I was asked point-blank by a fellow hiker yesterday, a Dane, about our upcoming American elections. I make it a point to avoid such topics, and in saying that I don’t much pay attention, that it is all theater, raised the hackles on another hiker, this one a fellow American.

Half an hour later our American friend had completed his explanation of the American political system, the best democracy in the world, he said. He was a complete reflection of our media, our education system, a font of received wisdom. Even though a nice guy (a CPA even!), he was as clueless as one can be about the real workings of countries and power systems. He is merely as Americans are raised to be, I suppose. He could be a school teacher, even a good one! Our ignorance, after all, is not endemic, but rather has to be learned, taught and re-taught down through the ages. That’s why we have clueless teachers. They pay it forward.

The day before our hike leader, a Frenchman, was explaining how by some mysterious means the melting ice from French glaciers was going to release trapped radiation from Chernobyl. I asked, quite innocently, where our feet currently stood in relation to Chernobyl, and while he wasn’t sure of direction (nor was I), did say with some sarcasm that the cloud from that reactor had stopped at the French border.

So said the French government at the time. Our hike leader did not believe that, of course, and said that he did not trust the French government, as it is corrupt.

“Yours too?” I chimed in.

Last evening over dinner we delved a little bit into politics, and I mentioned that three presidents in my lifetime had changed their names as young men. No one was aware of this. (They are, in case you are curious, Lesley King, who became Gerald Ford, William Blythe III, who became Bill Clinton, and Barry Soetero (Barack Whatshisname). And. Yes, I know few people know that, but you could look it up in one of your trusted sources. I think even Wikipedia, the Intelligence bible, is forthright about that matter.

I was asked then what I thought about Obama’s citizenship, and laughed, saying none of us know where that character came from or what he was up to before holding office, or his parents, for that matter. But I said I didn’t care, as citizenship is the least of issues we should be concerned about in an office holder, that a true leader should have have character rather than merely be one.

And while Obama is a character, he has none, as far as I can see. It is the first requisite for holding office, to have sold your soul.

Thus did yours truly, American ambassador abroad, stand up for the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

This damned IPad is a most annoying tool, jumping around, making up words … I was ready to publish this and then pow! The image above disappeared along with the first paragraph.

Anyway, I put up a post on “The Occult” which was just too many words and so I took it down, and here I go again. All we need to know about this is as follows:

“Occult = “Intelligence,” capital “I.”

“News,” “entertainment” and “music” are all run by Intelligence. We live in an age of mass deception, so that every level of our “reality” is a manufactured illusion. It has perhaps been so since the advent of electronic media. They are all fake, these media personalities, from your local “meteorologist” all the way up to the Dude, currently Obama.  Everything on TV is fake. TV is used to publicize hoaxes, Orlando the most recent.

Kill your TV.

It is fun to unravel, especially knowing that all of the gruesome death scenes we are being fed are hoaxes. They want us frightened, and the “occult” is just another fear factory with nothing real behind it. Absent that fear, it is just a mystery spun out before us. Mysteries are fun.

There is a reality. It is our feet on the ground, our loved ones and friends, our brains and emotions, all before us via our five senses without mass media, TV, Internet. Our best weapon for exploring the world around us is our brain. It has the ability to sift, sort and analyze and connect dots. Critical thinking skills, no longer taught, are the best tool we have. The best way to short-circuit our brains is by means of visual fakery, which usually bypasses critical thinking edits.  TV is used for that purpose. It creates our fake reality.

Again, too many words.

Some dude, by the way, is re-blogging every word I put up here, even my travelogue. It is creeping me out, so stop that.

Chamonix is where we ended our trek six years ago, and where we start this one on Monday. We didn’t have time to see much of the place then. It is a ski town, of course, but today we saw hang gliders, kayaks, bikes, climbers and hikers of all shapes and sizes, a lively place. We sat down to dinner in a small upstairs loft of a burger joint, and were joined by a couple from Israel, a group of four from Czech Republic, and a family from Great Britain.

The photos are of Mount Blanc and its massive glacier. It looms over the town.

Thankfully I can transfer photos from my Nikon CoolPix to the iPad, and so won’t have to rely on this toy to take photos. It does a reasonably good job, but loses quality quickly if you try to zoom. It gets very grainy.

But I did use the IPad to grab a shot of contrails. We get them occasionally in Denver, but just a few minutes ago we had seven or eight in view. This photo is the remnants of a whole sky that was striped every direction. The best explanation I have heard is that they are using passenger aircraft to get rid of chemicals that they cannot legally dump in land or in the oceans and seas. There are no laws against such activity, as I understand, but it is not something I think about much, so do not quote me.

If you read far enough, you’ll find some people who think that contrails are used for mind control. I doubt it. I think that would be redundant. TV has that ground well covered.

 

I have been looking for Janis Joplin for weeks now, and found her. She became Amy Goodman, host of Democracy Now!, an alternative news program funded largely by the Ford Foundation. Want proof?

The immediate left above (and right above that) are of Goodman. She put this photo out in a documentary on peer pressure for young girls. So we have no doubts as to that photo, as Goodman herself asserts it is her as a young woman. (Oddly, any information about the person in the photo is cropped out of all versions seen on the Internet.) On the right is Janis Joplin, an undated photo that had to be 1970 or before, since she supposedly died that year. Here is what we get when we compare the two:

Matches do not get better than that, and I excitedly emailed MH this morning to announce that I had located the elusive Joplin. He responded “Weird. I tried that one and didn’t match for me. Maybe I matched the wrong twin?” We have been running into twins now and then. MH has a long list of possibilities. More about that in the future.

In order to be thorough, I grabbed four more photos of Goodman against those I already had of Joplin, but encountered difficulties. Some matched beautifully, others not.

To resolve the matter. I decided to match the Joplin photos against each other, starting with the one on the left here, which Wikipedia tells us is Joplin’s high school graduation photo from 1960. I matched it against the one of Joplin seen above, the same one that matched up so well with Goodman. They did not align. Janis Joplin did not match up with Janis Joplin.

We have encountered this before. When people do not align with their own photos, we recheck our measurements, and try again, and then try against other photos. With enough results right in front of us, we know we are dealing with twins. MH was dead-on. Janis Joplin is twins.

One of them transformed into Amy Goodman. The other I do not know, although MH has suggested I try  Janet Reno. I did that once and it did not work, but I’ll try again with Twin #2. Today I am all Joplined out. But to finish out this round, below are Amy Goodman and Janis Joplin, Twin #1, side by side.

Hello Janis! I knew you were still alive! I just knew it!

Of course, this match-up presents problems. Goodman is said be have been born in 1957, Joplin 1943. Goodman then is 59, Joplin 73. I have wrestled with this. Since facial match ups like this are extremely rare, I took a closer look at Goodman. She has always struck me as a dour kind of person, humorless and matter-of-fact. In the photo above, which I blew up on my screen, it is easy to see she is heavily pancaked with makeup. Her lower jaw is protruding, as tends to happen to us as we enter old age. Her hair has been gray for years now.

On the other hand, Joplin, would be close to 27 in the above photo, labeled “circa 1970.” She could as easily be early-to-mid twenties if not late teens. So if we split the difference between them, suppose we guess that Goodman is not 59, not 73, but rather 65. Since they lied to us about her death and having a twin sister, I don’t imagine that we can rely on age or published date of birth for either.

However, age is a problem. All the other evidence is overwhelming, however, so I am settled on the idea that Goodman is older than she claims, and Joplin younger.

To close out here, below are two sets of photos, the first of “Joplin Twin #1,” the one who became Amy Goodman.

And these are photos of Joplin Twin #2, the one whose whereabouts we do not know.

Notice with Twin #2 that we actually see her teeth in three photos, where #1 is taciturn in all five, as Goodman tends to be. Twin #2 is probably still alive, and we will continue to look for her. I’ll re-check Janet Reno, and even Sally Jessy Raphael, with whom we thought we had a match weeks ago.

All of that stuff about Janis being an alcoholic and drug addict back before her death, maybe one of them was that, but I tend to doubt it. They were in training, learning to conceal their true identities in public and to be actors, to be people they were not and be convincing about it.  All of the photos that I have seen of them are of a pretty young girls with clear eyes and innocent faces. I suspected long before today that Joplin had clean habits back then, as now. But maybe not. Who knows? I don’t imagine Intelligence has much use for drunks and addicts, who tend to be undependable.

Which one was the singer? That I suspect to be twin #2, who exudes more emotive qualities than #1 in the photographs. They could have, like Paul and Mike McCartney, switched off. I’ll have another look. Not today. Joplined out, as I said.

(Which one had sex with Kris Kristofferson on first meeting? Neither. That was just planted rumor stuff, common as gerbils in Hollywood, press agents at work.)

These past eighteen months have been an exciting period for me, one of intense upheaval of world view and of exciting discoveries, one after another. It is hard to share these new insights, as most people are caught up in the world as provided us by perception managers. But we are having fun, and that is what is most important.

There is so much more we are discovering. I want to focus on music for now.

Recruitment for various slots as “famous” musicians” is done by Intelligence. As we saw at Laurel Canyon, they often rely on the children of Intelligence and military people for our stars. John Denver, Gram Parsons, Janis Joplin, Crosby, Stills, Jackson Browne, Joan Baez and so many others had to have undergone intense training to be proficient at their craft. They did not have to be good, though a few, like Denver, did indeed develop into good musicians, and were allowed to stay on until retirement via fake death at a later age.

They were sent to practice in public, forming groups that automatically got record deals and concert gigs and young girls in hippie dress screaming and dancing when they played.  Their lack of real talent was disguised behind studio musicians and singers. (These days computers can correct bad singing even while the performer is on stage.)

People with real talent, who have worked countless hours to develop their skills, never seem to get a break. We hear them at county fairs and coffee shops.

Here’s my current working premise: While performing for us as fake musicians, these Intelligence agents and assets are also learning how to act. In public they pretend to be alcoholics and drug addicts, prima donnas and control freaks. They dress wildly to add to their image as miscreants and dropouts. They enter into fake marriages and divorces for all to see. Their erratic behavior is a cover, and can be used as the reason for their eventual death. They are merely learning the art of duplicity.

Once vetted in this manner, the most promising are removed from the music business by means of those many fake deaths we see, and repositioned in other acting slots as TV and radio talk show hosts and newscasters.

Intelligence wants to manage our musical tastes, of course, but also uses the music business as a training ground for Intelligence assets, a way of developing talent for other enterprises. It helps to understand that Intelligence manages the news business, just as it does music. So transitioning from one to the other is a lateral move.

I have a list of current and recent people of prominence whom I suspect to be fakes, even Zombies. Among them are Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Judy Woodruff, Mark Shields, Wolf Blitzer, Amy Goodman, Charlie Rose …

… David Box became a member of the Crickets after the fake deaths of Buddy Holly, Richie Valens and the Big Bopper. After his fake plane crash in  1964 he became Charlie Rose, currently an evening interview man on PBS.

Here’s David/Charlie:

 

We wrestled with this a bit, as the features all line up except for tell-tale signs of plastic surgery – Rose has had a facelift, lifting his ears too, and a ridge inserted in his nose, or rhinoplasty. He is also developing a hooked nose, as happens with many older people. We have seen this before. Due to the alignment of those features that cannot be changed by plastic surgery, I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that we have our man.

There is no career overlap here. David Box fake-died in October of 1964, and Rose is said to have graduated from Duke that year with a degree in history. Thereafter, he is said to have gotten his Juris Doctor in 1968, but like Obama’s degrees, that is most likely fake. Intelligence is well represented in the universities too, and can paper up any phony.

The Cricket connection is interesting, as it leads back to Buddy Holly and company. Just as we learned that the Beatles were a Spook enterprise from the beginning, so too were Holly and Company.

We are still looking for Mr. Holly, who would be 79 and retired if still alive. Ideas are welcome.

There’s an assumption that what I am doing, because it is putting out results that contradict commonly held assumptions, must somehow be bogus. This is because with most people, belief trumps evidence.When evidence contradicts belief, it is ignored.

It is said there are four types of people (actually three, but I added a fourth):

• Those who understand without seeing.
• Those who see and understand.
• Those who see and do not understand.
• Those who see and refuse to understand.

I clearly fall under the second heading. Left to my own devices, I have occasionally stumbled on new knowledge, and then gradually come to understand it. But for the most part, I have to be shown something before I come to understand it.

Unfortunately, the majority of people fall under the last two categories, either being unable to grasp, or stubborn in indoctrinated beliefs to the point of being hard-boiled and determined to be wrong, and remain wrong. I cannot change that, nor will I let it hinder me in any way in my explorations.

The above photo is a rerun. It is me. Another blogger thought he could unseat my work by clumsily showing that I am actually John Candy, a nice joke, but one that allowed me to prove my point as well, that my technology is solid.

I want to introduce some math into the technique, and it will be brief, so bear with me. Let’s say there are seven facial features that define a face:

• Pupil distance
• Shape of head
• Ear Height
• Nose
• Distance from base of nostrils to mouth
• Mouth
• Chin

Obviously there are others, but that is enough to make the point. (Ear height and shape of nose and chin can be altered by plastic surgery. The rest cannot.)

I use pupil distance as a starting point, and then lay one-half of a face in one photo next to a face in another. I do not monkey with that distance. It is a constant.

That done, what are the odds, that the other features will line up as well? Look at my photo above. It is  a perfect match in all regards. Let’s just posit for sake of illustration that the odds of each of these seven features all lining up at once are one in ten. The odds of all seven lining up at once are …

(1/10) X (1/10) X (1/10) X (1/10) X (1/10) X (1/10) X (1/10) …

or one in ten raised to the 7th power, or one in ten million. Ten is an arbitrary number. I could have as easily used twenty or fifty or one hundred to describe all the possibilities with the human face.

The point is that when we get alignment as I did with my own face at age 30 and age 64, there is an extremely high likelihood, almost a certainty, that we are looking at the same person. Further, failure to achieve these alignments means we are looking at two different people. Each conclusion is useful.

Mark David Chapman is the alleged killer of John Lennon. I doubt that he did that, and further doubt that he is in jail. Think about it – how easy would we be to fool in that regard? Once jailed, a person is out of sight and mind. Fake-jailing a person would be easy – just have him show up on occasion for a fake parole hearing or interview.

First I will run three pictures of Chapman here, all supposedly taken in prison.

This first one is odd, his original “mug shot.” Keep in mind, there are important pieces of information that prison officials want from a mug shot – height, scars, facial features, date of arrest, prisoner number. For that reason, mug shots are taken with bright lights in front of a camera that slides up and down so as to shoot straight at the face. When the photo is taken, the top of the skull is precisely even with the correct height line. Notice on this mug shot there is no height scale, and that Chapman’s face and neck are shadowed. That is because this is not a mug shot (even as someone is holding up a NYPD prisoner number in the lower left, not seen here). This is a portrait shot of Chapman, not taken in jail. We were easy to fool in 1981, so it worked.

Next we have what I call “Chapman 72,” a man six feet tall. I have scrolled the number 72 on each side of his forehead for reasons that will be clear later. Make no mistake, this man and the young man up above line up nicely, and are very close in appearance. In fact, I would say they match up perfectly, even as the one on the right is in his middle years, while the one above is in his twenties.

Next we have “Chapman 70.” He is two inches shorter than the one above. You might think it trivial that there is a two-inch difference in height between these two, and indeed that could be the case. Even though prisons try to do their best work, they cannot always be perfect, so it could be that camera angles were not working properly, and that these are the same man. But I doubt it. This man also has a narrower face. But I will do side-by-side comparisons down below.

Finally, we have old Chapman. Again, trust me on this, as this man, Mark David Chapman 72, is the same man as seen above with the numbers “72” on his forehead, and the same man as the young man showing at the beginning of this piece.

I was certain that all photos with “72” were the same man, as you can see at the left … we get perfect alignment of features.

 

 

 

 

And again, the young man and the old man, perfect alignment.

 

 

 

 

Now it begins to get a little murkier. This is Chapman 72 and Chapman 70. If it were a mere matter of camera angles, they would match up after the pupil distance is adjusted. And at first glance, they do line up. But look closer … 72 has a much lower ear, and the eye is lower. However, the mouth and nose align perfectly. I would guess here that we are dealing with identical twins, neither of whom is in jail.

 

Here I have done my best to align the features of Chapman 70 and young Chapman, but they are off just slightly, as with 72 and 70 immediately above. While I can get nose and eyes (mostly), the mouths are off, and the chins and ears do not match up.

My conclusion is that there have been two Mark David Chapman’s over the years, and since neither shot John Lennon (who was alive last I saw in 2008), both have been on call to make public appearance for photographs, interviews and parole hearings. They are identical twins, but as tends to happen, over time they changed in appearance enough that on close scrutiny, we can tell the difference.

As we can see with the McCartney twins, and will see in the near future with Elvis Presley twins (thank you Miles Mathis), intelligence services love twins. It gives them flexibility.