Bunk, debunk, and Mike Williams

“Back in 1820, Felix Walker, who represented North Carolina’s Buncombe County in the U.S. House of Representatives, was determined that his voice be heard on his constituents’ behalf, even though the matter up for debate was irrelevant to Walker’s district and he had little of substance to contribute. To the exasperation of his colleagues, Walker insisted on delivering a long and wearisome “speech for Buncombe.” His persistent—if insignificant—harangue made buncombe (later respelled bunkum) a synonym for meaningless political claptrap and came later to refer to any kind of nonsense.” (Merriam Webster)

“History is more or less bunk.” (Henry Ford)

“The most trusted fact-checking websites on television programs go to some expense to maintain their reputations and are often useful to check on inconsequential urban legends or threats of computer viruses. However, providing many true statements for each ruse, along with disproving false rumors, they also claim to “debunk” (a trigger word to make people believe them) proof of scams perpetrated by specific treacherous corporations.” (The Memoirs of Billy Shears, author unknown).

Con Game: “a swindle involving money, goods, etc, in which the victim’s trust is won by the swindler; a shortened form of confidence game.”

Back when I used to write, now and then, about 9/11, a commenter, no longer around, would come by and say “It’s been debunked” about whatever fact or opinion I put up. I found that annoying at first, and later infuriating, as the phrase carries with it smugness, as if that person had some special pipeline to truth. I do not care for smug people. He might try saying things like “I’d check that if I were you”, or “I tend to disagree”, or “I find that hard to believe,” or even God forbid, offer counterevidence, but all of that carries with it a small serving of modesty. “Debunked”, however, is final and meant to be final, which is why the Memoirs of Billy Shears writers label it a “trigger.” It’s a propaganda-contrived word, like “conspiracy theory.”

For me it triggers my anger, but according to the authors or Memoirs, the word leads to belief by the uninformed or under-informed, or just about everyone . (I just realized as those words spilled out here that “uniformed” and “uninformed” are very close in spelling and also meaning. If you want to know something, the last place to go looking for truth is a person wearing a military uniform. They are, by definition, compartmentalized and indoctrinated.)

“Debunking” is an industry now, with professional liars occupying just about every slot on major websites. Quora, for example, carries a lot of Moon landings fiction, and it is presented in an authoritative voice that “debunks” any skepticism. That website does exactly as the Memoirs claims above, providing many true statements for each ruse. If someone asks about a certain movie or movie star, it will offer what plausibly sounds like accurate inside information. They mix some truth in with their true mission, to spread, enforce and affirm LOOT, the Lies of Our Times.

In that regard, Quora is like AI, Wikipedia, Google/Bing etc., and Snopes, an Intelligence front.

It’s hard to combat lies in that form because Intelligence is indeed backed by intelligent people, behavioral psychologists and others of special training who understand the behaviorial tendencies of the common human. They know how to manipulate it into believing anything they want believed.

I opened up above with photos of Mike McCartney (left) and Paul McCartney (right), which is what triggered everything above. Mike Williams, the Sage of Quay, knows as well as anyone here does that Paul and Mike are twins, and that the Whole Paul is Dead psyop was designed as misdirection from that simple fact. His apparent (paid?) gig is to claim otherwise. Williams knows the truth, which is why he says that the McCartney twins notion has been “debunked”. Since he has read and re-re-reread The Memoirs of Billy Shears, he knows the meaning and proper use of that word. It’s in the book.

________________

For your enjoyment:

It’s not a great song, not even a good one, in my view. It is considered early work by Lennon and McCartney, but I doubt either wrote it. According to Memoirs, neither were capable of songwriting in the early days. The footnotes of The Memoirs of Billy Shears, while more informative than the mainstream narrative (and seemingly written by a different hand), do not take any note of the existence of two “Paul’s”. It is helpful, however, to ask the right question, even to this day. When someone credits “Paul” for masterful tunefulness, word craft and instrumentation, we should ask “Which Paul?”

For your information, as primitive as this video is, it has within it quite a bit of sophisticated staging and darkroom work. When you view the video, if you are looking at the performance, probably lip-synced or overdubbed, then you are looking at Paul. He’s apparently wearing a wig that covers his eyebrows, as in offstage footage the hair is shorter. Notice how his head bobs, a signature trait. If you catch his open mouth, notice how he has a slightly recessed molar on his left upper teeth. Notice how George is standing back behind Paul. This is due to the fact that Paul is shorter than George, while Mike is taller. That’s hard to establish with certainty, however, due to photo staging, high-heel shoes, and relative positioning hide what is real. Everything in the video off the stage is Mike, Paul having disappeared from view except … at time stamp 1:47. Signing autographs it is Paul. Notice how we only briefly catch a glimpse of the wraparound eyebrows before the overlay cuts off his upper forehead.

The cuts to screaming and adoring girls is meant to make it appear to be a live performance, but I don’t think that the screamers were yet introduced that early in the game. According to Memoirs (page 249),

Making the news that way [police holding back screaming girls] reinforce the illusion that they had established in the US when hundreds of screaming teenage girls mob the Beatles at Kennedy Airport. Actually, the girls had all been transported from a girls’ school in the Bronx and were each paid for their performance.

That was in February of 1964. The airport had just been renamed. The lip-synced performance of Love Me Do was done in 1962, ergo no need for screaming girls just yet. There was not even an audience, just film juxtapositions, which is why we don’t see a backdrop shot of the band and audience at once. That’s a common trick with the Beatles, used even up to their final rooftop performance.

By the way, I am not sure if it is either Paul or Mike getting off the plane in New York at time stamp .46. It took me some excruciating precision to capture that very short instance in this video where he comes down the stairs and his face is visible. If I had to guess, I would say neither, a stand-in. Both Paul and Mike were held back in the plane, or traveled separately.