- This topic has 15 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
When I first learned of the replacement of John Lennon and The Beatles, the problem I encountered was I had never really seen the originals but rather the various doubles. So I suggest people study a clear picture of the original John Lennon before analyzing the various doubles.
Here is John in a 1963 real Beatles interview (it is impossible to find real John giving interview ALONE).
Here is an 1966 interview of replaced Beatles with Fohn in the beginning
This particular double has narrow everything, eyes, face, etc. Chins and noses are very different… Eyes too. Face form. And also that subtle quality that I don’t know the word for. It is like a difference between a thoroughbred vs mongrel, I see it all the time, when I compare real with doubles: the double is always “off”
And the comparisons are on attachment.
Study the last file on attachment labeled John_63 vs. Fohn_66. It is a screen shot from the above interviews.When you look at real John’s face, it makes a PLEASANT impression, as if you are looking at something of a good quality. authentic, real…unlike Fohn.
I have learned it is very hard for people who are conditioned NOT to see differences, to see Fohn. It takes time. This ability to “feel” doubles comes with practice. In some sense one has to feel it intuitively…in the heart- it helps us to see what is beyond words to describe – a difference between a “born” person and a copycat. Doubles are ugly… they are always unpleasant looking.
It is not easy after all, a bunch of intell people are trying hard and doing a good job finding look-alikes and fixing them… It is really not so easy to see them.
Note how real John’s (our left) appearance is consistent in 3 comps… He is always the same. And, of course, the straight nose, and the quality of “genuiness.” Examine the look in the eyes! John’s is straight and honest, simple, plain-hearted. Doubles’ eyes are cunning and shifty.
Watch these two videos from a “A Hard Days Night” videos carefully.
The real John
Note at the :20 mark no mole on left cheek.
Here is the double:
Note: at the :33 mark a mole on the left cheek.
In the movie there are hints dropped about the use of doubles.
@2:41 mark
Here is the actor playing George Harrison “kidding” Dick Cavett about the use of doubles. Notice Cavett doesn’t miss a beat. He doesn’t say ‘What the *&%$#@ are you talking about”!!
Word to the wise go the YT links quick and download to your computer as these links have a habit of disappearing.
Richard wrote: “I have learned it is very hard for people who are conditioned NOT to see differences, to see Fohn. It takes time.”
Yes you’re right. You had to be there.
I did live through the original Beatlemania as a small child. On Christmas Day 1967 I was given “Sgt Pepper’s” and experienced my first dose of bad cognitive dissonance when I saw the cover photo of John Lennon.
I said to my father that this was a new John Lennon. He looked to my young eyes completely different: older, with narrower and sharper features, and a different kind of face. I thought I even detected subtle differences in the vocal quality. My dad told me that, yes, he did look very different now, but it only appeared it was a different John due to the longer hair, the glasses and moustache. It was the same John he assured me.
As a child you believe what your parents tell you but for all those years since I’ve harboured the same subconscious doubts that this was the same John (and later on I came to see, a substituted Paul too). If John and Paul were switched, as I believe, then why not the others too?
I know that’s totally anecdotal but that’s me story and I’m sticking to it 🙂
And these guys knew the score:
————–
Fetzer and Ole Dammegard are the new official guy-to guys for media fakery on Red Ice Creations. Everything from the fake Moon landings to PID gets that special Fetzer treatment:
http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2015/06/RIR-150603.php
Note to self: Cancel sub to Red Ice.
@ Richard: Speaking hypothetically for a moment, any ideas about how a stable of Beatles’ body doubles could be organised, logistically?
A psyOp baby factory perhaps?
The culprits had plenty to choose from. I placed on attachment a picture of the Liverpool bands competing for success at the time the Beatles were discovered.
Also, last summer I had a long debate with Dave McGowan on his Facebook page about the issue of doubles and Beatles replacements. He told me he wanted to have a rational discussion on the topic of Paul being replaced. He posed a set of questions for me and specifically asked me respond to the list of seven. One question he wanted me to answer was how they could find someone who looked the same and sounded the same as the original. Plus how could people not notice the switch.
First off, I told him that at the time there were many people who did notice e.g. Lenny.
Second, finding a double is not as difficult as people believe. Here is a link to a photographer who specializes in finding them:
Note it only took him a year or so to find these doubles.
MI5 would have had access to more resources than the photographer, including passport photos, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MI5
Here is how they found doubles for accused Martin Luther King assassin James Earl Ray.
“Researcher Philip Melanson has written that Ray used aliases which matched actual people living in Montreal, and began using those aliases before he first arrived there during his pre-assassination travels: “four of the five aliases used by Ray in the nine months preceding the crime were real Canadians who lived in close proximity to each other.” These people – Eric S. Galt, Raymond George Sneyd, Paul E. Bridgeman – all lived within a couple of miles of each other in Toronto, and all looked very similar to Ray. Galt and Willard, another Toronto resident whose name Ray used, both had scars on the right side of their faces, as Ray did. Though Ray had used aliases throughout his criminal career, there is no evidence Ray had been to Toronto prior to fleeing there after the King murder, and no explanation for how he came to use these particular names.”
Source:
https://www.maryferrell.org/wi…r_King_AssassinationThe intelligence agencies found a collection of doubles in a relatively small area. It can be done.
Please look closely at the second picture I placed on attachment. It is one of the George Harrison doubles next to the original. The original is on the left.
McGowan asked me how they could find doubles that sound the same. The short answer is the double sound the same.
Look at these two videos of the real Beatles vs. one set of doubles Beatle replacement researchers call The Cheatles. These are two clips of Twist and Shout performed live, the first by real Beatles in 1963 in Manchester, the second by Cheatles in 1965 in Italy. If you listen to them using headphones, you’ll hear what it means to be TAUGHT to sing like another person (second clip). I can hear that John singing is effortless, while Fohn is making so much effort trying to stay within certain voice pitch. And still he fails to sound exactly like John.
What a difference between the two. John and Paul could harmonize perfectly together. Sir faul and fohn sound horrible. No harmonizing at all.
If people listen to the real Joan Baez sing vs. the phony you hear the same thing…a free spirit vs. controlled singing.
People can be trained to mimic other singers but not the real talent. McGowan said the real McCartney continued in brilliance for almost 50 years. I argue no he did not. “Paul McCartney” and Wings was one of the lamest bands ever. “Silly Love Songs”, “Listen to what the man said” “Coming Up’, ecch!! The impostor was a talented mimic
Of course a double cold be trained in singing and with EMI’s studio magic, who knows?
Here is a video on the use of body doubles today. When you consider these are for propaganda films you see who is behind the idea.
For more info go to: http://pid.hoop.la/about
Hope that helps, Lenny!
Sorry Lenny but there was a typo-the line should read “The short answer is the doubles did not sound the same.
Well, I’ll be jiggered. You might be on to something, Richard Benedict. Up to this point, you have appeared to be but a purveyor of profound bullshit, but that Daily Mail link was eye-opening.
These are real, unrelated people. To the untrained eye, they at first appear identical. It takes a bit of time to get used to spotting the doubles.
With this one, if you allow for their respective postures it appears there is a definite height difference. In fact, it becomes obvious when you really look at it. If they climbed into bed with you, you’d think it was the same ‘Dave’, but if you stood them up against a wall and put a ruler to it, I think you’d be in for a shock. Keep staring at that picture and you get a real sense that these are two different people. As you and Lenny have said, there’s kind of a knack to spotting them.
Now, with this startling revelation, Richard. Can you explain your ‘theory’ again ?
What I’ve got, so far, is that you suggest the entire group, The Beatles, were replaced sometime between 1963 and 1965 and that John Lennon was played by various actors using rubber masks for television appearances throughout the seventies ?
Popular music…hey did you see The Boomtown Rats, foreshadowing the Dunblane School ( 17 years before it happened ) shooting in the I Don’t Like Mondays video? No doubles needed there, I’d suggest.
Had you seen that thread Richard? Here’s the link:DalTampra
@Lenny
About mimicking voices… Turns out there are people who are not even working for CIA, but for film industry, who can teach you to mimic ANY voice to which you are genetically close to. It is called Voice Matching. It is used in voiceover of the movies. Check this outhttp://podcasts.voices.com/voi…erts_episode_35.html
Quote from link…
“So, how did I land this job and I how can I teach others to do the same (mimicking voices)? Well, there are two factors, one I know my voice range, so I can recognize voices I’m naturally close too. So, it’s a matter of recognizing that I’m genetically in the ballpark, believe me I wouldn’t be going after a sound alike job for Ben Affleck or Matt Damon. So, knowing my genetic vocal print is 80% of the job, then two I have the skills to tweak the voice to bring it closer to the sound of the performer I’m trying to match or mimic. So, that’s brings to the 90% and that’s as close as it gets.”
So, looks like it is very possible to be trained to match other voice. Imagine what techniques intelligence has for that! As we know, all Hollywood “effects” are a feeble semblance of what intelligence has on their hands.
Tom if you were interested in the height differences of the various Beatles here are 2 links to explore.
http://www.thebeatlesneverexisted.com/Heights/
(I don’t like this site because they say The Lads never existed, but they are good at finding photo discrepancies)
And then there is this video on height differences:
(this is a PID stuff, but still a good one)
People noticed long ago that Beatles differ in height towards each other through the years.
@Richard: Thanks for answering my question. Good stuff mate! The material about the unrelated doubles in the Daily Mail article was an interesting revelation. I’ve never paid much attention to George and Ringo before, as these were my least favourite Beatles. But I’m now starting to see the same kind of physical differences between George and Feorge as I see in Paul/Faul, more apparent in the pair of photos you attached, below (esp with George’s eyes and nose). Will look into Feorge and Fingo a bit more closely now.
It all opens up one mother of a psyOp. And a conundrum that does my head in sometimes.
It’s the same spin I get when I try to rationalise the tangled web of deceptions you get by inserting “flesh and bone” 911 vicsims into real life (as opposed to the photo-shopped phantoms) solely for the purpose of them being “disappeared” years later when the hoax kicks in: such as the friends Max Ratt and David Weiss say they knew personally, which I’m prepared to accept they did. This kind of simulated “social network” adds a layer of depth to the fakery.
But I keep pondering: where do these “real” vicsims come from? Who are they – spies, bloodline elites in on the joke, blackmail victims? What enables, or compels them to live a long term lie? And where the hell do they go? In the case of the Beatles’ substitutions the same kind of questions arise.
Richard wrote: “Also, last summer I had a long debate with Dave McGowan… One question he wanted me to answer was how they could find someone who looked the same and sounded the same as the original.”
Yes, talent-scouting for body doubles is the obvious method. As the Mail article demonstrates: it is achievable with effort, even by one determined photographer, although I thought some of his doubles weren’t that good to be honest (I’ll come back to this point later on, as I have a theory I’d like you to chew over).
Another problem is, just because they LOOK the same doesn’t guarantee they’re going to SOUND and ACT the same. In fact you can almost guarantee THEY WON’T. So this part of the simulation requires special attention.
As you point out, with the “sound the same” thing, on closer listening, they DON’T. In the case of Paul/Faul it’s as near-as-damn-it though. It’s certainly been close enough to fool the general public for these 50 years. And definitely, with the aid of intensive training, studio trickery and professional voice mimicry the substitutes CAN be made to sound even more like the originals.
Or — in an Orwellian twist — the originals can be made to sound more like the substitutes.
For example, listen to the original Paul guy singing “And I Love Her” (from “A Hard Day’s Night”), here:
Now, compare and contrast this with the later “remastered” version of the same song:
It’s the original Paul in both takes. But what you’ll notice is that the later version has been sped up appreciably, in order to, I reckon, disguise the fact Faul has got a thinner, more higher pitched voice than Paul.
Such a flagrant rewriting of musical history is taken in the stride of the masses, as illustrated in this non-Fakeology thread in which the writers rationalise it away with all sorts of dross: “it must have been a technical accident”, or, “the original master tape was probably recorded faster, got lost, then was found again” etc, which comes as no great surprise. A more lengthy voice comparison between Paul and Faul in several classic songs can be heard here, if you’re into it:
I think we’ve moved along a good way since, technology-wise, and in terms of the masses’ readiness to accept half-arsed fakes. I was interested to see in Miles Mathis recent paper on Taylor Swift “Blank Space” that he believes Taylor neither writes, nor sings, her own material anymore (if she ever did). By way of simulation/computer-based technology an alleged mega-star like Taylor can be manufactured by the Culture Creators without the need of a real human being.
Her biggest song “Blank Space” is now heading towards a billion views on YT — yeah, right.
So they don’t even require the body double to be able to sing or be musical anymore. When we marry this to the CGI possibilities, we can see they won’t even require the body double, period.So, two main things I take away from your many postings Richard, are these:
1) NO method of simulation and substitution can be dismissed outright as too whacky (even if the subject matter repels you, or the mooted method seems loony at first glance, it should be looked into) – & nothing should surprise us; and
2) the enterprise of those doing the hoaxing is underwritten by every tool & device of science and technology imaginable, plus other things inconceivable or unavailable to us, at this point. I’m not suggesting futuristic gizmos here, only that the magician never reveals all his tricks.
Regarding point 2), above, I’d like to put an idea out there I’ve been hatching for a while. The more I’m learning about Fakeology the more appealing this idea becomes. However, I can, at this stage, provide no evidence for it, other than circumstantial. It’s just my loony theory.
My reading of the Beatles psyOp is that it was a Culture Creation project of the highest order — on a par in complexity with, say, D-Day — involving the co-operation of many arms of the Science-Military-Arts/Entertainment monster. The whole Brit Pop/Carnaby St thing was, it seems to me, the UK version of Laurel Canyon. It’s really one of a piece with the 1950’s LSD psyOp Jan Irvin & Joe Atwill have documented over at ”gnosticmedia”, “>here, and here. When you read all the “gnosticmedia” material you start to get a picture of its enormous scale, the long list of personnel, agencies and institutions involved, and the crazy prepping that went into it. Years and years of it.
The Beatles’ psyOp would have been no different than the LSD psyOp. No doubt a crack team of technocrats and psychopaths was engaged: no forward planning was neglected, no expense spared, and no trickery, however bizarre, went uncontemplated, I’m sure.
My point here is, nothing in these great matters is left to chance. Even if, in the event, there are fuck-ups in the execution of the hoaxery along the way, still, the planners ALWAYS plan ahead.
Ergo, the problem I have with the Tina Foster/Clare Kuehn version of “Paul is Dead” (PID) is this: I don’t think the Culture Creators suddenly pulled these Beatles’ doubles out of their arses at the last minute.
I don’t believe for a second that, as the PID people tell it, “good Paul” rebelled against the LSD agenda his masters wanted so he was replaced by the William Campbell ring-in, “Faul”, who WOULD cooperate. As I said before in the Joan Baez thread, for a start, I can’t see the CIA/MI5 people EVER, in a million years, allowing ANYONE ANYWHERE near the superstar-microphone who wasn’t fully on board with the programme. I’m sure Paul was as complicit as Faul in the whole sorry business.
What is more to the point is this: How are these body/voice doubles to be arranged well in advance of their activation time?
After all, each substitute will need to be trained, coached, and patiently developed on similar career-artistic paths YEARS AHEAD OF SCHEDULE. Many years I imagine. This William Campbell character (or whoever he/they really is/are) didn’t just learn to mimic the original Paul in a few weeks, months, or even in one or two years. Not to the level of accomplishment we see in Faul (notwithstanding the defects). This kind of hoax demands an incredible amount of logistical prepping and forward planning. We’re talking high level military grade psyOp here. Beyond anything Brian Epstein, or a few of the guys at EMI, could muster.
Moreover – and here’s the rub — a first and almost insurmountable problem immediately arises: WHERE DO YOU GET ACCESS TO A POOL OF DOPPELGANGING TALENT in the first place?
Okay. Talent-scouting for doubles is a good start, shown by the Daily Mail article (some are brilliant matches, some sort-of-close but no cigar). I’m sure MI5 do this kind of thing already for lots of psyOps, and are pretty good at spotting ring-ins. And as Richard wrote: “MI5 would have had access to more resources than the photographer, including passport photos, etc.”
However, the talent-scouting method becomes a lot more problematical if we consider that there may well have been more than two Fauls and two Fohns and two Feorges (don’t know about Fingo) during the lifetime of the Beatles’ franchise (alluded to in the posting, above, re the many inexplicable height fluctuations of ALL the Beatles. Also, Richard posted a link to a site some time ago that explores this multiple Fauls/Fohns angle but I’ve lost the trail: Richard, can you help me out? In the meantime here’s a minor link that touches on the theme).
Consider also, that such a search would need to begin very early in the piece, to allow enough time to seriously train and develop a pool of substitutes for all four band members (so well before 1963).So, the task may well then have been: finding two (or perhaps even three) passable body/voice doubles, all with similar musical abilities, or, the ability to mimic them, years in advance of their actual activation. Yikes. The enormity of that task becomes clear. And the scale of operation to pull it off, apparent.
On this score, I would respectfully suggest, MI5 have got much more than just the Passport Office to play with. They have “Science” and “Scientists”, plus their vast army of Social Engineers and Psychologists in wait. No doubt, all possibilities of hoaxery, however bizarre, are canvassed by these people. Nothing would be off the table, as they say.
Now, I know this might be straying into Miles Mathis over-reach territory here — and I preface this by saying I’m just shootin’ the breeze here — but my suggestion, above, about a “psyOp baby factory” is not entirely fanciful.
I think finding and training body doubles for all four Beatles – with perhaps even two (or more?) body doubles per Beatle — becomes a biological question as much as it is a talent-scouting problem.
Consider this: fertility drugs have been around since before the war. From the Science guys at Harvard we hear:
“Inducing ovulation through hormonal drugs has been around since 1938, so the possible side effects from such treatment are well known. In addition to the risk of hyperstimulation, multiple gestations occur in approximately 20 percent of ovulation-induced pregnancies (the formerly infertile couples who have triplets–or quints)…”
Harvard Magazine article (see 3rd para)
So pregnancies induced by fertility drugs can produce twins, triplets and quadruplets, about 1 time in 5. They might be identical or they might be fraternal multiples. See a list of many of the “reported” ones, here.
The celebrated Dionne sisters, (dated January 21, 1935) with then-Premier of Ontario Mitchell Hepburn.I point out two things: 1) fertility methods were and still are commonplace. It’s not something out of “Boys from Brazil”. No cloning involved here, although selective breeding may well be; and, 2) all the Beatles were born after 1938.
So if this information is true, it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that ALL FOUR of them might have been multiple births, with brothers (fraternal if not identical) kicking around somewhere.
And of course, it wouldn’t be necessary for each twin/triplet/ to even KNOW he had a lookalike brother. They could be raised on quite separate but similar tracks, in different households, in different cities, initiated into the hoax only when the time came.
And if, as I’m hypothesising here, MI5 were conducting such a “multiple births” project with the express intention of using ”multiples” for their psyOp years down the track, then the benefits of this approach are self-evident. It would enable them to closely monitor each subject’s childhood, which direction he took, and how he developed. Each set of multiples nurtured and mentored by the hidden hand of The Big Eye — an anonymous benefactor here, a fortuitous scholarship there, lucky break everywhere — guiding them ever on, towards their pre-planned destiny in the Big Show Biz psyOp to come: this set of multiples to play the drums; this set, the bass guitar; that one, singing & song-writing, and so on.
In this way training & development would begin from infancy with no need to search the country, many years later, hoping, on the off chance, to find passable non-biological doppelgangers you’d then have to train up “catch as catch can”, as the PID story tells it with William Campbell.
For mine, total reliance on the talent-scouting method seems too random & haphazard for this kind of high order Military psyOp, when compared to something far more controlled and “scientific”, like induced multiple births, especially if linked to a selective breeding programme of some kind. I know if I had the resources and the inclination, that’s how I’d prefer to organise it.
And Alice, Doris & Gladys agree!
Sorry for the delay in replying, Lenny.
Here is a link I think you find interesting regarding the origins of double. It deals with a series of Betty Boop cartoons. Notice the plot of the cartoon is the development of celebrities from birth.
Here is another link to the same cartoon dealing with masonic initiation.
You may research Max Fleischer for an interesting background.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Fleischer
I am not convinced the Beatles were cloned but the mystery and depth of the operation I believe to be on a scale you suggest. If you go to this link and contact the moderator “Essence”, tell her I sent you and she said she would provide you with a free one month membership if you care to explore the trick subject of the Beatles replacement. I enjoyed reading your detailed post.
Cheers Richard. Will review the material over the weekend. And I’ll certainly check out the site you mentioned. Thanks for that!
Richard Benedict wrote:
If you go to this link and contact the moderator “Essence”, tell her I sent you and she said she would provide you with a free one month membership if you care to explore the trick subject of the Beatles replacement. I enjoyed reading your detailed post.
The trick subject of The Beatles replacement. Yes, yes, finally we’re singing from the same song sheet.
I’ll take the lead, you take the fifth, Richard. It’ll be sweet harmony 🙂DalTampra
“The trick subject of The Beatles replacement. Yes, yes, finally we’re singing from the same song sheet. I’ll take the lead, you take the fifth, Richard. It’ll be sweet harmony” 🙂
And I’m sure a big smash in the cross-over charts! I’m organising the Tom Dalpra body/voice doubles as we speak. 😉
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.