Me and Mrs. Jones

In Jim Jones: The Fake Early Years, Mark devoted some of the article to Jim Jones’ genealogy. Of course, this piqued my interest, so I decided to see if I could dig a little deeper. What I discovered has me somewhat baffled since it was so easily unearthed. If the information was purposely planted, I can’t imagine what the motive could have been. On the other hand, if the connection is authentic, I don’t understand why it was not covered up. But before I divulge that “strange relation,” I’d like to share some other discoveries I stumbled upon relating to Jim Jones’ mother, Lynetta Putnam(This article will be my small contribution to the impressive amount of information already accumulated by Gaia.)

Jim’s mother is only mentioned six times on his Wiki page, and four of those instances are in the “Explanatory Notes”:

  1. While Jim Jones claimed to be partially of Cherokee descent through his mother Lynetta, this story was apparently not true.
  2. Lynetta’s cousin Barbara Shaffer said, “there wasn’t an ounce of Indian in our family.”
  3. Shaffer said that Lynetta was Welsh.
  4. The birth records for Lynetta have since been lost.

Continue reading “Me and Mrs. Jones”

The Sewing Circle – (Part 1)

This article is just my opinion based on the lifestyles of the subjects profiled.

“Sewing Circle” is a phrase used to describe the underground, closeted lesbian and bisexual film actresses of Hollywood, particularly during Hollywood’s golden age from the 1910s to the 1950s.  The actress Alla Nazimova (godmother of former first lady Nancy Reagan) was the one credited with coining the term.  Many of the actresses that I will be profiling in this series were rumored or admitted lesbians.  The remainder were childless and/or unmarried throughout their lives.  Since women can have several reasons for not having children, this does not prove anything.  You may decide for yourself.  Keep in mind, though, that over the course of the 19th century, the average American woman gave birth to six children, not including children lost to miscarriages and stillbirths.  And globally, up to 1965, the average woman had more than five children.

c

None of the birth control methods of the 19th century (aside from infanticide and abortion) were particularly effective, and none of them were new.  Withdrawal by the male, douching and vaginal suppositories were around in ancient times and common in the 19th century.  In 1838 condoms and diaphragms were produced with vulcanized rubber. It was second in popularity to withdrawal but was not advocated as birth control.  Instead, it was to be used to prevent venereal disease.  The most effective form of birth control was (and still is) abstaining from sexual intercourse (with men).

Continue reading “The Sewing Circle – (Part 1)”

Miles Mathis: A Final Rebuttal

by K. Starr or Kevin S.(whatever)

Technically, this is a rebuttal to a reply by the character known as Miles Mathis regarding my article titled “Miles Mathis: Origins of an Enigma.”  The following paragraph is how he opened his response.

This should be fun.  It is a reply to the new writer from Langley (or wherever) claiming to be Kevin Starr.  His blitz on me does call for a response.   I had asked for a bigger kitten to be sent in, and they have finally hired a pro.  He does quite a job, I have to admit, and if I didn’t know me and my own life, I might almost fall for this myself.   I would say he rises to about the level of tomcat, but I had asked for a lion, so I guess they will have to shell out a few more bucks for the next project.

NOTE:  From this point forward, I will be using the initials MMC to indicate the “Miles Mathis Committee,” “Miles Mathis Controllers,” “Miles Mathis Cult,” etc.

Continue reading “Miles Mathis: A Final Rebuttal”

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions …

A few years back I was alive with the excitement of a discovery that changed my outlook, that “Paul McCartney” was actually two men, a set of twins. Once I got a thorough immersion in their faces, they became easily to tell apart, so that I can easily see that today’s Paul McCartney is actually “Mike,” though we do not have the luxury of knowing their real names.

That information in tow, I put together a (in retrospect, sloppy) blog post on the matter, and submitted it to Miles Mathis. He rejected it as not up to standards, which I easily accepted, as I was indeed a newbie. At a certain point in the succeeding conversation he suggested one flaw in my writing: “You make too many assumptions.”

Continue reading “Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions …”