Identity Fraud, Part 2

In April of 2017 I published a post I called “Identity Fraud.” In it I made the claim that Buddy Holly, whose 1959 death was faked, later re-emerged as “Gram Parsons”, who also faked his death. For reasons I do not remember, I was struck by the resemblance of two men, one a music mogul and the other movies, David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg. These two men are the “G” and the “K” in Dreamworks SKG, a former film distribution company. The “S” of course is Spielberg.

I have many, many hours of labor behind the Identity Fraud post. Unfortunately, at that time I was using GIFs rather than face splits, and the results were very hard to follow or agree with. I thought that rather than reinventing the wheel, I would merely convert the GIF’s to face splits. However, in so doing I decided that it would be better to start over. I still stand by the original work, regret the poor presentation, and hope to come out the other end here with a clarified and evidence-based piece. In the original I started with Geffen and Katzenberg and worked my way backward. I think it better now to better understand the Holly work we did.

Buddy Holly, the prankster

Holly supposedly died in a plane crash on February 3, 1959, after taking off in a small plane in Clear Lake, Iowa. On board with him were Ritchie Valens and J.P. Richardson, aka “The Big Bopper,” along with the pilot, Roger Peterson. All were reported dead. We wrote about the scene in a post called “Weird Scenes in Clear Lake,” as at that time we were deep into researching the scores of (fake) deaths reported on by Dave McGowan (fake death 11/22/2015) in his book Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon. I must also refer the reader to the work of Miles Mathis on this subject, Buddy Holly: The Day the Music Lied. While I focused on photo fakery, Mr. Mathis took the story off in a number of interesting directions. Well worth a read. My piece preceded his by three months.

Incidentally, in the comments under my piece you find a guy claiming that he was on his way to the Clear Lake hospital that night, as his wife was in labor, and he not only drove by the crash scene, claiming it was all real, but also found this tiny blog almost 60 years later! Wonders abound.

My partner and I at that time had difficulty placing Buddy Holly if he indeed survived the fake crash. We were looking for what we called “Zombies,” or people who take on new identities after faking their deaths. My partner had a keen eye and we had discovered many Weird Scenes in the Canyon people alive and well. Holly was not producing any leads. But we did have a breakthrough of sorts. The photo at the opening above are two shots of Holly, but appear more to me to be two people. It is not a comfortable argument, as there are so few photos of Holly to work with, but I came up with this face split of the two:

I say “discomforting” because in working this yesterday I came up with five photos of Holly (the sixth added later) and all were consistent in not fitting with number five, the color photo first in the second row. That photo is taken from the magazine TexasMonthly article in 1994, called The Real Buddy Holly. So photo number two in row one, which I used for the face split, is not only out of step with the other four (of six), but also with the real outlier, photo number five. However, subsequent work with the Katzenberg connection led me to think that photos two and five are of the man later known as Jeff Katzenberg.

You might suggest that photo number two was subject to lens distortion, always a possibility. It also has qualities of a paste-up, with skin complexion seeming a bit artificial. But here is another piece of evidence to consider: The glasses he is wearing are exactly the same width in both photos, 2-3/8 inches. Lens distortion should affect both face and glasses.

I have another theory about the horn-rimmed glasses. I know they were in style during that time, and yes, I wore them too through high school. But they could be a distraction. Holly, in photos five and six, is not wearing glasses, and contact lenses were years away. (Also note, I grabbed photo six because it is his real teeth. I suspect he is wearing veneers in the other photos.) I have noticed with prominent twins we have uncovered, such as Paul McCartney and Janis Joplin, that they often like to misdirect us to keep us from noticing that we are dealing with two people. With McCartney it was the mop-top haircut, which happened to cover up their eyebrows. With Joplin it was big hair and glasses as well.

Anyway, I will go forward with the work as it stands, showing Buddy Holly to be two people, maybe even three. I might wake up some morning with fresh insight, but right now, I am along as far as the evidence takes me. I have other problems ahead, a singer named Gram Parsons.

The Gram Parsons Experience

Follow me down this treacherous road, as years ago we were troubled by Gram Parsons in the same manner as with Janis Joplin, inconsistencies. First, a face split.

There are differences, and if I align the nose and mouth, the eyes are out of wack. You might think it is just a head angle matter, but over the years I have found that head angles will distort ears, but not general alignment of features. This split suggests something is amiss.

You might suggest that inconsistency would be the rule with Internet photos, but on close examination we can usually detect consistency. Below is a group of photos I used to analyze the Gram Parsons experience, just as with Holly.

I number them one through eight, left to right and top to bottom.I found two clinkers among them – I am tempted to challenge you to find those two, but without moving the faces around and doing face split comparisons, it is indeed very difficult. They are numbers four and seven. I used number seven in the face split above, and while the differences are not as pronounced as with the Holly boys, they are there.

So if I am going to boldly go, and to suggest that the two Holly’s became the two Parson’s, I’d better put up. See below.

I did face split overlays on all but number three, as he is going to be useful later on. Take note: if the left side of the face is in color, it eventually leads us to David Geffen. If black and white (there are but two), Jeffrey Katzenberg. The most suggestive are, in my mind, number two, who will later be known as “David Geffen,” and number seven, who will later be known as “Jeff Katzenberg.” Since I am completely hung out here, I might as well move forward then.

Dreamworks KG

I cannot tell you with any certainty why I took note of Geffen and Katzenberg looking like twins. In those days, we found a lot of twins who were not that, an embarrassing time and long since cleaned up. What is left in that category is supported by evidence. I am not suggesting that you need to believe my evidence, only that it is there. Later on I will pull the timeline from the original post, as I do not want to do all of that work again.

Buddy Holly/Gram Parsons/David Geffen

Later on I’ll be showing some ear work from the original post, as ears can be as good as fingerprints. For now this will do. Both Geffen and Katzenberg have had extensive dental work – remember the Holly photo I labeled #6 above – I kept it because it showed misshapen and irregular teeth. This match is not the best, but I am limited in the Holly photos available, and as addressed at the outset, I am dealing with uncertainty.

Below is a transition shot, Holly to Parsons, pretty revealing if you ask me.  Eyebrows do not align, but everything else is spot on.

It would be nice if we had a photo of Geffens with the face angled in that manner, but still, the following shows great alignment of features.

Finally, pure split Parsons and Geffen, as angles are troublesome.

I would like to say “I rest my case,” but the case rests on photos and there are discrepancies, though I think them minor. Let’s move on to Katzenberg.

Buddy Holly/Gram Parsons/Jeffrey Katzenberg

By far the hardest thing to do was to come up with Holly photos in which Katz would align. First I had to separate the Holly’s, and then the Parson’s, hoping to find a smooth transition through from Buddy Holly to Katz. You be the judge. First, Holly to Parsons. (All photos used are available in the collections shots above.) Remember, both of these photos are of the two each for Holly and Parsons that did not align with the others.

That alignment of mouths is about as good as it gets. Notice that Katz seems to have a broader and more affable smile than Geffen, who seems somewhat restrained. I am aware of the misaligned chins. That is a defect. It could be that I have oversized the Parsons photo due to difficulty in centering in on the eye pupil, not visible. I could attempt to adjust that, but it seems like tampering with results. The extra chin stands as a defect. We now move on to Parsons/Katz.

Remember, there were two Parsons photos that did not align with the others. This is one of them. Finally, we need a Holly to Katz comparison.

Here we have alignment of eyes, ears, nose, and lower lip, with Holly’s mouth open wider than Katz’s.

Finally, some ear work, taken from the original post.

The Telltale Ear

Used above are photos of a very young Buddy Holly and a very young Gram Parsons, or so the Internet tells me. When I first put these side by side, I thought I was looking at different renditions of the same photo, so close are they. But they are indeed two separate photos. By this time you should know that this is the same person who would in the end become David Geffen. Here are the two side by side.

Up above, these two photos were face split, which I thought rather convincing. That is the expected outcome, near perfect alignment of features. But the ears don’t align – that is angular distortion, nothing more, but note below the ears, side by side.

That is Parson’s ear on the left, Holly’s on the right. They look identical to me. Ears are said to be as good as fingerprints.

Here are Holly and Katzenberg one more time:

And the ears:

Again, they look identical to me.


Timeline difficulties

This presentation is not without problems – the few and hard-to-work-with Holly photos one, and the other the timelines for the people involved. In fact, with Holly allegedly born in 1936, I am thinking Matt Damon batch thoughts. Perhaps instead of twins/zombies, I am dealing with clones? I will work backward:

Jeffrey Katzenberg was born on 12/21/1950, we are told, and note the 33 in that date. His timeline interferes with neither Holly or Parsons. He is said to have worked for John Lindsay’s NY mayor campaign in 1964, five years after the Holly plane crash. He became an assistant to movie executive Barry Diller in 1974, one year after the Parsons fake death, and in 1984 was brought over to work for Disney. No timeline problems.

David Geffen is said to be seven years older, though I do not see that difference. Born on 2/21/1943, however, he again does not cross paths with Holly, briefly appearing in Explosive Generation in 1961, two years after the Holly crash. (I assume that movie is not something we could view, making his actual participation suspect.) In 1960 he is said to have graduated Utrecht High School with a 66 average, no reason to add that ’66’ that I can see. In 1970 he formed Asylum records, and here we have a conflict, as Gram Parsons does not fake his death until 1973. Remember, however, that he has a twin brother who could well have been the lone Gram Parsons at that time. In 1980 he forms Geffen Records, and in that same year for unknown reasons John and Yoko Lennon choose him to record Double Fantasy, which will be a huge seller after Lennon’s fake death. Yoko said he was the only producer to pay attention to her, which is why John chose him. I do not buy that.

Gram Parsons (Ingram Cecil Conner III) is born 11/5/1946, and like so many rock stars in the Laurel Canyon era, had (or was assigned) a military family background. His parents were Ingram Cecil (“Coon Dog”) and Avis (née Snively) Connor. Coon Dog was some kind of war legend. Parsons is said to have founded the International Submarine Band in 1966, but that band’s album was not released until later years. So that is not a sure date. He was part of the Byrds, a manufactured group formed in 1968, and had various associations until his fake death in 1973. He was accepted to Harvard in 1966 under suspicious circumstances (bad grades), and is said to have missed a whole lot of classes.

Buddy Holly was born in 1936 we are told, and was 22 when the plane crash was reported. All of the photos of him speak of a younger man, perhaps a teenager, but still, we have to overcome ten years to put him in the same range as Parsons, and fourteen for Geffen. We have dealt with timeline problems in the past here, for instance the very old-looking Amy Goodman said to have been born in 1957. So this is not new or insurmountable.

The photos speak of too much resemblance to pass up nonchalantly. Ear alignment is dead on. Facial alignment, eyes, ears, nose are also dead on. Parsons and Geffen/Katzenberg also align in the teeth.

We have learned in this work that Wikipedia is full of false leads and signals. Both Geffen (66% in 60) and Katzenberg (born 12/21) are signaled. Further, the instant careers despite lack of noticeable musical or movie talent speak of young men selected to be stars. Katzenberg and Geffen becoming industry moguls in two industries that are controlled by Intelligence speak of men selected for fame as well. The Lennon connection with Geffen just prior to his fake death is intriguing  – as if Geffen is charmed. Or connected.

I rest my case on the photo work with the knowledge that with these characters, nothing in their present is likely true nor anything in their past. We don’t know their real names, dates of birth, or backgrounds before emerging as public figures. There is a whole division at Langley charged with writing the fake bios for those who have to die young and reemerge with new identities.

I rest my case. I’m a little tired.

37 thoughts on “Identity Fraud, Part 2

  1. In 1994, Weezer scored big with “Buddy Holly”, the first single from their first album. The video was played constantly on MTv. One line of lyrics was, “I look just like Buddy Holly.”

    Guess which record label?!

    I’ll give you a hint: It rhymes with “deafen”…

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I’m skeptical, But after reviewing identity fraud part 2, you have me on the fence because it makes a pretty good compelling argument. I can understand why some people want to leave the life they’re living,But to come back as “somebody else” to do it all over again in a different way is very strange; But then again, some people are that narcissistic. You did a good job on all that work you did. it’s a good thing you’re not a cop.


      1. I do not think it is a matter of choice. We made you, we can unmake you at any time of our choosing. I suspect with both “Holly” and “Parsons.” as with “Joplin” and “DeWilde” and all the others, their careers were unsustainable due to lack of real talent. “John Denver”, on the other hand, had that talent, and did sustain a career until age 53. Maybe he wanted out, maybe not, but he was not putting out anything of note at the time of his fake death.


        1. Fair enough, But there’s just “One” unanswered Question. Why not just end their career and send them on their way, Why allow the fake death? is it to boost the sale of their labor in the aftermath of whatever it was they were doing; or was it to allow them to live a normal life after all their recognition; or Both ?


          1. We encountered more than 60 fake deaths of musicians and actors in McGowan’s book, and I knew intuitively none had died for real, or one or two tops, say Phil Hartman and Ricky Nelson. The rest, all we could figure was reassignment to some non-public position. Then my partner (actually, Tyrone) discovered that Bobby Fuller had become Bill O’Reilly, and we began to look in the news business, thinking maybe music was a training ground for newscasters. Then we came upon Amy Goodman, who was known before as Janis Joplin (two of them, twins perhaps). Later I found Charlie Rose in music, and Bill Maher used to be Pete Ham. Thom Hartmann was Brandon DeWilde. There were others – Gwen Ifill, Larry King, and Brian William all suspicious. My partner found a dead ringer for Williams in some Dutch rock band, death faked. Andy Warhol was once known as Stu Sutcliffe, and we suspected twins there too.

            In answer to your question, I don’t know the answer. I just know that is what they do.


            1. interesting, Because I’ve heard things here and there over the years, But I never really bought into any of it. The above mentioned people; A few have come up in discussion in certain circles but never really went any further . The most talked about was Jimmy Hendrix and Cass Elliot (Mamma Cass) “Both” after their stay in London.


          2. From Wikedpedia:
            Buddy Holly left behind dozens of unfinished recordings — solo transcriptions of his new compositions, informal jam sessions with bandmates, or tapes demonstrating songs intended for other artists. The most recent recordings, made in Holly’s apartment in late 1958, were his last six original songs. In June 1959, Coral Records overdubbed two of them with backing vocals by the Ray Charles Singers and studio musicians in an attempt to simulate the established Crickets sound. The finished tracks became the first posthumous Holly single, “Peggy Sue Got Married”/”Crying, Waiting, Hoping”. The new release was successful enough to warrant an album drawing upon the other Holly demos, using the same studio personnel, in January 1960.[63] All six songs were included in The Buddy Holly Story, Vol. 2 (1960).
            The demand for Holly records was so great, and Holly had recorded so prolifically, that his record label was able to release new Holly albums and singles for the next 10 years. Norman Petty produced most of these new editions, drawing upon unreleased studio masters, alternate takes, audition tapes, and even amateur recordings (some dating back to 1954 with low-fidelity vocals). The final “new” Buddy Holly album, Giant, was released in 1969; the single chosen from the album was “Love Is Strange”.[64]

            Was this the music business’ first try at this gambit? I recall Dick Clark keeping the legacy alive with his kinescopes of Holly on American Bandstand. Holly’s canonization was complete with the overhyped American Pie by Don McClean, released in 1971, the first year of Geffen’s Asylum records.


            1. Very interesting … on a much smaller scale we have John Lennon supposedly performing from cassette for songs released after his fake death, one I remember to be Real Love. There is something about the hand reaching from the grave that is very troubling, because these songs as new releases were obviously written by others. Why? By whom? All that I can think of is that the ability to write songs and to be a sexy front line stage performer are probably distinct, especially with low level talent like Holly. But I do not grasp why they just don’t invent a new person to be the front man. Why use the dead icon? With Lennon, and all his probably fake accomplishments, I can see automatic sales. The same with Holly? Was he that big a deal? I never much paid any attention to him, never thought him a big deal. Just me? Probably.


              1. Holly was a slightly edgier Pat Boone. Like Boone, he was being used to infuse black idioms into white music. He was designed to appear harmless as an appeal to the mothers of those teenage girls going crazy over rock ‘n’ roll music. (Like the feminization of the Beatles, when Epstein took away their teddy boy kits and put them in high heels with long hair.) The grit of Duane Eddy and Gene Vincent was replaced by comically large horn rim glasses and a clownish bowtie.
                By 1959 the first wave of rock ‘n’ roll stars began to fade. The Holly persona was cashiered, Chuck Berry was tossed in jail, Little Richard was sent off to sing spirituals. Elvis went into the army and then to Hollywood. Why they chose to ‘kill’ Holly and the two spare parts to ‘confirm’ the crash, may have been simply to exploit the brand post mortem and see where that lead. Like a dead painter who’s prices skyrocket, Holly’s perceived scarcity was exploited to great financial success, thus prompting others, especially Jimi Hendrix, Elvis and Tupac, to keep new releases coming until their core audience was too old, or had moved on, and sales faded.

                Liked by 1 person

                1. Buddy Holly emerged contemporaneously to these other Fifties stars you name – including the underrated Gene Vincent – and, if there was any pop cultural precedent for
                  him and his glasses, well, it existed in, um, Lubbock, Texas (as unexpected a town to have famous people derve from as that one British fishing port) would think “glasses”
                  an effective mode of breaking a Star past the tough pubs & clubs is beyond laughable. He indeed sang with more emotion than Pat Boone, and the songs he sang, even the more sentimental ones (“Everyday”,“Raining In My Heart”) overwhelmingly effect persons who’ve never went down past the Mason-Dixon Line to this day, especially those wanting to know what was the basic template for the Fab Four. A similar phenomenon exists with POSTHUMOUSLY famous Gram Parsons (have you ever HEARD either of the stunningly
                  emotional Flying BBros/Parsons songs given the unfortunate appellation “Hot Burrito”… nothing Paul S has written – or recorded, the other crucial part of the game – comes close). And crucially, many of these people you name as “the same guy” (or girl, Pamela Courson I would sentimentally HOPE was Babs-preserved) any quick search will reveal had a different height than a supposed antecedent. Y’know, Holly was much talller than “Parsons”/Katzenberg (K & P are/WERE around 6’4”)… But the ‘60s photos that survive of Ingram Cecil Connor indeed reveal a sort of naïf (though Harvard-bred) man of the South in his young ‘20s.

                  It’s pretty obvious (to any outside of the ten stock commenters here) that THIS is the “spook operation,” what gives?

                  And the Beatles, they, from the outset, played and sang, with the exception of George, rather differently from ANY of their heroes who had went before (John’s total
                  LACK of showbiz -derived enunciation and affectation evident even on that first LP, plus Paul’s genuinely experimental vibrato-style backing vox – basically unnoticed by me for decades –
                  on “Please, Please Me”)…. And no one else wrote the Beatles songs (unless you want to count the Second Paul McCartney, “Bill Shepherd,” as a non-Beatle).


          3. I think the only way to have some peace and quiet when they retire is to stage their death. It’s the only way to make sure no one comes looking for them.

            Except Mark of course. Among fake dead celebrities, that’s known as the Tokarski Threat.


  2. All this for control… of every thing, and everyone?

    Give me a reason why I should not think of the controllers as mental midgets.

    I read, more than once, that we (humans) are simply a toy… entertainment for the real overlords. I can buy that.


  3. Perhaps do better research…contact lenses were first invented in the . Many actors (and others) routinely wore contact lenses from the 1930s onward. One noted example: Stephen Boyd in “Ben Hur”. The blue-eyed Irishman told to wear brown contacts to appear more sinister as a Roman. To say with such confidence that pictures of Buddy Holly are not real because he is not wearing his trade mark horned rims and “contact lenses were a long way off” is a fully incorrect assumption and statement. Just a simple slip up such as that totally negates your firm assertions about knowing so many folks faked their deaths … just because you said so?? Wow, hubris in its finest form. Laughable.


    1. The story I heard is that contacts were a World War II after effect, so I know they existed. The question you have to answer is why do “they” wear horned rims while in public, but not in private? Contacts at that time, if even available in Lubbock, would be far more inconvenient than glasses. You sort of missed my point that the glasses were meant to distract us from there being two of them.

      No one I knew wore contacts, at least my non-movie star friends … they did not enter the mainstream until the 70s. They were clunky and uncomfortable, prone to popping out. I speak from first hand experience.

      What else ya got?


  4. You know, it’s not what got, it’s what you <don’t>. Your assertive statements about fake deaths and Langley squads telling certain people they must fake their deaths and become others is based in nothing. For what purpose?? Why would Buddy Holly leave one life of fame to gravitate toward another (Parsons or Geffen or Katzenburg)? Where is the benefit in that? Control? Control of ? For what ? Hooey. This is all such puffery, concocted by “mental midgets” (another commenter’s words, not mine) while holding flashlights under the covers. You seem intelligent enough…is there a reason some of that intelligence could not be channeled to help others? Or do you aver that the poor, the unhoused, the abused, the depressed, the hungry are only “playing the parts assigned to them”? That none of the misery we can see around us is real, that The Matrix really exists? That to deign to instead of perpetuate unsupported ‘conspiracies’ would make you look weak, make you look duped? What a sad, sad way to get through this life. I won’t interact with this blog any further. I stumbled upon it when I entered an incorrect search term and now choose to leave it here. Consider using some of whatever energies and years you have remaining to do something useful, something outside your own head. There is a lot more outside than in.


    1. it’s funny how you just so happened to stumble upon this by your own stupid mistake, Yet your idle wasted time stopped you in your tracks to drag you in here to throw your Two Cents in. There mustn’t be much going on in that head of yours for you to be emptying “ALL” those thoughts in one place.


      1. The italics was the first thing that crossed my mind Too. He must have an identity crisis. Probably thought it would look more impressive and convincing.


  5. Hmmm, a frequent reader, much less frequent commenter. About Cuttingthroughthebull, some thoughts: 1) you are assuming this commenter is a fellow…why? Does he write masculine (or not?); does he have the male persuasion in his style? I’m not a gender biased reader or writer; just wondering why the writer is referred to as “he”. What do you both know that others do not? Are our emails required to check us out or to prove that we are “real”? Is it just because we ‘must’ assign gender to our verbal sparring partners so we know how to battle?

    2) what’s with focusing on the italics issue? I think you may have an odd glitch in your site. My initial response here was from my phone and it all came out as italics. I didn’t send, retyped and all reverted to ‘normal’ text. Assigning a sinister element to a simple reply seems a bit excessive…is everything to be considered conspiratorial? No, the commenter (I will refuse from making it a man or woman; and no, I am not trans or any other gender than pure, original female), didn’t shout in all caps, why should the person? The points being made were valid and not in need of superfluous shouting.

    3) what caught my attention most is that the points made my the commenter were completely ignored. The focus of both Mark Tokarski and Trigger Man were on the form of the response instead of on the content. Liken that to ignoring F. Scott Fitzgerald or James Joyce (or even Stephen King) because they were/are poor spellers and grammarians (which they were/are). Are you both so far from being able to hear another’s ideas and respond that it is just easier to take issue with form than content? Is that laziness or lacking coherent response? Is it conceit or consent? Is it hubris or hyperbole? Those compare/contrast dyads can be made all day, but miss the point: you did not refute even ONE of the good points made by Cuttingthroughthebull. There were some good ones, those that needed true and open responses. But, in somewhat typical fashion, you both hid behind shallow aspects of the comments to avoid facing the issues raised. Ouch.

    4) I think the original commenter was open when he stated he mistyped a search term and ended up here. The writer spent what, 15 minutes, sharing thoughts. I hardly think they were ‘all his thoughts in one place’ So who IS Cuttingthroughthebull? Great question, Trigger Man… and a very transparent ploy to again avoid the salient issues raised. If we can make others doubt the veracity of a commenter, two things happen simultaneously: others find the comments suspect and unworthy; of further thought; the object of responding comments don’t deserve direct reflection. And that is the essence of a conspiratorial paradigm, isn’t it. Raise dubious questions/issues, get responses/comments, ignore or delegitimize them by stating ‘who is this person?’…rinse and repeat. It’s an odd way of getting through life, but apparently one you have chosen.

    I’ll keep perusing and commenting at will. Unless, of course, you boot me out for speaking truthfully and from the heart. Most times, truth is pushed into the shadows when it doesn’t fit the dialogue, and that’s ok. Truth (I know, I know, you’re now saying to yourself, “Who’s truth?”) is resilient. It will rear its head again.


    1. Our policy is that all first-time commenters are sent to moderation, nothing sinister about it, just a way of keeping freaks at bay. Once a comment is approved, as yours just was, you have free access. Read our commenting policy at the top of the blog, and you will find that we are less restrictive than any blog around. Even people I ban if they get out of hand are reinstated after a cooling off period.

      Regarding Cuttingthroughthebull, I don’t care about his or her gender but assume he is a guy because guys are normally more assertive than women. I don’t much truck with the gender bias/patriarchy crowd. It is much ado about nothing, and the objections of feminists have a screeching nail-on-chalkboard feel to them. Life once was unfair to women, no longer. What is going on now, suggesting to children that their gender is indeterminate at birth, confuses them. That is in my view child abuse.

      Cuttingthroughthebull made but one objection, that I said that contact lenses were in the late 1950s years away. He asserted they had been invented years before and were even used by movie stars to change the color of their eyes. True enough, but irrelevant, as I answered, as they would not enter the mainstream until the 1970s. My point is and was that the heavy horn-rimmed glasses only appeared on Holly during public appearances, and that in my experience with twins, such devices serve as distraction. He did not answer that in his second comment, which was a stormout, and therefore not answerable. He made it clear that he was not coming around again.

      Italics? I don’t care. That was offhand commentary between me and Triggerman, as the person in question had vamoosed.


    2. You’re so right LadyLeelee, Excuse me, I did jump to the conclusions that “Cuttingthroughthebull”was a man, because it came on with such “A Charge” and the name sounded “So Manly”. But after careful consideration and re- examination…I’m wondering if you’re just”Cutting-Through-The-Bull”….Pretending to be “Lady-Lee-Lee ?


      1. Jordan Peterson, take the good with the bad, makes the point repeatedly that men are more assertive than women, and when people object to it, says that the study on the matter is done, and is well established in his field, psychology. This, he explains, is why 90% of the prison population is male. It does not have all/none about it, plenty of exceptions to go around, but as a general statement, is true. It was therefore logical, given tone, name and thrust, to conclude that Cuttinthroughthebull is a dude. Is Lady Lee-Lee a dude too? Unlikely, as she went through moderation as a first-time commenter. If she was CTTB, she would have sailed through un-moderated.


    3. LADYLEELEE, I’m not trying to be rude or ignorant,and I apologize for any harsh words you may have taken as being offensive. But you yourself stated in paragraph (4. I think the original writer was open when “HE” stated that”HE mistyped a search term and ended up here. So, You yourself are assuming that”Cuttingthroughthebull” is a “HE”, And you’re accusing myself and Mr. Tokarski of the same thing. I find that attack and accusation a bit offensive and derogatory. in conclusion, my one question is “WHY” you found such a need to defend “Cuttingthroughthebull” and take it so personal ??? ??? ???


  6. And I just saw the origin of the italics, stating my comment was under review (in all italics). You site assigned the italics, not the original commenter. A conspiracy? I think not….


  7. Long time reader first time poster. Have you read the recent paper from Mathis titled “the wrong man”? He is speculating about test tube children at the end of the paper similar to your Bokanovsky brat post. I found the coincidence intriguing.


  8. Maria Elena Santiago, Buddy’s widow, supposedly owned the rights to everything since the alleged plane crash and death of her husband. They reportedly had no children and of course his parents are deceased. Buddy had two brothers, last name spelled Holley, Larry and Travis and one sister Patricia Lou Holley-Kaiter. I think most of the band members of the Crickets were still alive too in 2015. Yet in 2015 Maria signed everything over to BMG for an undisclosed amount. I’m sure everyone involved got a piece of the pie, including Waylon Jennings for his famous coin toss story.

    However just like all the other musicians that “died” The Buddy Holly legacy reeks of a controlled project. I highly doubt he wrote any of the songs, having little or no input. It doesn’t appear Buddy’s glasses were prescription, just an image prop, and there are photos of him wearing sunglasses when everyone else isn’t. Roy Orbison had a similar appearance and probably somehow connected since they were both from Texas area. They are still on tour hologram style, around $50 a ticket, so the money machine keeps profiting.

    I noticed the upset commenters, and I can understand why they have a feeling of doubt and being mad. We grow up with these songs and connect with the musicians and bands, gets many of us through the hard times or reminds us of the good times. It is heartbreaking to find out most all of these people, right down to the roadies and overlooked band members, are part of a project to push agendas and persuade us into buying stuff, among other things. It’s sad to find out they did not write their songs and shocking to find out they did not die but were simply retired out of the public mindset. It makes us feel gullible for having believed the mainstream news media’s stories for such a long time. Bread and Circuses…

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I don’t recall being angry at any discoveries here … maybe I was not that invested in music. My first piece on the McCartney twins, which was rejected by Mathis (I am very OK with that) contained language at the end that lamented the passing of original Paul, not that I thought he died, but I was invested nonetheless and thought he had been cashiered, at least, for his more marketable brother. That passed, as I realized later that he was alive and well, and continued to perform into the 80s, even 90s. By the time he emerged as John Halliday, I could easily see they could not maintain the ruse. It was just business, as was the Paul is Dead hoax. Maybe I can do this stuff with such ease because I am not invested.


      1. True, Sometimes when you’re too close to something…You can’t see the forest for the Trees…And it’s just sitting right there in plain sight.


      2. Getting too involved in the “details of a problem to look at the situation as a whole,and not seeing The “BIG PICTURE”because the focus is too much on the “details ” How does it go ?…it would be like someone needing to paint an entire house in one day, But spending “Half the day”on picking out the right color.


  9. Mark

    You are right that the face splits are more telling than the gifs in the original post. Thank you for revisiting & elaborating. The Parsons-Geffen & Parsons-Katzenberg are shockingly accurate, especially P-G. Utterly convincing.
    Important work I think, another window into awareness of the importance of acknowledging that, as Stephers pointed out in a recent post, nature & real connections are the bedrock for our sanity & equilibrium. Something the folks behind these many cons we keep discovering are trying to steer us away from..
    Thanks for your work. Thought provoking.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s