Category: Twins, clones, replicas?

Mark David Chapman, the man who fake-killed John Lennon, is twins

Note: the following piece is a repeat, and was first published on June 29, 2016. I was looking over published photos of Mark David Chapman, alleged killer of John Lennon, and noticed in mug shots with a height scale in the background that he was two inches taller in some than others. While I was told that was not an important mistake, that prisons are not perfect, I did further analysis and discerned that “he” is twins.

This was way back when twins were not thought to be a regular occurrence. Now that we know that in show business (Chapman is an actor) they are as common as pickpockets at the county fair, I ask readers to look again at the work. I stand by my original conclusions: John Lennon was not murdered, and Mark David Chapman, a set of twins, is (are) not in prison.

_______________

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.

MDC Original MugThis 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  1980, so it worked.

MDC72 Middle AgedNext 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.

Chapman 70Next 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.

MDC72 OldFinally, 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.

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

 

 

 

 

Chapman young oldAnd again, the young man and the old man, perfect alignment.

 

 

 

 

72 and 70 ChapmanNow 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.

 

Chapman 70 and YoungHere 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.

The boat photo explained

image

The above photo initially set me off on a journey that resulted in the discovery of the McCartney twins, Paul and Mike. Just guessing about it back then, I placed it in New York in maybe 1964.

In fact, according to a reliable source who claims no interest in the subject, it was set in the Hudson River in 1968. It was a meeting of Apple executives and the Beatles, with at least John, Paul and Mike present.  I do not see George or Ringo.

In the background then would be the Washington Bridge.

I am told that the man leaning against the rail on the left is not Paul McCartney, but rather a “young John Lennon.” While the photo is simply not clear enough to make such fine distinctions as to his true identity, he is clearly not Lennon. I was supplied the photo below of Lennon, taken on that very trip.

image

See he is not wearing a tie, as is the man in the left. So in addition to not even vaguely resembling Lennon, he is dressed differently too.

Here’s another shot from that day:

image

That is Mike McCartney, as I know him anyway, the twin who is also known as our current “Paul” McCartney. I can quickly tell by the hair parted on the right, caused by his cowlick. That was always there from his early childhood days.

For all I know, his name could be Paul, and the original Beatle we knew as Paul could be Mike. The point is, he is the twin. He starred in most of the movie Help!, while original Paul sat out. I have no clue why, but do speculate that Mike had more musical talent than Paul, which is why the original was consigned to caretaker of the McCartney family home. 

Which Beatle wrote Yesterday, you ask? Probably neither. That might well have been George Martin, or at least a collaborative effort including George, as the melodic tones are so different, so much more sophisticated than the other music they were putting out at the time. But authorship of Beatles music is, as I see it, a mystery.

Why are they in a boat in the Hudson River? That’s easy. Since If both Paul and Mike were present, they had to be out of public view. That was a major consideration in management if the group. The twins could never be seen together, could not even be in public at the same time, much less place. (For instance, one could not be sunning on the beach in the Bahamas while the other was performing in New York.)

How did the boat photo become public? We can see that here are at least two cameras on board, as the photo with Lennon has a man with a camera [Mal Evans] in it. I would imagine security around photos was tight, and that all film was documented and confiscated at the end of that day. So the photo was not the result of someone just taking a candid shot and keeping it secret.

So the boat photo might have become public by either of two means … accident, or deliberate leak. I would guess the latter. It seems to me that this gathering of publicity agents, Intelligence types (spooks), musicians and performers called the Beatles liked to toy with us. They leaked it to see if anyone would catch on.They could always deny the photograph to have any substance, and most people would accept the denials.

A swift boat to fame

I spent hours yesterday, 2/13, going over Swift photos again, and could not justify the original assertion that she is a twin. As a rule of thumb for this and all other projects under review, if I cannot tell them apart with the naked eye, I cannot claim them to be twins. Mea culpa. Taylor Swift is not twins. However, do see a very interesting photo at the very end!

We just happened to discover that Janice Joplin/Amy Goodman were twins. In their case, they are fraternal. There might have been some plastic surgery on the way, as with twins Paul and Mike McCartney above. But with the Joplin twins there was a wide gap in the talent department – no way could the demure and laid back Joplin we know as “Amy Goodman” have stood on stage and belted out songs as her sister below on the right did.

More to the point, however, is the phenomenon of twins in pop culture. It is far more common than I ever knew to suspect, so common, in fact, that my fellow researcher MH thinks now that twins might be a requirement for the upper echelons of stardom in films and music. He has unearthed a wide variety of twins, twelve sets for sure so far including Joplin, McCartney and Elvis Presley (the latter two first discovered by Miles Mathis). I will unveil the others, but we are slowly working our way up to important ones, ones that frankly, will blow my socks off if indeed they turn out to be matched sets.

Before I unveil today’s set of twins, who are not part of the twelve mentioned above but who are easy one to spot, I have to ask myself the question: Why twins?

Intelligence loves twins because they can be in two places at once, run projects at once from different locations, and step in and out of each other’s shoes.

The Beatles, we know now, were an intelligence project with intense recruiting beforehand, including selection of the McCartney twins to play the part of “Paul,” the cute one. Tyrone, a frequent commenter here, thinks that they were running several sets of the group around Great Britain and Hamburg before finally settling on the four (actually, five) they did. And look what they have done with two Paul’s! They were able to slip each in and out of the role (it is original “Paul” in the movie Hard Day’s Night, and the other twin played “Paul” in the movie Help!, for instance.) They were able to run the “Paul is Dead” psy-op on us, extending the shelf life of the group, and selling millions of clue-laden albums.

With the Elvis project, they were able to have one performing in Las Vegas while the other made crappy movies in Hollywood. So it does offer flexibility.

But if it is Intelligence at work, there must be more to it than money, which is never in short supply for spooks. I imagine that having twins as pop icons is added leverage for managers – if one is sick or loses interest, the other can fill in. Each can have different talents, as with the Joplins. (Original “Paul” was much better at interviews than his brother, Mike, the better musician and the guy we know today as Paul McCartney.) Or if one gets uppity and demands more money, they can divide and conquer.

I can’t fathom out the entire spectacle of twins in politics and entertainment. It is beyond me how they spot them other than to keep track of every set born in the country. They do have that capability – maybe “Twins” is a name on the door of a special-purpose NSA surveillance office. I do know that Elvis was spotted early on, and that there are no photos of the two together, to my knowledge. Just that aspect of twins management takes personnel and effort. They can never appear in public at the same time.

I met a man in our local gym from Los Angeles, retired now, having worked decades in the music business back there. He told me one morning that he had developed, in days of more primitive technology, a way for aspiring young musicians to make their own demo tapes renting his equipment. I asked him if he spent some tedious days and hours listening to mediocre performances, and he said no. There is tons of talent out there, and those tapes were mostly quite good. But to make it in the music business takes more than that. “You also have to get lucky,” he said.

More than that, I would add, you have to be related to wealthy families, be part of a bloodline. Then, even without talent (are you listening, David Crosby?), you can have a career.

I used to work for a very wealthy old woman in my early career whose daughter was Stockard Channing. She played a lead role in Grease, worked on Broadway, and even had her own short-lived TV show. I was curious how she made it, as her mother certainly had no talent. I was told by a person whose name and face I’ve long forgotten that Stockard merely had the time and money to wait, train, and be selected for parts, as her wealthy background gave her a foot in the door. Who else has that?

That is food for thought. As we continue to work twins here, we can further explore the phenomenon. It is pervasive.

Here is a set of twins that was so easy to spot I could do it without running faces side-by-side: Taylor Swift. She’s an Intelligence creation, possibly talented, but certainly not the one writing her songs, which do not sell nearly as much as claimed. She’s a manufactured star, but then as we are learning, not only are they all manufactured for us, they are all related too. Swift comes from a line of Merrill Lynch presidents and eastern prep schools.* No grueling coffee shop gigs for her – she had a foot in the door the day she slid down the right birth canal.

It is easy to see that Taylor One on the left has a longer face, and that these are probably identical twins. Taylor Two on the right has a more square face, and a slightly less upturned nose. But honestly, who is going to spot this unless looking for it? They very much resemble one another.

So, setting their pupils at exactly one inch apart and splitting the faces, I get this:

Swift Swift

And the differences are readily apparent. Taylor Swift is twins. Which one performs? Given the wealthy background and prep school education, I would venture that both perform, as did the McCartney boys. Next time you see her performing, check out the chin, a little longer on one. That is the easiest way to tell them apart.

____________

Update: Taylor is not a twin, but who is she really?

taylor-swift

This is said to be a photo of her and her mother. Problem however – that appears to be a mannequin. Somebody’s joke? Or is she, like others in the music business, not really a member of the family whose name she bears?