“?”

I had an interesting discussion this morning that really boiled down to “Who are ‘they’?” and “Why?” As important as it is to establish some “What?’s” in our outlooks before moving on the “Who?” and “Why?”, the questions asked there are the major stumbling blocks to reaching people, or even attaining a coherent world view for myself.

I generally refrain from trying to reach people, and just do my own thing here, letting them come to me. Most criticism I get is knee-jerk and emotional, and that is too bad, as really constructive (and painful) criticism would be useful. I am capable of the mirror experience, and do reflect when called out on legitimate grounds. It is the only reason I’ve been able to move forward in life. If I ever stop and think OK, now I have it figured out, I’ll turn smug, cold, indifferent to the views of others, and will eventually join the circus of yappers of no substance, hard-wired into certain beliefs exclusive of all others, also known as American political discourse.

So the questions who and why, while extremely difficult to understand, much less to communicate, have to be addressed.

Who?

  • “The CIA.”
  • “The oligarchy.”
  • “The trillionaires.”
  • “Intelligence.”
  • “Spooks.”
  • “Lizards.”
  • “The Jews.”
  • “Illuminati.”
  • “Overlords.”

Add your own.

Each of those answers is a “turtles-beneath-turtles are holding up the planet” type of endless non-answer. They are all another way of saying

“?”

“Why” might have a bit of a more substantive answer. For control. To keep us thinking alike. To keep us in a state of fear. To keep us divided among ourselves. To prevent awakening, constructive revolution.

The questions my friend brings up are important. “What?” is fun. Learning that Janis Joplin became Amy Goodman surprised me right out of my chair. It does not get much better! There are only a few ways I can think of to have more fun than that.

“Who?” and “Why?” … much more difficult, less rewarding, and yet, a place that I have to move towards. Otherwise, I am just diddling around, like a drug addict, having a pointless but fun existence.

So readers, please, 1) Have at me. 2) If you can take us beyond the “What?” and into “Who?” and “Why?” even if your own thoughts are as clouded as mine, please do so.

No one ever said it would be easy. Given time and allowance for mistakes, we can figure this thing out.

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?

NPR doing its job

I am in Taos, New Mexico this week. I have meetings that start at 10 AM, and since I get up at five, I have time on my hands. Today I did some sightseeing while listening to the local NPR, the only non-music channel on the dial.

NPR was doing one of its ‘thoughtful’ pieces about voter registration and voter ID requirements. It was a long piece, and went into detail on laws in Texas and other places to require ID’s and all of that, and how poor people are disadvantaged, and all of that.

It is the definition of misdirection! NPR, so full of shit, is so good at this. The correct question is “Are our votes even counted?” They never asked the right question, as their job is to mislead and misdirect.

The answer, in case you wonder, is: Nope…

True faces

We have established below that Janice Joplin did not die, and beyond that, is actually a set of twins. We call them Twin One and Twin Two, since we do not know their real names. Twin One, the more laid back of the two, became Amy Goodman, host of Democracy Now! Twin Two was the singer we all knew who fake died in 1970.

If you are confused about how such a hoax can be played on us by a show that professes to represent the “other” or “left” side of our political spectrum, you need merely understand the concept of “controlled opposition.” Goodman and the whole show is a Ford Foundation enterprise, and is part of full spectrum dominance of our opinions. We are allowed to have disagreements, even agitated ones. In fact, such disagreements are encouraged, just as Democrats and Republicans go at it. It enhances the perception that we think for ourselves. But Democracy Now! is a gatekeeper enterprise, “…this far, no further.”

Just as Thom Hartmann manages progressive Democrats,  Bill O’Reilly right-wing Republicans, Charlie Rose and company the ‘thoughtful’ PBS/NPR set, and and Alex Jones the conspiracy-minded folks, Goodman is managing those who eschew party politics. They think they escaped by following her.

Imagine that Intelligence is running a restaurant. Sit wherever you want. It provides a waiter for every table.

The question I left hanging in the other post was what happened to the second Joplin twin. I was going to go hunting for her this week, but MH, sharp and observant as ever,  saved me the trouble. Twin two became … Amy Goodman Two. Each steps in as Amy, though Twin One by far dominates that role. Twin Two shows up now and then.

Intelligence loves twins, as we saw with the twin Elvis’s and the McCartney boys. MH has given me a list of 37 (and counting) prominent people that he suspects to be twinned. It is all shocking to me, but he is making his case. As we firm up our research, we will expose them.

Twin Two SingingAbove are the Joplin/Goodman twins in their former and reincarnated form. As can be seen, Twin One might be considered more demure and attractive, where twin two, the singer, was a little more emotive.

Goodman Two Joplin Two

The two on the right are easily seen to be the same person, as shown here.

Below is something interesting. It is a painted poster using Twin Two:

Joplin Janis Two 7

The caption reads

“I really do think that if for one week in the United States we saw the true face of war, we saw people’s limbs sheared off, we saw kids blown apart, for one week, war would be eradicated. Instead what we see in the US media is the video war game. Our mission is to make dissent commonplace in America.”

You go girl! You go, Twin Two! We need for you to tell us all about showing true faces.

Here is a composite of the painting above and Twin Two. Obviously the photo was the basis of the painting. Twin One was busy using her true face to do the show, no doubt.

Goodman Two Joplin Two 2

A piece of two hearts?

 

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:

Goodman Joplin 5

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.

Joplin XIn 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.

Goodman Joplin 6

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!

Goodman Amy 6

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.

Joplin Janis One 1

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.)

Our latest Zombie

Rose Box

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:

 

Rose Box Composite 2

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.

Anorexia nervosa not

Just stumbling around the other day I came across the following photos:

They are of Karen Carpenter, and are, in my humble opinion, fake. They are selling the idea that she was emaciated prior to her death.

On the left the caption says she is at 83 pounds. The problem is that her head does not show signs of anorexia, as supposedly seen on the right. She looks like a bobblehead.  It is a good photo, but I suspect fake, as her skin tone and color is different between head and body. She is posing for an award of some kind, probably having to do with athletics, as her attire looks oddly like a sports jersey. That would explain the cardboard “1,” as the owner of that body obviously placed first in a  sporting event. It sure looks like track and field, where women are often thinned down by grueling training. Notice also that the woman presenting the trophy is looking past her, as if Karen is not there, which may be the case.

Carpenter Carpenter Composite 2The second photo has been stretched out and compressed, the object to give her a gaunt and wasted look about the mouth. The eyes are sunken like a corpse. That is easily shown to be fake by putting it next to the real living Karen Carpenter to the left here. Pupil distance is the same on both sides of that photo. They obviously monkeyed with her image, stretching it out like a plastic sheet.

There are a few other photos like that on the Internet, but on the whole, of the hundreds available, they show a healthy young woman. Karen’s death was probably fake, like so many others. However, she has not, to my knowledge, reappeared in any form. She might have been told to go off and live on royalties from her body of work. She had a beautiful voice, and she and her brother  were a throwback to older, more melodic and harmonic tunes.

Karen Carpenter is not terribly important in the big picture. This blog has been devoted these past weeks to exposure of “Zombies,” or walking dead. These are prominent people who fake their death and reappear as another person. There is purpose to such reassignment, most often having to do with placement of talent to manage opinion and culture. For instance, Bobby Fuller became Bill O’Reilly, Brandon DeWilde Thom Hartmann. Each has a vital, even if small, role to play.

The music business is too influential to be left to chance talent taking it places where our leaders do not want us to go.  Music is a gateway to the brain and soul. Churches use it to keep the congregations in line, and nation-states have songs that bring people instantly to their feet, hats off. A subversive song might incite people to doubt the necessity of a war or reality of a fake event. So music is under control of Intelligence. This explains in part the Laurel Canyon scene of the 60s and 70s, where so many mediocre musicians, children of military and intelligence families, invaded, formed groups that achieved instant unearned fame. They then died off, many reappearing in news and opinion culture.

Karen Carpenter never threatened any state or religion. She merely sang, beautifully, about love and loss of love mostly. But she was moved out of the business, and I can only speculate that it was done because our cultural commissars had other ideas for the direction music was to take. We saw it with heavy metal, rap and hip-hop. Girl singers these days all sound alike to me, and sing about nothing. One song I heard that became a big hit was merely about the bass line. Adele had a huge hit with Hello. Hello? Music is devoid of substance now. Rappers, who can indeed speak to their followers in an incendiary manner, routinely die off. That might be real, but who can tell?

This has been the direction that Intelligence obviously wants to take us with music. In the 1960s they invaded the art world and gutted it, replacing real talent with people like Andy Warhol (Stu Stucliffe) and Jackson Pollack. Art is no longer a vehicle for expression of true beauty or ideas. Like our music, it is shallow and pointless.

The revolution, if it ever goes forward, will have to do so without anthems*.

Anyway, if Karen Carpenter is still alive, she is 66. I wish her well, and still enjoy her music. She was removed from the scene at age 33, that number often an indicator of monkey business, as are her fake photos above.

___________

*The only supposed anti-war anthem to come out of the 60s, For What It’s Worth, written by Stephen Stills and performed by (the Wrecking Crew and) Buffalo Springfield, was about closure of a popular nightclub, and not about the Vietnam war or protests of the day. Stills claimed to be an ex-Green Beret. His cohorts claimed that was a drug-induced fantasy. I tend to think not.

Bill Hicks is STILL Alex Jones

I have been catching some grief, and rightly so, for relying on the work of another person in the matter of Bill Hicks and Alex Jones. That matter bugged me so much that I ran comparisons on my own (I was not able to do so at the time I wrote up the first post on the matter), and was satisfied for myself that the two men are the same.

Since we have now caught the attention of the spooks, I went looking for photos of the two men in a pose that anyone who knows either or both is familiar with: wild-eyed rage. Hicks was is first an actor, and so was able to project a high degree of venom. Jones has the same talent – this is in fact part of his signature as a fake newscaster, to project enough venom to drive normally curious people away. It is part of what spooks call “sheepdipping.” Jones is meant to be such an inflammatory character that he drives people away, thereby protecting secrets rather than exposing them. By such behavior he is able to taint the entire community of people of curious mind as irrational.

So note that Hicks/Jones is given a high platform and is often referred to as the go-to conspiracy guy by ordinary phony newscasters and pundits. And note that when a person stops by the Jones show, Prison Planet, it is found to be a very unpleasant experience, driving most people of calm demeanor away.

I have never been able to watch Jones, even before I came to realize he was really Bill Hicks. He’s too abrasive, his raspy voice is unsettling. It is a very clever maneuver.

Take a look – I don’t think either man (as if) wanted this comparison:

Hicks Jones Angry Composite

From these photos I am able now to confirm beyond doubt that Bill Hicks and Alex Jones are the same person, also known as Freddy Krueger. (Please note – Jones has had some rhinoplasty, as seen before with Lemmy Kilmaster. He has had a ridge inserted in his nose, and some other less noticeable modifications. But the facial lineup is too close to be coincidental. Bill Hicks is Alex Jones is Freddy Krueger.)

The latest Zombie: Richard Branson

Note to Reader: This blog post has been put “under review” as we have had growing pains in developing the technology we use to identify twins, replicas and zombies. The eyes behind the technology are getting better, so as you read this piece note that if you are troubled by its conclusions that we will be looking at it in more depth and with better eyes. For the time being, it is speculation.

________________________________________________________________

Tyrone McCloskey is the author of the long paper (or book) JFKTV. It was the second of its genre I read, and was part of my re-education, the end of a 27 year odyssey trying to understand who shot JFK. Tyrone explained that no one shot him, and that the event was staged. Tyrone delves into the use of TV and full cooperation of the TV networks to sell the hoax.

(JFKTV can be read or downloaded here – you can easily bypass DropBox if you don’t have that app. It is 160 pages, less print than average for a pdf on each page, and a gripping read.)

Last night Tyrone was struggling with photographs, but even without their benefit came to a startling discovery. He found that Manson victim Stephen Parent faked his death, and was re-purposed as Richard Branson, the British business magnate. I guess he has some spook connections.

Here is Wikipedia’s account of Parent’s death (did I mention that Wiki is run by spooks? I did? OK then):

When the murder team arrived at the entrance to the Cielo Drive property; [Tex] Watson, who had been to the house on at least one other occasion, climbed a telephone pole near the entrance gate and cut the phone line to prevent telephone access to the house.[3] It was now after midnight, August 9, 1969.

Backing their car to the bottom of the hill that led up to the estate, the group parked there and walked back up to the house. Thinking the gate might be electrified or rigged with an alarm,[1]:176–184 they climbed a brushy embankment at its right and dropped onto the grounds.

Just then, headlights approached their way from farther within the angled property. Watson ordered the women to lie in the bushes. He then stepped out and ordered the approaching driver, 18-year-old student and hi-fi enthusiast Steven Parent, who had been visiting the property’s caretaker, William Garretson, to halt. As Watson leveled a 22-caliber revolver at Parent, the frightened youth begged Watson not to hurt him, claiming that he wouldn’t say anything. Watson first lunged at Parent with a knife, giving him a defensive slash wound on the palm of his hand (severing tendons and tearing the boy’s watch off his wrist), then shot him four times in the chest and abdomen, killing him. Watson then ordered the women to help push the car further up the driveway.[1]:22–25[2]

That is, of course,  complete fiction. (Did I mention that Wiki is run by spooks? I did? OK then.) Parent was not killed, Tex Watson is not in jail, and the entire Manson family (except Charlie) has been reassigned over the years to new projects.

What was really interesting to me is how Tyrone made this catch. These are his words:

“Parent was listed as 18 years old when he was killed and I started with celebs born in 1950 and kept an eye out for red/blondish hair- Parent’s smile looked like his deception smile, like he knew he was involved in a con- Years later, the actor has it etched on his face like the Joker’s scars-“

Tyrone has a background in Hollywood and his insights are often stunning. He sees through many veils.

Here is the photo comparison of the two:

Note that Branson’s ear lobes have gotten longer, as they do with age, but that we are otherwise looking at the young and older version of the same man.

Welcome aboard, Zombie Richard Branson!

____________

See beneath the fold for a comparison of a photo said to be the corpse of Steve Parent with the living person. Be warned it is a little gruesome, but be reassured that the corpse is not real, looks more like a drawing, and anyway, does not match up. Continue reading “The latest Zombie: Richard Branson” →

The game is afoot …

What is going on here at this blog is beneath the radar. Censorship in this country is pervasive, and even more so by the fact that people don’t realize that everything they see and read is censored. That’s really the only way effective censorship works.

Of course I am aware, as are so many others, of the smugness factor, how intelligent people like to imagine they are on top of things by virtue of attention to news and authority figures, perhaps even reading books to augment their by-stealth indoctrination. We learn to live with it, easily after a while, as we know that we can upend the world of any novice who follows evidence to its logical end. If that person finds one zombie to be real, one event to be a hoax, his world is upended, his stomach churns, and he either runs away in fear, or joins us.

Thus do we encounter the phenomenon by which people who imagine themselves up to speed refuse to look at evidence. They imagine themselves too sophisticated. That mindset breathes its own fumes, and a fire hose of truth cannot overcome those fumes. Such people go through their entire lives unaware of the basics of the deceptions around them, thriving on the feast of mock issues and fake politics that makes up our political economy.

But the people we work against are truly crafty and well-hidden, and know how to play the confidence game. In selling the 9/11 farce, for instance, they trotted out the magazine Popular Mechanics to reinforce every absurd lie. It’s a low-level checkout stand magazine that people have relied on for decades, and thus thought to be credible. It becomes an authority source. People behind public hoaxes are too crafty to simply tell a lie. They intend to make the lie stick. And for that they use subterfuge and fake authority sources.

Delete me
Orlando Crisis Actor

These people, who we call “Intelligence” or “CIA” or “TPTB,” have minions of laborers on many levels. In the highly visible events, like Paris, Orlando or Dallas, they use fake witnesses and victims called “crisis actors.” With that set of fakes I would have thought we met the lowest of the low, people who cannot generate even fake, much less real tears, people who set our collective skin crawling with their disingenuous emoting as green screens work behind them.

But there is a level lower than those clowns, called “trolls.” These are people sent out to muddy the waters as blogs like this try to clarify. Since turning away from party politics and other nonsense, we have outed quite a few zombies here, another one later today thanks to our friend Tyrone.

Typically, however, trolls don’t simply stop by and tell us we are wrong about this and that, or offer counter-evidence. Rather they seek to undermine and discredit.

So far, I have encountered two trolls. The first, Michael Hamilton, is innocuous enough. Twice now he has sought to undermine exposure of a zombie by asserting without evidence the relative height of the people involved.

“A problem with saying Bill O’Reilly is Bobby Fuller is the fact that O’Reilly is a big guy (height 6’4”) whereas Bobby Fuller is said to be 5’11 (and seems to about the same height as other band members)”

and …

“Also, Duane Allman is said to be 6’1” and Lemmy Killmeister is 5’10”.”

That’s fairly typical of a low-intellect partisan at a sniping site, to rely on one obtuse piece of information in a sea of evidence and to claim that it is a torpedo that sinks the ship. The only reason why I suspect Hamilton to be a troll is that he appears and disappears and when challenged, never offers sources for his “evidence.” How tall am I, you might wonder? I dare you try to find out on the Internet, and the same can be said for anyone we have exposed here.

This morning I received a more practiced troll. He calls himself Josh Miletta, and offered the following:

Some of the spooky YouTube channels peg Lennon as having transitioned into Steve Jobs. Might be worth a look. I mean, did some shlub pioneer a computing revolution from his garage (American mythos), or was it perhaps the military-intelligence complex that was 75 years ahead of the game?

Also of interest is JFK becoming Jimmy Carter (James Earl Carter to boot… gotta throw that royalty link in the name), Jim Morrison to Rush Limbaugh, and Heath Ledger to Michael Grimm. BTW, his wife ‘Lucy Grimm’ lets the cat out of the bag as she appears to be played by Heath’s ‘widow’ Michelle Williams. Compare interviews of Michelle and Lucy, it’s enlightening.

We could unravel this ever knitted ball of yarn until we croak; the real work is inspiring and leading the extraordinary number of people who are aware of the pathetic lies they are fed. Their numbers are astounding but they are meek. They are born of propaganda, crushed and deformed by it, inured to it.

Now that’s more like it! The object then is not to challenge us, dispute us, show us wrong, but to pretend to join us and surround us with noise. Then by association we are all discredited. That is how Intelligence works. They undermine, sneak around in the background, work the angles, but never directly confront anyone who is on to their game. I might, just a bit, respect their guile, but I despise their dishonesty.

Chiarini
Said to be Chiarini, but with spooks, who can know?

So, for the record, John Lennon did not become Steve Jobs, JFK was never seen again after 1963, Jim Morrison has not, to our knowledge, reappeared, nor has Heath Ledger. These ideas have not a shred of evidence to support them. The man behind most of this silliness is Ed Chiarini, aka “Dallas Gold Bug,” and he is most likely an Intelligence operative sent to muddy the waters, and cause a heap of scorn on honest researches. He’s been undone here.

I have left Hamilton alone, as he strikes like a mosquito and is easily rendered ineffective. The Miletta foray means that someone has taken note of this blog, and that there will be further thrusts in the future to undermine our work. I trust that people who practice and work with evidence will stick to evidence, and ignore those who don’t provide it.