richard benedict

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 43 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Eric Clapton and his son's death #849052
    richard benedict
    Participant

    Clapton and Harrison had the mutual wife Patti Boyd. A shared lover leit motif more likely as both the real George Harrison and Eric Clapton were replaced by 2 different actors. Accordingly, I believe you may be right re the narrative.

    in reply to: Elton John #848323
    richard benedict
    Participant

    @Ab, thank you for your post. Your remarks are a source of encouragement. You are not joking when you said in your first few podcasts that this site will serve as a hoax recovery site. I have learned since I came across your site in Dec. of 2012, that, although I may be deft in discussing fakeology, I will convince no one of our worldview. No one. As you have so eloquently explained in your many broadcasts, there is a psychological hurdle that prevents the overwhelming majority from seeing what we see. There is a psychological dimension to fakeology that is unassailable.

    As you have pointed out with the mega hoaxes, (JFK, etc.) it is hard to imagine the culprits getting off scott free. But they do. Elton John was the most popular entertainer on the face of the earth in 1977. He was replaced in front of God and everybody and history will record no wiser.

    As a formality. I am posting a web page that lists Elton John tours beginning in 1970 until the present day. For those with eyes to see, there is an uncharacteristic 18 month break in Nov. 3 1977 when he announced his retirement.

    http://www.eltonjohn.com/band/1977b/

    in reply to: EGI – Elite gender inversion #848217
    richard benedict
    Participant

    @UNreal, thank you for taking the time to explore this intriguing subject. I have only just begun to study your material; nevertheless, I am already understanding what you are driving.

    When I studied celebrity replacement, one phenomenon I encountered frequently was an unexpected, visceral reaction to a photograph or video that told me I am not looking at the same person. One example that stands out vividly is the first day of the George Zimmerman trial in court. That person was not the same person I’d seen previously.

    The above picture of Susan Sarandon strikes me as someone who is “off”. The throat and Adam’s apple are “off”. But her overall energy or vibe is “off’. Not what I would expect from a woman. If I was on a jury I would have to find her not guilty of being a womn. I have a reasonable doubt.

    BTW, for years I have always felt there was some thing “off” with Victoria Secret models. I couldn’t put my finger on it but I knew something was wrong. UNreal’s thesis provides a possible explanation

    in reply to: The David Bowie PSYOP #847951
    richard benedict
    Participant

    Please disregard the above post as it posted before I could edit. Here is the complete post.

    There is this Bowie: The Cavett Bowie

    David Bowie Young Americans Live Dick Cavett Show 1974

    Then there is this Bowie.

    I call him the “Heroes” Bowie as he appears in the first “Heroes” video [imho] below.

    This second video is of the same song from the same concert tour of 1978 but from another venue. The second link below shows the another Bowie, [it might be the the one from the Dick Cavett interview]. Their profiles are completely different at the time stamps I give. Also, if you go to the 28 second mark of the second video you can see it is a different guy. The two singing voices are different as the second one can not hit the same notes as the first.

    Profile at 3:03 mark of the first video and Compare with the profile @ the 5:05 below.

    Also and the :28 mark of this video with the the :20 sce mark of the first one is a head on shot.

    I placed the two people side by side. One has a longer and more angular jawline, different ears, broader cheek bones, eyes far apart, and generally skinnier. And a different energy or air, The first one is more boyish, the second is androgenic. The Bowie in the last video from Earl’s Court may not be either of the Bowies in the comp I posted.

    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    in reply to: The David Bowie PSYOP #847949
    richard benedict
    Participant

    There is this Bowie: The Cavett Bowie
    David Bowie Young Americans Live Dick Cavett Show 1974

    David Bowie Young Americans Live Dick Cavett Show 1974
    David Bowie performing Young Americans on Dick Cavett show in 1974.

    David Bowie Interview on Dick Cavett – 1974

    David Bowie Interview on Dick Cavett – 1974

    Then there is this Bowie.

    David Bowie Interview 1977

    David Bowie Interview 1977
    CBC Interview, Nov 25, 1977

    I call him the “Heroes” Bowie as he appears in the first “Heroes” video [imho] below.

    The second video is of the same song from the same concert tour of 1978 but from another venue. The second link below shows the another Bowie, [it might be the the one from the Dick Cavett interview]. Their profiles are completely different at the time stamps I give. Also, if you go to the 28 second mark of the second video you can see it is a different guy. The two singing voices are different as the second one can not hit the same notes as the first.

    Profile at 3:03 mark

    David Bowie “Heroes” Belew ’78

    David Bowie “Heroes” Belew ’78

    Compare with the profile @ the 5:05 below.

    Also and the :28 mark of this video with the the :20 sce mark of the first one is a head on shot.
    YouTube Search Powered by iBoss

    I placed the two people side by side. One has a longer and more angular jawline, different ears, broader cheek bones, eyes far apart, and generally skinnier. And a different energy or air, The first one is more boyish, the second is androgenic.

    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    in reply to: Tate/LaBianca murder hoax #686779
    richard benedict
    Participant

    “The last thing I see him doing is running through the airport, just like the commercial,” Park said.

    OJ Simpson limo Alan Park’s mother was one of Manson murderess Patrica Krenwinle’s attorneys

    “The last thing I see him [OJ Simpson]doing is running through the airport, just like the commercial,” Park said.

    When he got home, Park thought things seemed a little odd, he said, but he never could have imagined that a murder had occurred — until his mother, a former public defender who once represented Manson family member Patricia Krenwinkel — learned that Simpson’s ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman had been murdered outside Nicole Simpson’s house.

    Read more here: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article39436707.html#storylink=cpy

    Here is Susan Stkins cellmate, the terribly attractive Corey Hurst,

    http://www.whosampled.com/movie/Manson/Corey-Hurst-Interview/
    In the documentary, Manson [1973], another cellmate of Atkins is interviewed, a 19 year old heroin addict. She too, is as attractive as Ms. Hurst, giving credence to Mile Mathis thesis that good looking people are selected for this op.

    Laurence Merrick, the documentary producer, once had Sharon Tate as an acting student. The PSYOP is kept in one enclosed loop. A witness who testified against OJ Simpson ghost wrote “If I Did It” Simpson’s notorious book on how he would have committed the murders.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_I_Did_It

    The profits from the book go to the Ron Goldman family. Figure that one out.

    Blue Moon, I agree with you about Adam Gorightly. I have read his Manson book and listened to many of his interviews. I did think of him as a useful idiot but now I wonder if he is not tasked with the chore of “watering” the Manson meme to keep it alive for posterity. Gorightly beleives the “murders” were a dope burn but then we have the curious case of the LaBianca couple. A little known fact about the LaBianca’s is the their as was formerly owned by Walt Disney!!

    The Labiancas remain a mystery to me. Available photos of them online look pretty sketchy. Perhaps they are sims.

    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    in reply to: Tate/LaBianca murder hoax #684100
    richard benedict
    Participant

    The link you posted will take time to process. In the mean time, any thoughts on the bio of Charles ‘no name” Maddox born Cincinnati Ohio, reared in Ashland, Kentucky and neighbor of Sara Jane Moore, President Ford’s would be assassin?

    Sara Jane Moore Released On Parole

    Dave McGowan in Programmed to Kill avers Manson was kin to Florida serial killer Bobby Joe Long. Truth or intel legend?

    Here is a link to the legendary [and virtually unobtainable] “Manson” documentary from 1973.

    http://vidzi.tv/xf0vv1lls3hq.html

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068918/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manson_(film)

    The opening features Bugliosi balefully intoning the number of stab wounds “…169..”

    169= 13 x 13, for the fakologists keeping score at home.

    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    in reply to: The David Bowie PSYOP #600051
    richard benedict
    Participant

    @Terran, excellent post. Shades of James Shelby Downard,

    BTW, on attachment is a pic of noted writer Dave McGowan 8 days before his death from lung cancer. Compare that image with the pix of a robust Bowie before he died.

    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    in reply to: The David Bowie PSYOP #599174
    richard benedict
    Participant

    Yes…same gal. I’ll confess some doubt about Mr.Jones.

    But I have no doubt about the reality of celebrity replacements.

    Example: “Is this the same gal?” for Cameron Diaz and Renee Zellweger pix on attachment?

    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    in reply to: The David Bowie PSYOP #598961
    richard benedict
    Participant

    Is this the same guy?

    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    in reply to: The David Bowie PSYOP #552536
    richard benedict
    Participant

    @nemesis, after watching both docs, I could not make a definite determination.

    in reply to: The David Bowie PSYOP #550766
    richard benedict
    Participant

    @ nemesis,

    Yes, you have a pic of the real Alex Jones.

    Here he is on video:

    The “Alex Jones” from my first video above.

    Read more: http://fakeologist.com/2016/01/04/alex-jones-is-a-character/#ixzz3ymtWT5sz

    Here is my post about him a view weeks ago, with this informative epigraph:

    “The definition of the alternatives is the supreme instrument of power.”

    Read more: http://fakeologist.com/2016/01/04/alex-jones-is-a-character/#ixzz3ymvLnLVp

    There you will find bodybuilding pix I posted along with three YT links showing 3 separate people: Bill Hicks, the real Alex Jones and his replacement.

    The real Alex Jones isn’t one of the alternatives provided to us by Central Command, thus the epigraph.

    I did not know Labyrinth was being remade. Thank you for the post, it is an important indicator. There are 3 tools Central Command’s uses in our Videodrome media to diddle the Group Mind: media fakery, celebrity replacements/ doubles and the use of programmed multiples. Bowie was involved in all 3 as Labyrinth is a Monarch mind control script.

    Fritz Springmeier’s work goes into detail about the role the movie of the Labyrinth as a Monarch script, but alas, the poor devil was replaced as well.

    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    in reply to: The David Bowie PSYOP #549871
    richard benedict
    Participant

    In the first photo below, the real Alex Jones is on the right. He is the real person that is lost in the phony Bill Hicks is Alex Jones dichotomy.

    Now, any reader who thinks that what I present is too far fetched or that this is some form of parlor amusement, I humbly suggest you watch the video below and viddy the haunting glance “Ziggy” throws Dick Cavett @ 3:17 mark

    The screen shot is attached.

    Still think it’s a game?

    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    in reply to: The David Bowie PSYOP #549826
    richard benedict
    Participant

    Below are the photos of the “dead Bowie”, post Ziggy Stardust. He is the set of eyes behind the disguise in the mind warping “Jack Steven” video.

    Regarding the Jack Stevensvideo, readers familiar with my posts on the use of doubles/replacements with the Beatles and Alex Jones/Bill Hicks, should be detecting a familiar pattern at play here.

    First, here is the video of “Jack Stevens a.k.a David Bowie in disguise.

    Here is a video of an alleged Jack Steven six years ago (Jack appears at about 1:00)

    The Jack Steven presented doesn’t look anything like the guy on Sky News! He has different teeth, and different everything. It is simply a different person!

    IMHO, regarding the whole Jack Steven/David Bowie controversy… They began preparing for “retiring” DB’s double for some time already. They found a guy who vaguely resembles him, has a British accent and similar voice. No wonder they found him in a music industry. And they chose him to be a cover guy for “dead” Bowie. The one on Sky News is really Bowie, NOT Jack Steven. He appeared there as a part of a mind controlling experiment on the masses. But as Jack Steven does exist (which is quite possible) they can always present us REAL Jack Steven when being asked, to prove that there’s no hoax!

    Which they do.

    yet their evidence is inconclusive.

    They do the same thing here as they did with Paul McCartney is Dead (PID) and with Alex Jones/Bill Hicks… They present us the two sided argument – pro and contra. Most of the times both are fake. There are videos proving the hoax, and there are videos disproving it. This is made to create one big CONFUSION in our minds, to eventually make us give up on our ability to understand anything at all, and, as a result, totally numb to ANY hoaxes and lies they care to invent. They want to create in people a “I don’t give a @#$%&!!” attitude to anything they witness.

    The whole Alex Jones/ Bill Hicks is the same dynamic going as there is a third person not discussed…the real Alex Jones! {see my next post below} Both Alan Watt and Jim Fetzer talk about the techniques of disinformation: the goal is to make everything possible but nothing knowable. This can cause problems when trying to convince others of replacements. An important point to remember is that the goal s to diddle with our minds and doubt ourselves. Deep in our hearts, we know that something is off. That we are right. A person thinks “That’s Bowie!” behind the disguise, and, yet can not receive validation from peers as they encounter a sophisticated disinfo campaign with a near look alike already put in place.

    Comments are welcome.

    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    in reply to: The David Bowie PSYOP #549819
    richard benedict
    Participant

    “Ziggy Stardust”

    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    in reply to: Fake Celebrities: The Three Faces of Keith Richards #429505
    richard benedict
    Participant

    I will not even compare Keith2 with real Keith, because it is obvious that it is not him. I will compare him with Feith1 (first replacement from late sixties), I place three comps below.

    The first double’s eyes are bigger than of real Keith, but the second double’s eyes are even BIGGER. They are huge and dark – that’s why even more make up. His nose is way longer and has a bump. His face is wider than Feith1’s. Lips are even longer and the upper lip is flat.

    OK, the last one is comp of real Keith with Feith2, just for a laugh…

    🙂

    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    in reply to: Fake Celebrities: The Three Faces of Keith Richards #429499
    richard benedict
    Participant

    Continuing on Keith Richard and both of his replacements…

    Here’s Feith 2, the second replacement, who appeared in mid seventies. In analogy with The Beatles, the first replacement was much better (can be compared with Cheatles 1964-1966), while the second one doesn’t remind us of Keith at ll, like Sgt, Pepperish Featles doesn’t remind folks of The Lads.

    1978

    1982

    Go to 3:27 mark below

    to be continued

    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    in reply to: Fake Celebrities: The Three Faces of Keith Richards #429494
    richard benedict
    Participant

    Here is the first replacement with his evil band mates paying homage to the Big Boss Man:

    And again:

    Replacement Keith getting up close and personal:

    note the teeth at:58 sec mark

    Now go to the 3:28 mark below and see the original Keith and his teeth.

    Pix of second replacement below.

    The first double had bigger eyes than Keith, that’s why he began to wear a make up. And he also was wearing a nose silicone piece.[See the interview above. The nose piece is readily apparent] You can easily identify the first double by the changed hairdo (hair stood up).

    The first double had bigger eyes than Keith – this is the main marker to differ him from real Keith. There’s also a difference in face form, muscles around the mouth. lips lenth, lenth of the chin (shorter chin), eyes distance (wider set eyes) but they are too slight. You cannot point your finger on them. But due to all of them the double gives an overall different impression, when you get used to photos.

    Another main marker is the skin. Real Keith’s skin is white, looks even and soft. He was always clean shaven. The replacememnt’s skin is rugged, and he seems to have much denser and darker facial hair.

    So, the eyes size and form, and the skin.

    to be continued

    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    in reply to: August 2015 #362692
    richard benedict
    Participant

    Welcome, Matthew, from the Deep South of the United States. As they say in these parts”..ya done good”

    in reply to: August 2015 #359618
    richard benedict
    Participant

    Welcome Steve, I look forward to reading your book and reading any comments you make. Thanks for the free download.

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 43 total)