile lines are softer, which could be due to the younger age of course, but they’re also wider.”

            That isn’t a matter of perspective, it’s a matter of facial analysis. We only have two perspectives to analyze there, since I was directly analyzing those TWO photos, one to another. I’m simply disagreeing with you here. I’m not saying anything else about your premise, one way or another. Those photos simply don’t look like the same person to me, for the reasons I’ve stated.

            I never asked you to take my expertise on my word alone, but have shown my work in CGI, physics, and graphics here several times and am also highly Google-able if you’d like to see more. It’s what I do for a living – manipulate and work with images. Of architecture, of people, and of artwork in general. Which is how I knew what a Difference layer was, and you did not, for example. Which is a pretty basic Photoshop layer function that anyone with any skill in PS would know by the way – it’s not rocket science. The fact that you conflated Difference with difference shows us why my expertise was important to the argument, but you simply dismiss it as an ego-bruise.

            It’s not personal. But I can see why Mathis had such a problem with the facial analysis on this site, now. It’s not up to my standards. I don’t mind that yours are different than mine, and I don’t mind us disagreeing on this topic either. Either you value my data and input or you get upset about it, that’s up to you. We don’t have to agree. But I don’t see why it upsets you, it’s just some old ladies we’re talking about here.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. I was OK with the stuff until the last paragraph … the nose is a an odd aspect. Sometimes it points down, sometimes not, but it is pointed, as frankly the woman was not that attractive beyond her flower, as Orwell might put it. She petaled out early. The nose pointed down, though not always apparent

            Your last paragraph was passive aggressive, that you and Miles don’t like the work done here. It’s an attempt to demean me by alliance with him. He’s not a saint by any means, as fallible as any human, but more importantly, you need to stand on your own when you go on the attack here, without veiled references … My own eyes and research tell me what I need to understand. I don’t need your expertise to tell me that Evita and Madonna are different, as I have too many hours and years that say you are wrong. If we were dealing with the phone book you would be vindicated instantly, but inside the peerage the rules change. Again, you need to take in the whole body of evidence, including the odd fact that a b-level performer was elevated to an a-level slot for no valid reason, and the obvious photo fakery, which you’ve ignored. How does this woman, Madonna (the child, not the mother), get the benefit of so much expertise? Why do we not simply have photos of a normal family?

            Like

          5. As I’ve stated several times, I was criticizing your comparison of THOSE TWO photos. Not the rest of your premise. There was nothing veiled about me agreeing with Mathis about the state of photo analysis from some of the writers here. I have shown some basic software functionality that shows you are off on that comparison, basics you weren’t even aware of. I didn’t do that to make you feel lesser or inferior – you made yourself feel that way after admitting you didn’t know what Difference was. Now you know. You’re welcome.

            Like

  4. Here’s some more to chew on- Pix 1 2 3 & 5 and the gif seem to be the same person. This Fortin doesn’t look like Li’l Nonni much. In the 5 kid paste up, Fortin looks like an actor’s professional head shot pasted in. She very much has an actor’s mien.
    http://themadgestycollection.blogspot.com/2013/12/rip-and-thank-youmadonna-fortin-ciccone.html
    Madonna Fortin Ciccone  @madonna  #Madonna  #Mother @cgciccone  #ChristopherCiccone  ❤🙏❤🙏❤🙏❤🙏❤
    This looks like a finishing school deb, again with stage presence- Note the tilt of the head. Very relaxed and with ready-wear smile for the camera. Could be another paste up. The tiny hands and fat arms are kind of hinky.
    This post is nowhere near dead, Mark- Too much fun!

    Like

      1. Mark, I think it was from somebody’s blog. I found it on Google images but it seems to be missing, save for a smaller version on Flickr.
        Meanwhile, here is a six kid family portrait for the photo forensically savvy to rip apart: (From a Facebook page- https://www.facebook.com/pg/BestMadonna/photos/?tab=album&album_id=111884565493046)

        (Six kids) https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/1506744_772128539468642_1881889740_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=a6fa574b7e5f3362c15886c0123ffabc&oe=5B2ED38F

        Like

  5. The quote from Twain — “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled” — although from one of the spooks does seem to be truthful, an accurate chunk of the book of life.

    I was looking for another quote, from another spook, Edward Gibbon, about those that benefit most from education are those who least need it. Something like that, and I’m fairly certain it was Gibbon.

    Anyway, my point being that these three posts are fine pieces of work, and dissent in the comments matters not one jot. In my humble opinion.

    Like

  6. Estoy revisando el trabajo de Mark T. muy interesante, voy en setiembre de 2009, así como de Miles MATHIS. Felicitaciones a los dos. Cuando nos dedicamos a una actividad por años, desarrollamos la intuición y el sentido común (no sólo las mujeres) supongo que hemos sido manipulados para que los hombres crean que no pueden tener, desarrollar, perfeccionar ,etc la intuición, pero toda la gente lo tiene. A Mark, aparte de los métodos técnicos para analizar fotos que menciona Jared, le ayuda un montón su intuición y sentido común. El proyecto Eva Perón, excelente, esperamos que continúes Mark. Evita, aunque la mostraran como actriz de baja estofa (como decimos los latinos) era actriz, por lo tanto perfecta para hacer el papel de primera dama de los argentinos descamisados y no descamisados, que estaban a punto de hacer una revolución contra el estado de cosas.

    Like

    1. I ran this comment through a translating service, so take it for what it is worth:

      I am reviewing the work of Mark T. very interesting, I go in September 2009, as well as Miles MATHIS. Congratulations to both of you. When we dedicate ourselves to an activity for years, we develop intuition and common sense (not only women) I suppose we have been manipulated so that men believe they can not have, develop, perfect, etc. the intuition, but all the people has. Mark, apart from the technical methods to analyze photos that Jared mentions, his intuition and common sense help a lot. The Eva Perón project, excellent, we hope you continue Mark. Evita, although they showed her as a low-est actress (as the Latinos say) was an actress, therefore perfect to play the role of first lady of the shirtless and non-descamised Argentines, who were about to make a revolution against the state of things.

      I think in the original Eva post I mentioned that both she and Juan were “controlled opposition” put in place to prevent positive change, not help it along, which was why I was frustrated while standing at her crypt to see a middle-aged man kiss her plaque. I would have felt the same if some man here did the the same act for Hillary Clinton or Jane Fonda, false leaders. Evita was no saint, no savior, and not someone about whom a Broadway play should be put on, unless in derision.

      Like

      1. It’s great you get Argentinian (?) attention on this, that’s for sure. I am still with Jared, but no, I don’t believe “Evie”/”Evanona” did die in 1952. That’s not the point.

        “Evita was no saint, no savior, and not someone about whom a Broadway play should be put on, unless in derision.”

        Completely agreed.

        Like

        1. So grab MS Paint, which is on your PC, and do some testing and contemplating. Give it a good go, don’t be discouraged by the constant array of deception they throw at you. In the end, your own brain is your only guide. If Eva did not die in 1952,and given all the other evidence brought forth, Lucy, splain.

          Like

          1. I think that Andrew Lloyd Weber recruited very talented singers for his plays, as Patti LuPone in Evita. Madonna could never have carried that role on stage. I don’t know if they juke it all up on the stage like they can for ordinary rock stars. My impressions is that they have to be really talented to sing, dance and act on Broadway, or play in a symphony orchestra.

            Like

  7. as I wrote before, a fake picture is of no value because it contains no valuable information. It proves nothing. Its wasting of time to farther analyze a fake picture once you know it is fake. So we have here some fake picture, some real ones, some other peoples pictures. What is the point? Mark, could you put numbers on the pictures next time, so we could better explain which picture we talk about?
    The women on the third picture are not the same, the eyes don’t match. MM would tell you the same. The young and old Evita are the same person IMO. There, the eyes match. I don’t think that overlaying faces in Photoshop can prove anything. That’s why digital facial recognition systems are so unreliable. They work only if they really analyze the same face captured with the same device from the same angle, like in smartphones or today’s identity cards. That’s why the photos for the identity cards have to fulfill very special requirements. And that’s why you have to keep the same angle for the automatic security check on the airports. To compare two pictures made in different times with different orientation you have to have an eye for it as MM describes. Photoshop won’t help.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. as I wrote before, a fake picture is of no value because it contains no valuable information. It proves nothing. Its wasting of time to farther analyze a fake picture once you know it is fake.

      I disagree. Firstly, the elements of any composite can be revealing in and of themselves. Secondly, the juxtaposition of these elements – a conscious choice made to some purpose by an actor in the wider drama – can both bring into focus links and connections previously unknown, and also question links and connections previously accepted.

      And finally, there is the psychology of lying: who is lying, why are they lying, and what truths are concealed by their lies? I find these questions all very interesting. Anyway, Google has just given me another mountain of reading, so please excuse my sporadic contributions to the comment threads. I might be some time.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. A tool is only as good as its wielder. I agree that digital face-matching and recognition isn’t often terribly helpful, which is why I did it at the mathematical level – for more precision. As I stated, it’s not definitive – but it is evidence, in this case against. I happen to have more experience than Miles or Mark with Photoshop so felt it appropriate to lend my expertise to the topic at hand.

      The rest of the premise I could take or leave, but the photos I addressed earlier don’t match to me, even after proper rescaling, gamma-correction, and running a Difference layer on them. For Mark to have not even done the first two techniques (this is pretty basic stuff, in CGI) much less the third shows us that his intuition isn’t necessarily correct in this case. The “eye for it” isn’t there.

      Like

  8. what kind of directives can you derive from fake information? It does not even prove, that the same source will lie to you next time, no? If somebody gives you fake information as an answer, this will not answer your questions. Especially photographs and videos are always only an abstraction of reality. They cannot replace the reality. For instance, if all rocket videos are fakes, this does not prove rockets don’t exists. It only proves, that you’ve never seen how a rocket really looks like. Or if all 911 videos are fake, it does not prove, WTC still stands. If a picture showing Evita with her family is fake, it does not prove this family did not exist, especially if there are other pictures showing them together. Even if you could prove all that pictures are fakes, it would not prove, this family did not exist. What again are we asking here? Was Madonna the Singer called Little Nonna from the Peron-family? Do fake pictures support this in any way? Only pictures which we take for real can give us an answer, no matter if this answer would be yes or no.

    Like

    1. You are quite wrong here … if the Ciccone family was real, there would be no need for fake photos. The fakery we see all around us is not hiding unimportant details. It is hiding reality.

      However, and this is critical, insiders are always five steps ahead of us. Madonna the singer rose to fame and had a career and is done now and Richard and I are just trailing behind picking up pieces. She was talentless, and that is important to understand, that she could rise to international fame on fumes. She was consciously used to weaken the morals of young girls, to make them loose and lascivious, to empower them at the expense of the American male, to emasculate us in that barely concealed drive to get us to stop reproducing … that project is all around us in the promotion of homosexuality and gender confusion. Madonna may be just a slut with a noble birth canal, but her deception and fake family matter in the larger scheme. They are changing the nature of human society … for better or worse I cannot say, but it is being done via deception on a grand scale.

      Like

    2. Which reminds me … Madonna put out a picture book showing her in poses that would have embarrassed Penthouse Magazine … I say “Madonna” did this, but it was not her. She was just a tool, and higher powers were using her for a larger purpose, again to make young girls be more like sluts and undermining core values, among them fidelity and family.

      Like

  9. you’re somehow getting emotional here. No need for this. And you do overrate Madonnas importance. It looks silly today, no? Kids have new role models today no less vulgar of course. I think it is to simply waste their precious time when they can learn the most. And it had its backside. Madonna was always a hard working person. It inspired many to work as hard as she did. At least at their fitness. They gave her some background story to hide her roots maybe. Does it matter, if we can prove this? We already know for sure this is a close circle of VIPs where everybody is related to each other. I think it does not look very convincing if you use this kind of picture comparison and you were wrong here many times but it is difficult to address as the many pictures have no markers.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You are the third now to accuse me of getting emotional when I am merely stating my views with the same intensity as you. Are my words somehow more impactful than yours? I am not feeling hurt or anger or resentment … so what is up? I just write. When under attack I defend myself. Is that being “emotional” like I am in some kind of aberrant mental state?

      The importance of Madonna … of course in the larger picture everything fades. The importance of pictures? They are all we have outside our sphere … many are contrived to give us false impressions. The five-child photograph was the product of hours of labor by someone who had ACCESS to the photographs of the players involved, including Eva Peron. It was a small part of a much larger enterprise that has been going on for as long as we have had photos. It is easy for you to dismiss it all as if it had no importance. If it were not important to our overlords, they would not do it. If they were not doing it on such a massive scale, they could apply their efforts in a very small scale and do a much better job. It is easy, once you see a little, to see a lot. So what we do here matters, even if we are like Madonna mere bit players.

      Like

      1. “When under attack I defend myself.”

        That’s the thing, you are not under attack.

        But why stop scrutinizing at the (imaginary) border of the mainstream? Can’t you be wrong? Can’t we be wrong? Even the world’s best clock maker can have an off day.

        Like

        1. My work is being questioned and I defend it. But emotional? Not hardly. Just vigorous. As I said, I am no shrinking violet.

          Can I be wrong? Seriously? Yes. Of course. As the Paul Simon song says, when something goes wrong, I am the first to admit it and the last one to know.

          The problem is, I think I am right.

          Like

      2. ok then, I’m not attacking you so no need to defend. I’m pointing to what I consider to be not accurate and also asking questions. But lets leave it at this. I may have a different approach to the fakeology. I don’t believe in super rich anymore. We are being ruled and guided which requires to manipulate and condition us to do things we otherwise wont do but it is not to make some chosen people richer and richer. This makes no sense to me. The life of the super rich is no fun from my perspective. The more you own the more work it causes you. There is a natural limit for everybody where it stops being fun. Some may need more than others or to express it in a different way, some can handle more than others but if you own to much it will only stress you unnecessary. Of course it is also no fun to own nothing at all. So I don’t think it is about making the super rich even richer. So what can it be? I really believe, the rulers try to make the world better for everybody and it is not an easy task. Because it always means some will have to share with others which nobody really does voluntary.

        Like

          1. The job of the aristocrat is to stay an aristocrat. I heard that somewhere. I think the more money one has the more time, effort and worry one has to expend on keeping it. Having money costs them money, too (e.g. accountants, financial advisors, lawyers, etc.) So they spend money on manufactured heroes and manufactured crises for the common folk in an effort to maintain their position at the top of the hierarchy and protect their wealth.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. They don’t have to spend their money. They can use the tax money to do many of their black projects. But try to see the bigger picture. The paper money is not the real wealth. Gold and silver reserves are more important than paper money. Real land, food/gardens and other resources are even more important than gold and silver. Real knowledge (science, history, psychology etc) is even more important. Their knowledge, wealth and family network can be used to control the disorganized and fragmented masses. They enslave most of us to the paper monetary system, while they keep most of the real wealth. The accountants,lawyers and financial adviser of the elites are probably family members (this should be obvious) . When they have to give paper money to non-family members they already have money from our taxes and other scams (drug money, financial, bailouts, charity money etc).
            I don’t see any good. I see only centralization. Before centralization they need to divide, create tensions, create dependency etc. I don’t see anything that points towards liberty, truth and virtue. You cannot have liberty, truth and virtue if people cannot engage in voluntary actions. I don’t want to belong to a Borg civilization. The Borgs from Star Trek are not evil, but I would be an enemy of the Borgs.

            Maybe this is a useful video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQRYI51bzu4

            Liked by 1 person

  10. Although I am not convinced that Eva became Ma-donna, I do think Madge (Nonnie) was given the part through nepotism and is a tool. I like your work Mark, but I can’t see the resemblance, but then again re: Miles Mathis’ Dress.pdf, I saw it as blue and black.

    Here it is claimed are: …postmortem X-rays of Peron’s skull which were made public in 1955 to prove that her corpse hadn’t been burned (long story).
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2011/11/22/was-evita-lobotomized/

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Ann, the picture included in MM’s Dress-pdf had no gold colors anymore. You can copy and paste it into Paint and check the colors. Maybe it got lost being converted into pdf. Too bad, he did not give us any link. There are many similar illusions like this. Some work on some people, some on others. Also you can train your eyes and mind and watch it different way. It proves nothing. MM draws weird conclusions from it.

      Like

      1. B. MÜLLER,

        The gold color in the ‘Dress’ image is from the brain’s Visual Cortex color correcting the white areas, white-balancing, and adding a yellow-orange or gold to the image’s darker areas. Note: for this image as other copies may have different color schemes.

        “To make the pale blue look white, you have to add the opposite, which is kind of a pale yellow-orange.”

        To extrapolate, substitute the word ‘eye’ with Belief and apply that to this trend. A belief will determine what is seen. Belief comes first, then seeing as it is an acquired learned skill from one’s beliefs.
        “In fact, people got hostile, defending their own eyes.”
        I wouldn’t say ‘hostile’ but seeing the world through their eyes or basic beliefs.

        “Because the brain makes so many corrections on the world for its own reasons, it is pretty easy to fool with optical illusions.”

        So, as not to get fooled consider all viewpoints. It makes it harder for top-down control by controlled opposition on one dominate viewpoint.
        Point: It takes a lot of work to see something new or as it is.

        For fun, does Dogbert sound like T.M.?

        3/30/18, “Vladimir Nabokov. Part one”.
        by Dogbert Dogbert
        http://mileswmathis.com/nab.pdf

        *As a supplement to the “Dress” article,

        “Rainbows, Prisms, and non-edge Diffraction:
        A Rehabilitation of Goethe”
        by Miles Mathis
        http://milesmathis.com/rain2.html

        Like

        1. J.A., by T.M. do you mean me? I’m not Dogbert, Rappaport or anyone else. When I was a kid I wanted to be Catfish Hunter but boy am I glad I’m not him now.
          Never read Nabokov, either.

          Like

        2. James, what I meant was that the picture included in MM’s pdf does not work as an illusion. At least it didn’t work on me. I saw brown and blue stripes in different shadows which are the real colors in the picture. You can call some of the brown shadows gold and some of the very bright parts white if you wish. Or some of the dark brown parts black. There are many better working illusions on the web.
          It’s quite easy to mislead the eyes on colors. Or take the blind spot on your retina. If you paint a bright cross on a piece of paper using a text marker for instance and leaving the crossing part empty and then look at it from a certain distance and on certain angle, just look aside of the cross, so the blind fleck will spot the crossing point, then the cross will get fulfilled. The brain invents constantly not existing information to fulfill gaps. That’s why propaganda works. But everybody can work on that and train himself to spot “fake news”. As for myself, I tend to see two kind of people. Those who like and prefer first to believe in something and those who question everything first.

          Like

      2. You’re wrong about the dress photo in Mathis’s .pdf file. My guess is that you aren’t actually that bad at digital imaging, but perhaps MS-Paint color-corrected it away from SRGB or something when you tried to measure the colors. Did you actually try to measure the colors?

        And this supports my previous point as well. Crap in, crap out with this imaging stuff. I’m not saying I’m the best in the world or that I’m always right about this stuff, but it’s very damaging to your points when you can’t get the very basic stuff right.

        Like

    2. The lobotomy, Ann, I think, was as I view it either a sincere mistake by a well-meaning researcher, or just another hoax to reinforce the fake death. “Evita” was found in a grave in Italy marked Maria Maggi, and if not a hoax, then Maria Maggi had a lobotomy. The story becomes absurd when we are told that Juan Peron had the body shipped to Spain, and that he and his then-wife Isabel kept it on a platform in their dining room. For what reason? A magazine rack?

      Regarding recognition of what I call zombies, I understand when people don’t see what I see. It’s like I am whispering “I see dead people.” But I stand by my observations because this sort of thing is just not that unusual. Fake deaths are common in Intelligence, movies and music and politics.

      Like

      1. Mark,
        I have been extremely impressed with your work especially as of late. The other contributors just as well. The pieces flow more smoothly, pack a lot of punch, yet delivered with grace.
        Your writing style never begs for approval of your position. Instead it earns it. For me it is very easy to see and believe you hit for the cycle on Eva Peron and the related works. Yourself and all involved did a great job.

        Like

        1. OK, that’s it. I am done for the day. I may never get another compliment like that, so I am turning off my computer now.

          Thank you. But I must say that the spirited discussion above was not personal, even if intense. I put myself out for criticism and received it. I am still whole, as are they, and I still think I am right, as they do not.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. I think you may be correct in your premise, as I’ve said. I was really just trying to be helpful with the digital analysis and I apologize if it got heated. Not my intention. I’m used to tons more heat on other forums, Facebook especially, and didn’t consider my tone rude until you “broke me off a piece” about it. I’ll try to keep a more neutral tone in the future.

            Like

          2. As I said before, I was not feeling intense emotions, but simply defending my work. There is more to say in the piece I published today concerning the overall body of evidence taken into account along with the photographs. Plus on Monday I have another long piece with photo comparisons, lots of Evita’s and some new material. Stay tuned.

            Liked by 1 person

  11. Not sure what the nutrition content is here but I know a Ciccone from NY and he is a professional musician. His family has always been musical. It runs in the blood. (My extended in-law family is ridiculous in this regard. The whole group, cousins included- All the girls sing and all the boys play an instrument, and with almost no training. It can be genetic, I guess)
    Anyway, my Ciccone has a cousin, an actor, who believes there is a connection to the Ciccone’s under scrutiny here, but I would think if there is a connection, it’s to Silvio/Tony exclusively. (I’m getting third hand info on this so pass the salt)

    Silvio/Tony worked for GM and Chrysler as an optical engineer, whatever that is. Optics…hmmmm… The stench of military contracts hang in the air around this guy. He’s now a vintner with his second wife. How you get from GM to grapes, I don’t know, but I’ve always been a tad suspicious about wineries as one of those loosely accounted operations where profits and losses would be easy to camouflage. (The few wise guys I’ve had barroom chats with told me barter is the foundation of their economy so maybe this paisan was paid off in acreage for his sponsorship of Evita jr. as a kid, ala, John Denver/Jim Morrison.)

    Try this charming story on for size: “Madonna’s father, Silvio ‘Tony’ Ciccone, was the son of immigrants from Italy. He was actually the first person from his family to graduate from college. Silvio passed out with a degree in engineering. Her mother, Madonna Fortin, worked as an X-ray technician and was also a former dancer. She was a descendant of French Canadians. Madonna’s parents got married in 1955 and moved to Michigan because of her father’s job.
    Her mother was an (sic) extremely religious; she frequently entertained priests and nuns. She was a huge influence on Madonna. When her mother died at the age of 30 due to breast cancer, Madonna was devastated. She was only 5 years old then. Her father later married the family housekeeper, Joan Gustafson, who Madonna frequently disobeyed”.
    https://www.celebfamily.com/entertainment/madonna-family.html

    So, there is the “credible” source for the breast cancer: X-ray tech. Sure. The housekeeper was probably always the wife and Fortin was there for the very early years to get the chosen one on the right path. Like so many bastards I have looked at who crowd the public stage, one of the parents, usually the father, disappears after three or four years. As far as “huge influence” and “devastation” of a four/five year old who would be prepped for Momma’s demise by such slow death, the reality would be much subtler and manifest itself way down the road in a developing sense of abandonment- though that too is useful in developing an asset who runs through relationships as fast as Li’l Nonni appears to do.
    I put the Madonna project in with the sponsored bastards ops like Denver et al, as the “dead” Evita would not make much of a mother long term. Besides, what kind of mother would Eva Peron make if she herself, as admitted, is also a bastard of a bloodliner. To her, leaving her whelp with a vetted asset would be business as usual.
    (Of course, Lourdes Leon is a bastard, though no one was deceptive about that so Madonna could, and would be expected to, carry on as a mother in these promiscuous times where wonder women don’t really need a husband, see. Besides, whelping bastards is part of the destroy all families op that she spearheaded in her halcyon days. One of the main objectives is to discard the father and in the case of Carlos Leon, he comes off as a headless mantis despite his alleged visitation rights)

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Unfortunately, this subject is not done by any means, but death at young age is always suspect. Very few people die of cancer until later in life, and of course, we all know one or two who did die that way. But the phenomenon is over-represented among the nobility, as if bad genes in that crowd are as common as homosexuality. Eva did not die of cancer, nor did Madonna Fortin. The mishmash of fake family photos are telling a story and I am yet to flesh it out, and it is bugging me.

      Like

  12. Marek,
    I can see how you got to the conclusions you got, but I must ask, how good is your evidence? From the first post I get the impression you just analyzed a handful of Eva’s pictures and most prominently the one provided by reader Richard. How many pictures did you analyze. How good is that evidence. As said, I agree with you with your conclusions because the evidence you got your hands on pointed to that. I think this is fine to have a fun time, but for a full fledged research regarding Eva Peron (basically unkown character in US, but immense in Argentina) I would say it needs more elbow grease. If you were having fun with the pictures I get it and I do not question more.

    Like

    1. There is a wide body of evidence here and more work to be done, but understand that the Ciccone family did not exist, otherwise there would be real photos. There are two women used in “family”photos who look like close relatives, and we have but a few usueable photos of each. Eva Peron was widely photographed, and I just came across 16 pages of photos of her. I have not done this kind of work in some time and so forgot about Getty Images, a rich source. That’s my day today.

      Like

  13. “The rulers try to make the world better for everybody.”

    I don’t believe that for one second. A better world doesn’t include hoaxes, false flags, lies, thievery, psy-ops to keep the masses distracted and in constant fear. That is not making the world a better place. The rulers are in it for one thing, and one thing only, to keep and hold onto power.

    To hell with the rulers/controllers.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. I actually think TBTB are fearful, mid-to-low IQ cowards, and not really the grand master mind controllers that people think. Their house of cards will fall eventually. They have to rule secretly from the shadows. They fear losing their power to people more intelligent, more liked, more respected, competent, and talented than them. All they have is their inherited wealth and positions, all of which can be stripped away. How else can you explain this mess and the stupidity with all of these psyops? – Are Barney the dinosaur and the teletubbies psyops too? – I wouldn’t be surprised.

    I also think that TPTB are seriously mentally disturbed to be doing these things (possibly due to inbreeding amongst the peerage families – they need new blood. How the hell does a trusted outsider or normie get inducted into something like this, if at all? Aren’t a lot of the peerage men in these families gay as MM suggests?).

    Liked by 2 people

  15. B. MULLER,

     I agree that there are better working illusions. The “Dress” image is hazy with the blown-out highlights, so as an illusion it would be more of an interest to photographers and painters attempting to translate what they see onto a medium. Also, I was mistaken, according to the article people who see blue and black are color-correcting for a black balance. 
    

    A better working illusion would be the black and white striped Op paintings of Bridget Louise Riley CH CBE (born 24 April 1931) or for associative number fun (24-04-1931 = 2,4,4,9-1=8=4+4, 3-1=2) or (2,4,4,4,4,2).* Depending on the frequency of the stripes various colors can be seen.

    I take the article as meaning there are layers to an image, some of them verbal that will influence each other. A while back there was a TV program on the ‘Milky Way’. The intro was a brief time lapse of the Milky Way traveling down the screen with back lit pine trees in the foreground. Then a fifteen explanation of how we are on the fringe of the disc shaped galaxy and spinning locally to the Milky Way. Then the same intro time lapse. Only this time I had the kinetic sensation of falling off the chair since the foreground Earth was rotating and the background was ‘stationary’. The verbiage influenced the image. 
    

    Does knowledge of a photograph change how we see it? (Trying to dovetail back into this post.)

    Sorry if this post is not relevant to the post but bouncing between the two sites is like trying to date an anorexic, the boundaries get burry.
    best

    Tyrone M.,
    You might enjoy the article(s) if only for the vocabulary, i.e. “confirmed bachelor”.

    *Richard Diebenkorn, painter, his Wiki entry has red flags all over it, (April 22, 1922 – March 30, 1993) or (04, 2,2, 9-1=8, 2,2,) or (2,2,8,2,2,)
    (March 30, 1993) or (03, 30, 1,9,9,3) …
    (9-17-1963) or (9, 1+7+1=9, 6=3=9) or (9,9,9,) or MWM = 3+3+3=9 … or whatever you want to make it.

    Like

    1. Your blog post is a recitation of the official story. My take was quite different, that Eva Peron’s background was fake and that her rise to power was scripted, her death was fake, and that she went on to ead a quiet life raising a family (by an unknown father) that produced, for one, the pop singer Madonna. Madonna was only lightly talented but was, like her mother, juiced and preordained for success, so that when the role of a lifetime, Eva, came up, she was the natural choice to play her mother.

      Isabel Peron appears to be Eva’s sister, and rose to power by the same force of hidden hands behind her, preordained.

      Take a look at the casket shot in your post. You are looking at a wax dummy.

      Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s