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.

We are completing a circuit from our home to Montana and through Yellowstone country, and back. On the way up last week we stopped at Subway in Casper, Wyoming. Later that day I realized I was missing my money clip, and by mentally backtracking supposed I had left it at that Subway. As I said to my wife, “Well it’s a bad day for me, but a good day for someone else!” I thought the clip had about $160 in it.

I assumed it was lost forever, as it had no name on it, and, well, frankly, Wyoming seems like an impoverished place. We only see the highway dives, but it has a trailer court feel about it. But stopping by Subway again today, I asked if they had a lost and found. The young gal asked if I had found something, and I said no. I had lost a money clip. Her eyes lit up and she was excited, said someone had turned it in. My lucky day!

They had to summon the manager, as the clip was in the safe, so we went for coffee. On returning, we learned that someone pretending to be my wife had come in the following day and asked if anyone had found a money clip containing $137. She said that her husband had lost it and was just sick. They turned it over to her. The Subway manager really was just sick that they had been scammed, but that is the end of the story. We kindly thanked her and her staff for their effort, and we left.

What we know now is what we knew before – there is desperation in Wyoming. Such trouble to what … split $137? Further, the fact that the woman claiming to be my wife knew the clip had $137 in it means that someone inside that store worked the con with her. How many people know exactly how much money they have on them at any time? This will be a fatal error, I am afraid, as the manager intends to get to the bottom of it. Not for our sake, of course. She thinks she has a bad apple on staff, but did not say that.

I am like most people … Losing $137 is painful, but not earth shattering. And I was so pleased at the attitude of they Subway staff – they were all (except one) honest, and the person who found it and turned it in was too. That pleases me, and does not surprise me.

Later, driving down the highway, we were talking about the incident. The manager is going to review her surveillance tapes to get a look the woman who claimed to be my wife. My real wife laughed, threw up her arms and said “You know what? The tape will be erased!”

Yes. There will be an eighteen minute gap.

Americans are censored in their thoughts and words. The heavy hand is all around us. It is such an effective system that few are aware of it. If a person has never have had a thought worth censoring, why would he know about it?

We are indoctrinated from birth, schooled by people as deeply mired in the system as ourselves. We are  lied to in every aspect of our lives, with every corner of our mind filled with fiddle faddle. How would we know? North Koreans laugh at us. Censorship is so thorough that we are isolated from the rest of the planet.

I am among the lucky ones who have broken free. I know other people like me, and that is where I do most of my thinking and interacting. People I deal with are smart and insightful, usually more so than me, so that I am always on a learning curve. Every day brings new insights and discoveries. That is fun.

But an incident like the fake shootings in Orlando to reminds me how isolated we are, how deep in the muck the rest of the population is. It seems a hopeless situation when we see that Americans are putty in the hands of TV news and social media.

Americans are under hypnosis, in a deep trance. This land is an intellectual desert with nothing but sand and hot air for miles in every direction.

What then is the point? If the population under a deep spell, will it ever change? It is hard to know, but seems unlikely. There has to be another reason to stay on top of things and away from control of the propaganda system.

I have my head above water, and can see more than others … and  that is freedom. I am nobody’s fool, under no spell. I see clearly. The word “freedom” has been sullied. Like “republican,” “democracy,” “choice,” “election,” it is overused and never really understood. If a person has never lived free, how to explain it? It is like explaining chess to a child who only knows Chutes and Ladders.

But I have freedom of thought and inquiry, and so do my friends. We cannot bring others over to see things our way.  That has to happen internally, and is rare.

This is the American way.