So, I spent an hour today and did some research. (This has really be gnawing at my head since I saw Jack Steven.) Everybody keeps saying that no record of Steven exits before Bowie or that Steven exists only in one video called "Dallas Roundtable." This isn't true. I've written something called the "Jack Steven Timeline", which makes it very clear that Steven is not Bowie. The earliest first hand proof that Jack Steven exists can be traced to 1982. (Even if Bowie had concocted Steven, there's no way he could have done that.)
"Jack Steven Timeline"
~In August 1956, Jack Steven is born.
~From 1970‐1980, Stevens claims he was the International Manager and Profession Manager for companies such as Essex Music, Dick James Music, and Chappell Music (the largest independent music publisher) managing the publishing of work from acts such as The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, The Who, T Rex, Elton John, and songwriters such as Terry Britten (Tina Turner) and Geoff Stephenson (Barry Manilow).
~"From 1980‐1990, Jack Steven ran the A&R divisions of Paramount films, RCA Records, CBS Records, and MCA Records, discovering diverse acts such as Eurythmics and Sade; and product manager for acts such as David Bowie, George Michael, and Musical Youth." (This is from Steven's LinkedIn, it's the only thing I don't understand. How was a 14 year old kid running film or music companies?)
~In September 1981, Eurythmics premiere the album, In the Garden.
~In 1981, Jack Steven was a junior A&R member at RCA in London. Steven was a young “street kid” at the time tasked with signing new acts to RCA. Steven fell in love with Annie Lennox’s voice when Eurythmics performed on Old Grey Whistle Test.
~Later in 1981, Steven told the head of RCA to keep Eurythmics and drop the rest of the bands that RCA had signed. (Steven was unaware that RCA had actually just dropped the band.) Steven gained a reputation as hard to handle and was almost fired from RCA three times. Jack Stevens was a huge source of help and provided a lot of assistance.
~In 1982, the single of This Is The House features a thank you to Steven.
~In 1982, Eurythmics dropped all managers and conducted all business out of Steven's office at RCA. All ideas for the record, artwork, and tours were planned in Steven's office. RCA ultimately agreed to resign the band. Annie Lennox remembers how Jack Steven, aided by Sheila Sedgwick, convinced RCA to resign Eurythmics. Eurythmics retreats to Chalk Farm in Northern London. In 1982, Lennox has a nervous breakdown and Stewart experiences a collapsed lung. Eurythmics frequently conducts business out of Steven’s office.
~In September 1982, behind the Marketing Director of RCA’s back, Steven arranged for Eurythmics to shoot a music video for “Love Is A Stranger” was shot in a limousine, bathroom, Hammersmith Bridge, and outside Dave Stewart's mother's Maida Vale flat.
~At the end of 1982, Eurythmics plotted the band's next album with Jack Steven. Steven was pressured by RCA and given a budget of 15,000 pounds to do the album. Most albums at the time cost 60,000 pounds to record. Jack convinced Dave Stewart to continue producing Annie rather than find another producer.
~Also at the end of 1982, Steven demanded an extra 70,000 pounds for the funding of Eurythmic's promotional tour. The Managing Director at RCA was enraged that Steven, a junior A&R, was making such requests.
~In January 1983, Eurythmics releases Sweet Dreams and there’s also some difficulty over the artwork due to the cutting edge images used, RCA wants more conceptual stuff. Also in 1983, RCA reissues In the Garden. Steven burst into the RCA office and demanded a recall. Jack introduces Eurythmics to Laurence Stevens, fresh out of college, who will design the artwork for Sweet Dreams.
~The week before February 28, 1984, Jack Steven attended a dinner that RCA set up between Annie Lennox and a Radio 1 executive. After she was offended at something the executive said, Lennox told the executive off. The Head of Promotions at RCA pulled Annie Lennox from a big event.
~In 1984, Steven decides to use Geffen Records to release the next album rather than RCA America. RCA America gets in a fight with Steven. RCA still releases the record.
~From 1990‐2000, Jack set up his own independent management production company which developed acts such as Jay Kay (Jamiroquai) and Dorren Waddle (Soul To Soul); he developed the music label of the Ministry of Sound; and was the Executive Producer and instigator of the Session Series (which to this day is the most successful dance compilation series in the world). He subsequently joined M&G Records (owned by Lord Michael Levy, personal advisor to the Right Honorable Tony Blair).
~In 1991, Zoe presented Jack Steven with an album that would become Scarlet Red and Blue. Steven, who was the new A&R Director at M&G records, was impressed and arranged for a concurrent US release of the album by RCA.
~In May 11, 1996 of Billboard, Steven appears hyping Zoe’s Hammer.
~In August 2, 1997 of Billboard, Steven announces signing of Jai.
~In May 2009, Pete Freedman, Music Editor of the Dallas Observer, and Hunter Hauk, Quick Entertainment Editor, release “Dallas Music Roundtable” which features Steven. Steven is in Dallas, has a record label in London that is distributed through Universal. Chardan, Eva Cherry, Xray Specs, Bow Wow Wow, Jamiroqui. Is on vacation in Dallas because he has a girlfriend that he has fallen in love with. Steven lists his age as 53. Trying to get into the scene.
~In January 2010, Jack Steven founds Kuba Entertainment. Founds Kuba along with Larry Little. Kuba signs Apartment, Ashock, Florence Welch of Florence and the Machine. Kuba manages the Sansara Festival.
~At some undisclosed time this decade, Steven founds Kew4, an online music marketing/PR company.
~In January 2013, Jack Steven founds 3Fifty5 in Cyprus. He does this along with Anthony Melas aka A.M. SNiPER. Melas calls his cultural home Cyprus. Melas claims relationships with Kanye West, 50 Cent, Memphis Bleek, Akon, Julian Marley, Juelz Santana, NORE, Sway, Mutya Buena, Curtis Young, Rick Ross, Lethal Bizzle, Sway, JME, Ghetts, Wiley, and others.
~In February 2013, Jack Steven founds Fortress Music.
Sources This Is The House Single, 1982/ Billboard May 11, 1996/ Billboard August 2, 1997/ Virgin Encyclopedia of Music, 2000/ Annie Lennox: The Biography by Lucy Ellis, 2001/ Dallas Music Roundtable, 2009/ Sweet Dreams Are Made of This by Dave Stewart, February 9, 2016/ Jack Steven’s LinkedIn
Celia is never wrong. :) There must be another explanation.
Perhaps the same actor played Bowie and Steven concurrently, although never simultaneously, of course?
Barry Humphries played Dame Edna Everage and Sir Les Patterson for years. What gave the game away to astute ten-year-old observers was that you never saw those two characters in the same room. Adults were aware from from the start that this was a case of an actor playing two characters, of course.
In Bowie's case, it's a little less straightforward, as Bowie himself was an actor and a performer who changed personas as frequently as a chameleon changes is camouflage throughout a long career in the music industry.
Was Bowie really an actor/performer, or was he himself a character invented by the artist originally named David Robert Jones?
And if Bowie was an unacknowledged music industry character, then what would stop Jones from inventing or playing the role of another unacknowledged music industry character called John Steven?
(Possibly relevant trivia: The surname Steven comes from the Old English stefn, stemn (“voice, sound”).)
Frally Fratelli reckons that two people have played the role of John Steven and that one of them (the one shown in the interview above) is Bowie. Perhaps the other John Steven is the man in the following video.
One last observation. There is a lot of mosaic (squares) on the Sky News video, particularly around Steven's face. This is an indication that it has been digitally faked to insert Bowie's face onto Steven's body.
On the other hand, it could be evidence that Bowie was and is a reptilian shape-shifting entity who is having difficulty maintaining human form. :)
You "saw" David Bowie on that Sky News interview because the people making the video wanted you to "see" him. And not just you, but most people who are familiar with Bowie's face.
I "saw" Bowie too. But like Margaret Anna Alice, I also saw mosaicing around the head, which is evidence of crude and obvious deliberate tampering. It's as plain as the nose-out shot on 9/11.
The New York Post ran a short article on this story at the time.
It would be nice to see a video of the original broadcast without the tampering. But so far I haven't been able to locate one. Did somebody make a crude deepfake in order to play a prank? And if so, at what stage? I can't conceive that the original broadcast would have been put out with all those video editing artifacts on it.
On youtube, I saw a video in which it's suggested that Steven's is a real person who resembles Bowie. And for this particular interview, Stevens was impersonated by Bowie as part of a Revelation of the Method.
I didn't see any suggestion in Celia's post that Jack Steven wasn't a real person with a history. Seems to me you're assuming that on your own. What if David Bowie was a character, or alter-ego, played by Steven? This is the entertainment industry we're talking about, where playing a convincing character IS the business.
And the evidence was much more than that. Not only did Steven drop a bunch of suggestions that he and Bowie are 'connected', but I watch the person behind the words. Steven was as comfortable in front of the camera as any A-list actor, and when he spoke of how deep the 'loss' of Bowie was to him, he showed zero emotion of loss of someone close. Rather, his emotions were very positive toward that 'loss'.
Of course none of this 'proves' anything, but when weighed objectively it adds weight to the suspicion that they are the same person. And, it all creates more questions than answers.
Amazing. At age 14 Steven was, among other notable positions, the international manager of Essex Music. Thanks for giving us an accurate timeline of this marvelous person who is not David Bowie.
I think the time frame given by 2SG was “From 1970-1980” he claimed he was international manager (or whatever the title was). So Robert’s correct, Steven would’ve been only 14 years old when he started his reign in 1970.
There is some evidence that Steven interviewed Bowie at some point. Sure. But the similarity is beyond a mere passing one. I just think the strangest thing is that he’s SUDDENLY brought out the very day Bowie died. And the interviewer doesn’t even mention, “Hey has anyone told you you look just like the dude you’re eulogizing?” I think a lot of this stuff is done to willfully confuse the masses. I’m not buying the whole “every celebrity is trans” thing, but you gotta admit, when a trans person was crowned Miss Netherlands this week…. Had they not told us explicitly that this was a trans person, I would never have known!
The point is, they’re now telling us openly. I don’t know a single woman with a body like the Victorias Secret models. Some people have looked at their gender markers and say they’re trans. We would never know. But now they’re openly telling us.
However it's also clear that the interview of 'Jack Steven' on Bowies death does not look like the original Jack Steven and indeed looks and sounds more like Bowie (compare pics here https://twitter.com/EmmaRoulstone/status/1308745153826484226)
Also of interest, in his last few mths Bowie wrote a musical 'Lazarus' and shot the film clip for the song Lazarus. The musical Lazarus was about "a humanoid alien who is stuck on Earth, unable to die or return to his home planet." (a similar vibe with Elon Musk quipping that he keeps telling people he is an alien but no one believes him).
As I'm sure most know, Lazarus was a biblical character that Jesus raised from the dead after 4 days. Apparently the last account Bowie followed on Twitter had the handle 'God'. https://twitter.com/consequence/status/686752002064429061
This is reminiscent of the 'Dave Dave' interview on Michael Jackson post his death. Was Dave Dave a separate person? Yes. However, that does not preclude the possibility that Jackson dressed up as Dave Dave to give an interview post his death.
Appreciated the Miles Mathis paper about David Bowie and Prince:
"But if Prince and David Bowie were agents in a project, what was the point of that project? Well, we have already seen it above, when I said Bowie was promoting schizophrenia, paranoia, delusion, androgyny and bisexuality. The mainstream bios admit he was doing that. It is no secret. And Prince was doing the same thing. That's Project Chaos, and of course it has continued to accelerate since Prince's heyday. All those things and many more are being used to break up the male-female relationship, the family, and the general stability. "
That paper is pretty funny, but the reasoning is tautological. He lost me at numerology. I went back and read more and there was a lot of gibberish. I am with him on the CIA movies, and iffy on the origins of Bowie. I wrote poetry and knew poets in my late teens and early 20s and it's not impossible to find people writing incredibly good lyrics at that age. So Bowie's lyrics never shined as much. He was a sellout and that's hardly surprising. And as for Prince--I don't even like his music but as a musician he is practically unparalled.
Lol. i've chatted with Miles. He didn't trust me - said he suspected I was an agent., because I'd actually spoken to some of the people he talks about.
~From 1970‐1980, Stevens claims he was the International Manager and Profession Manager for companies such as Essex Music, Dick James Music, and Chappell Music (the largest independent music publisher) managing the publishing of work from acts such as The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, The Who, T Rex, Elton John, and songwriters such as Terry Britten (Tina Turner) and Geoff Stephenson (Barry Manilow).
He would have been fourteen years old in 1970. Isn't that a bit young to be an International Manager in the music industry? Also, as the Beatles broke up in 1969, it is a bit of a stretch to imagine this teenager publishing their work in the seventies.
"(This is from Steven's LinkedIn, it's the only thing I don't understand. How was a 14 year old kid running film or music companies?)"
Well, that alone puts the whole thing in doubt if you ask me. Don't forget that this is the internet, where history can be rewritten and republished at the drop of a hat. It sounds convincing, but then if you were faking something of this magnitude, you'd put some effort into making it convincing wouldn't you? And frankly, anyone with a reasonable knowledge of the industry could write this kind of Bio in half a day. Anyone with enough clout with a social media company like LinkedIn could have the bio creation date revised as well, these creation dates aren't set in stone, quite the opposite, they are set in electronic bits and bytes, which any programmer with adequate access to the servers can modify at any time.
Bowie was/is a very wealthy man and his handlers are even wealthier, and they basically control not only the entertainment but also the social media industry. If they seriously meant to pull this off they'd have an entire team working on it for weeks or even months, creating the persona of Jack Steven, complete with history, not just on LinkedIn, but also on other sites, and they'd do so retrospectively, thanks to the malleable nature of the internet. The video/s of Jack Steven that can be found on youtube, for example, can quite easily be faked, especially if Bowie willingly participates in their making, no need to even deep fake them! Other industry stars would willingly participate in abetting such a cover up. After all, they themselves might want or need an out some day, especially if the alternative is being accidented or suicided, because their handlers have decided that they've passed their useby date.
Or, as David pointed out, maybe Bowie played both Bowie and Steven at the same time. Since Steven was a small side gig, not requiring any very professional production, that'd be pretty easy to pull off. Just slap on the goofy wig and a cheap suit and talk to some people for 15 minutes once a month or maybe just twice a year. Not really a big deal
Otoh Bowie was getting old (69, hmm another one of these funny numbers, and within two days of his birthday) at his supposed time of death, and none of the above is definitive by any means. Also Stevens, if he's really Bowie, would have been 71 at the time of the interview, yet he doesn't look that old. Then there's the old question of motive, ie why would they bother with this at all?
Otooh, these points can also be rebutted, let's take the age as an easy target. If one looks at the last photo of Bowie that pops up on a google search, he's presumably 68 years old, looking pretty good for that age of course, so if we add 2 to 3 years to that photo, but slap a goofy brown haired toupee on him, then we basically get Jack. Jack does indeed look exactly like Bowie at 68-69, but has somewhat larger circles under his eyes and droopier skin around the mouth. Iow, exactly what one would expect to happen from someone who still looks good at 68, but then gets whacked by the aging club after he hits 70. In french we call this "un coup de vieux", to reflect the fact that these unwanted physical changes tend to hit us fairly suddenly. The whole thing is of course dissimulated by the youngish looking goofie toupee.
I'd hesitate to declare certainty either way, but there are certainly good grounds for suspicion.
Your citations of sources are inadequate for the claims. They may turn out to be adequate, but the work I'd have to do to hunt down the actual verification is unreasonable to expect, if you're expecting us to believe you uncritically.
"... when I walked away from a lucrative career in the fashion business in NY, I ran into someone on the street from that world who blurted out, "Oh my god! Everyone thinks you're dead!" Since no one could imagine I just wanted to walk away. The world is a very funny place. ha."
Probably to obscure the deep-fake effect on Steven and make it look like it's a technical glitch across the whole video. I haven't had time to listen to the video with sound so am not drawing a definitive conclusion but just know that is a typical indicator of a manipulated video.
It’s one of my favorite songs from “my youth” (high school). Even saw BS in person at my County Fair! So those word are imbedded into my brain. Something seemed ‘off’ so I looked it up to verify…the brain is still chugging along some 56 years later! 😉🧐🤪
Oh my. He's "phenomenal" if secondary, tenuous and circumstantial evidence is enough for you. I've never read such speculative, reaching, grasping nonsense in my life as on his site.
I wouldn't doubt anything much in this crazy upside down we're in. Yes I had seen this early on and I think this one is a staged death. What about if someone like Paul McCartney was dead for decades? Have you heard about that?
Beatle George Harrison's widow Olivia Harrison greets the fake Paul McCartney replacement by his real name "Hello, Billy!" in 2003 at the Concert for George.
Standing nearby is Billy's second wife Heather Mills in the gold dress, so she is also in the know. ALL of the Beatles' wives and inner circle know he's a talented though fake Paul. "Nothing is real."
🎸+ 🎸+ 🥁 + 🎻 = the original 4 lads
4 lads minus -🎻(?⚰️?💀?) in 1966 = only 3 lads left
3 + William Campbell Shepherd/Billy Shears/Faul = 4 again starting in 1967 on Sgt. Pepper
What convinces most doubters is many dozens of photographs. Once one compares the 1960-1966 photographs with the 1967-present photographs, one sees the facial differences ... and realizes that after 1966 the role of Paul McCartney is being played by a different man/replacement actor.
channel - "The Shadow of a Bass Man"
"#7 Paul McCartney vs Billy Shears Photo Comparison Discussion"
I've spent many hours on this. I find the photographic / videographic evidence not only laughable but surreal. Paul's physiognomy is highly singular. There's no one on the planet who looks quite like him (though some have vague resemblances to features of his physiognomy -- for example a young Sly Stallone has similar droopy eyes). There's a powerful je ne sais quoi similiarity about his appearance post-supposed death that matches the pre-death Paul -- a similarity far more remarkable than any supposedly perceived subtle difference in earlobes or whatever.
That said, I have noted an interesting change in early Paul to later Paul. Early Paul in concerts routinely bobbed his head side to side, whereas (unless I'm mistaken and missed some) in concerts after 1966 (what few there were) up to the Abbey Road rooftop, then his early Wings era -- no head bobbing at all.
You can't really believe this. No'one can. There is a continuous series of public appearances, interviews and of him playing bass and singing, often in public. What on earth are you talking about? Do you think someone could go into your job tomorrow and impersonate you and no'one would notice?
"... There is a continuous series of public appearances, interviews and of him playing bass and singing, often in public. ..."
Not really continuous. The Beatles quit touring in '66 (why would they do that suddenly?) and they all changed their appearances by growing mustaches for the next LP release in '67 (perhaps to disguise the departure/or/death of biological Paul and the substitution of his replacement Billy/Faul by changing the appearances of all 4 Beatles at once).
IIRC after 1966 they appeared in public as the Beatles only TWICE:
1- They performed "Hey Jude" on the David Frost show in Sept. '68.
2- They performed for just 42 min. in the "rooftop concert" Jan. '69 on the roof of Apple Records studios.
That's it.
"... of him playing bass ..."
You also mention them playing playing bass guitar.
Well, as far as comparing the differences in how LEFT-handed bio Paul and RIGHT-handed Billy played the bass, they play very differently:
Bio Paul was a super smooth bass player who rarely if ever needed to bend his head down to look at where his fingers are going on the neck of the bass when he plays; whereas Billy/Faul was RIGHT-handed, had to learn how to play a LEFT-handed bass ... and to Billy's credit, he did it ... BUT Billy was never as good as bio Paul ... which is why Billy when playing constantly has to bend his head down to watch where he places his fingers on the frets, examples in link here:
Something serious happened in 1966. Something that jeopardized the Beatles enterprise. Biological Paul was replaced with Billy. There were millions of dollars and British pounds at stake. They felt they had to do a substitution ... Surely you've heard the expression "The show must go on"?
Musicians, like Hollywood actors, are governed by the legally-binding contracts they sign. They are people, yes, but are also owned PROPERTIES. The contracts limit what they are permitted to do and say without breaching the agreements.
The remaining 3 Beatles were only young lads in their 20's in 1966. The big decisions would have been decided for them, not by them, in 1966. E.M.I./Capitol records would have been calling the shots, not so much John, George, Ringo ... nor Billy.
The 5 Beatles have played their roles. Ringo and Billy are STILL playing their roles to this day!
I'm actually from Liverpool and very familiar with the history of The Beatles, and also a guitarist and musician. Your argument is simply ludicrous and full of Miles Mathis-like reasoning, where "they all changed their appearances by growing mustaches" is considered evidence. I cannot believe anyone can think something so ridiculous.
Perhaps you need to hear it "from the horse's own mouth"?
Paul McCartney 2.0 / Faul / William Shepherd / Billy Shears admits here, in one of the very best short video clips, that he was asked to join the Beatles AFTER the band was "ALREADY FORMED," that "I'd been lucky just falling into the Beatles," that "They asked me to join," "So that was there ... I never had to form a group." "No, I didn't get the Beatles together at all." "That was ... already formed."... and, as u listen, observe how Paul 2.0's RIGHT (prosthetic) eye has a tendency to wander OUT OF SYNC with his good LEFT eye:
Paul 2.0 / Billy Shears:"They asked me to join The Beatles."
Paul 2.0, whoever he really is, has *repeatedly* made MANY admissions (and various masterfully-spoken references) over the years concerning the switcheroo. NUMEROUS instances of this caught on this 7-min video here:
"The truth is in front of us - Billy Shears has admitted many times that he replaced Paul in 1966"
A good book to have a little dive into on the subject is called the life and death of Paul McCartney by Nicholas Kollerstrom. All the world's indeed a stage!
P.I.D. rivals Flat Earth as my favorite conspiracy theory. Mike Williams is the main expert/grifter promoting that. He seems like a nice guy, articulate, personable; yet there's a glint in his eyes that (along with of course his batshit content) indicates schizophrenic disconnection from the Mothership.
"... He seems like a nice guy, articulate, personable; yet there's a glint in his eyes that (along with of course his batshit content) indicates schizophrenic disconnection from the Mothership."
No. Mike Williams/Sage of Quay is a sane, logical, and serious researcher. Mike would never base a hypothesis or an argument on somebody having "a glint in his eyes," 🙄 nor would Mike dismiss anyone out of hand by calling their content "batshit." 🙄
Mike/Sage of Quay deals in facts and sources about the Beatles. Mike is also very importantly a musician himself, which is key to his detecting musical fakery in the recording industry.
The tale of the 4 lads from Liverpool rising from rags-to-riches because they were musical geniuses was a Cinderella story ... in fact the Beatles were the biggest of all the Cinderella stories in the highly fictionalized music industry ... as well as the most successful social engineering experiment of the era.
His very fine Paul-is-dead research may have the (unintended or intended) effect of promoting sales of the historical fiction "The Memoirs of Billy Shears" (various editions) ... idk ... but Mike's videos are definitely worth a closer look ... and they are FREE of charge to watch.
Like many of us who were lied to that Lennon/McCartney were genius songwriters who wrote all their own songs, arranged their own songs, and played their own instruments on their recordings, Mike Williams is obviously also a GENUINELY DISAPPOINTED FAN to learn the truth:
*** That the Beatles merely SANG the harmonies -- not unlike karaoke -- on songs WRITTEN BY OTHER PEOPLE like Theodore Adorno ... and arranged by producer George Martin ... over instrumental tracks pre-recorded by truly skilled session musicians (following the Wrecking Crew model). ***
Mike Williams needs to submit to a long critical interview with an interviewer who will ask critical questions and follow-up questions -- politely but firmly probing apparent weak spots in his theory. Mike Williams has created a safe cocoon of brown-nosing fans and colleagues who already agree with him. He needs to be tested by critical skeptics and to my knowledge he hasn't done that.
Yes! I went down that rabbit hole a couple years ago and was stunned to find there was a lot of hard-to-ignore evidence indicating Paul may have died back in the 60s (car accident I think was suggested..?) and replaced following a “look-a-like” contest. It’s been too long since I dug into this and my memory fails me, but the most intriguing evidence to me involved a team of Italian forensic pathologists/analysts (a man/women team) who set out initially to debunk the persistent “rumors” of Paul’s death decades before, but were stunned to find that their in-depth investigation actually ended up confirming (in their minds, conclusively) that Paul had indeed died and been replaced in the 60s. As I recall, this team’s findings were quite convincing.
Researcher Mike Williams (Sage of Quay) has in my opinion definitively proved Paul was replaced in 1966. He also proved that they did not write any of their music pre 1966 or play the instruments on their recordings. The Beatles were a cut from whole cloth Tavistock institute creation designed to move the culture in the precise way the controllers wanted. As John Lennon famously sung but almost definitely did not write “nothing is real”. That’s the biggest truth drop in pop music
Not to me. Williams is talented at weaving a tissue of bewildering word salad that seems beguilingly to lead from one claim to the next, creating a mesmerizing narrative, but it tends to fall apart on closer inspection of any specific detail.
Miles Mathis has a similar theory about Elvis except he thinks one twin died and the remaining twin still makes appearances. He also thinks Lennon is still alive.
I'm not saying this theory is true- but it's not impossible once you realize the extent of MSM propaganda. And yes, I'm aware that some accuse Mathis of being a Tavistock writing committee (the same institution that allegedly wrote the Beatles songs)- but that doesn't mean Mathis doesn't reveal genuine truth per the Revelation of the Method.
"I'm not saying this theory is true- but it's not impossible" - are some of you people are losing your minds? Since when is the category of "not impossible" interesting? How about we continue to make the distinction between to things we think happened and things we think didn't happen.
Do you think the "Miles Mathis has a similar theory about Elvis except he thinks one twin died and the remaining twin still makes appearances" thing is true? If so, say so. If not, why argue with me about things that aren't true just, because they aren't "impossible"?
Speaking of parody, if you were to ask "Are the experimental mRNA injections safe and effective?", Google will tell you that they are FDA approved (which is another lie) and that they are "safe and effective."
You could say that about the last 3 years John, or even the the whole of the false reality that has been painted for us our whole lives, but you can't deny that all the crazy of these years still actually happened. Everything that has been sold to us is parody.. they are literally taking the piss. Its what they do.
You are not thinking clearly. I'm claiming X, and you are saying "no, Y is true". You are arguing with me again just to argue. Rather than sit on the fence - do you think Elvis was a twin, and that one of them died and the other is still around making appearances? You have your savings one the line, do you bet it on this being true or not true? Yes or no?
If you think it's the truth, say so. If not, why are you arguing with me? I don't deny the last three years has contained events that seem impossible, that celebrities have been paid off etc. - but this does not mean any impossible-sounding celebrity event is true. Some of them can be false. Like this - Mathis has some absolute bollocks theories on his website, and this is one of them.
One problem with your anecdote. Paul is on record answering questions on the Internet from fans. One was "Are you a vegan?" He promptly answered: "No. I'm a vegetarian."
It's a little segment he does. He's sitting in a chair reading questions off a screen and answering them. He himself is talking for the camera. This isn't some text written by a staffperson.
Billy's Q&A on the internet only proves that he's cultivated a fairly smooth, charming persona as an actor ... and Billy should be pretty good at it by now ... But even with 57 years to practice, he still has slipped-up on numerous occasions ... Billy's slip-ups usually tend to be factual errors concerning the historical details of biological Paul's very close friendship from 1957 to 1966 with John Lennon ... a period of time Billy/Faul is much less familiar with, because Billy wasn't there.
Asking Goolag or Wikipedia for info = wasting time.
That may be, but the specific point was that he himself says he's a vegetarian, not a vegan (which even in the conspiracy narrative would be unobjectionable because the transition into vegetarianism began long after the "death" -- some time in 1969 or 1970), so that anecdote about some "Vegan" operation under Paul/Faul's direction doesn't pass the smell test.
And the half-eaten sandwich found in her London flat gave flight to the rumor that Ellen Naomi Cohen (who played the role of "Mama" Cass Elliot) had choked to death on a ham sandwich. And since she was fat, the public ate it up (pun intended).
Keith Moon, drummer for The Who died 4 years later in the very same London flat where Mama Cass had her "heart attack." Could be both were taken out (?).
Many 1960s performers had family in military and/or intelligence backgrounds ... Like Sharon Tate's father Paul Tate ... Like David Crosby's father was too ... and like Jim Morrison's father Admiral George Morrison, who was in charge of the ships involved in the (faked) "Gulf of Tonkin" incident -- immediately used by President Lyndon B. Johnson to deceive the US into supporting the big ramp-up of the Vietnam War.
If anyone's just getting started on this material, Dave McGowan's work on Laurel Canyon is an eye-opener to say the least.
Keith Moon also apparently accidentally ran over and killed his chauffeur in the Bentley. This story is so bizarre that I tend to believe it has to be true.
Celia! Hoppas du ser detta! Yes, that Bowie video is equal parts shocking and hilarious - BUT. The wildest celebrity “death” was Anne Heche’s. PLEASE google the woman whose house she supposedly rammed into with her car, Lynne Mishele. You might think they’ve put Anne’s picture there because it’s related to the article. But no :-) Just google it.
"... A very good reminder to anyone NOT to cross Ellen DeGeneres. Ever."
DJ Stephen 'tWitch' Boss, Ellen DeGeneres' Co-Host & DJ, was found dead in a hotel at age 40 in Dec. 2022. Which is strangely interesting , IMO, coming fairly soon after the August 5 2022 fiery car crash allegedly involving Anne Heche who is allegedly dead now also.
Lost Angeles is Satan's playground therefore it's almost impossible to know who's a spook, or who committed suicide versus was knocked off by the powerful in Hollyweird.
I wouldn't wanna live in that kill box.
photo of Stephen 'tWitch' Boss' Family Guide: Wife Allison Holker, 3 Kids
Trying to learn from Celia Farber and take her seriously but this person with her name keeps getting in the way with wacko bs like this. Can we please get Celia Farber to stop spreading nonsense that undermines Celia Farber's credibility? Someone told me they are the same person, but I just can't imagine the intelligent and well-sourced journalist and historian would be the same person spreading weird unsubstantiated claims that some tv host is David Bowie who faked his own death. I mean, if you were Pharma trying to discredit the real Farber it wouldn't get any more perfect than this. I was just watching her interview with Mercola and want to read more of Farber's work... then I come across this other person with her name and well I lose my confidence what can I say.
That's an interesting comment. Several Internet writers I follow have had to deal with this problem, and have sent out email messages about having had their identity 'borrowed.' I agree -- this does not seem like the Celia Farber I admire so much.
I don't think I spread nonsense. I think I allowed a post about a very strange thing, which has now garnered many interesting comments on all sides, so indeed—it's either a planted Tavistock-ish PSY Op, or it's a path to serious questions-- but nobody is worse off for discovering there are all these "rabbit holes."
And I'm not in any need of anybody admiring me. I just work here.
I find a similar quality of self-sabotage whenever Celia or Katherine Watt over extends the antichrist metaphor or couches great analysis inside of so much christian mythos or rhetoric & also then exclusively decorate their ideas with Christian iconography. It totally prevents a vast audience of would-by sympathizers who take a banal aesthetic view of new content & don't have the sophistication to parse ideosyncratic, personalized framing from legit factual content and universal concerns like free will, liberty, privacy, analogue identity, and everything inherent to the Bill of Rights.
I'm so glad for these great researchers that the Christian deity inspires them, but it reads as so much superstition to secular non-christians, and the unintended result is that those people who need to understand this stuff throw the baby out with the bath water.
I must reserve a special comment for the satan-projection impulse, which is perhaps the most frustrating motif in this sphere. Satan is an Abrahamic deity, folks. If you're christian he's yours; he's a part of you & your cosmology. Every Satanist is a Christian at root and every Christian is a Satan-enabler. He's inside your stories that you have elected to repeat & embrace. It's not some outside religious personification. It's not Other from you; it's merely "other" within you.
Think about the implications: IF in fact some of the elite globalists, vatican hierarchy, Royals & whomever else who possess your imagination as evil personified (I agree they are, by and large, in any case)... if they really do practice satanic child sacrifice and all that other morbid pomp, guess where they got their ideas from? They got them from you! They got it from your cosmology so evangelically and self-righteously cast about willy nilly to "save" everyone. Nice work Christians. Just like so many Christians hastening the return of the Jews to their homeland, so they, too, can get their own private Zion eternal holiday package.
I mostly jest. Don't take it personally.
The Christian mystics even assert that "The Evil One" is a personification of the physical body itself, and so belongs to everyone who has the privilege, the grace to be a physical living being (as viewed through an Abrahamic lens.) It's a warning against NOT cultivating higher function & abandoning spirit all together.
People of other faiths and cosmologies do not meditate (pro or con) on the figure of the devil. And if you do meditate/pray against the figure of Satan too much, then it generally means that you may be leaning away from your vaunted monotheism and even abandoning the trinity, because in practice you have embraced dualism, which closely resembles the computer's mind, or a quaternion structure of divinity, one that demonizes the South, just as do the colonialists whom we should all loath for their evil, inhuman treatment of other divine beings - that is, living beings imbued with spirit.
I really wish we... even agnostics, atheists, gnostics, Buddhists, Taoists, Dudeists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and everyone in between... could thoughtfully meditate together and in conversation on the profound metaphor of The Beast/Anti-Christ/Borg as a rational shorthand and useful personification of the Technocratic Leviathan which is hell-bent on the bio-digital convergence, the singularity, 4IR, Great Reset, what-have-you. We need to socially and civically, constructively personify this thing & understand it is an analogy describing an extremely complex REAL phenomena, a Frankensteinean simulacra of universal proportion, a bad imitation of the omniscient/omnipotant Totality, and it is of such immense universal threat to every aspect of humanity and of nature itself, that we cannot ignore it, misname it, mistake it for our blind neighbor, or underestimate it.
But instead for so many otherwise good writers The Beast becomes lazy shorthand, or something integral to that vision of the final battle that so many Christians fantasize will bring the fulfillment of His prophecy through a world devastating conflagration. That image of fire & brimstone is exactly what the depopulation globalists want! And you risk enabling them getting it all the faster.
Here's a little FYI: The minute we descend into violence in this fight against the emergent globalist hegemon is the minute that you've lost sight of your Savior's lessons, and mark this: it is the minute when THEY/IT will win.
As Lennon said (while we're on about the Beatles): "The minute you turn to violence, they know exactly what to do with you."
This fight is going to take an infinite well of forgiveness, fortitude, faith that it can be won, patience, beatific grace, and a cultivation of zen-like acceptance if some kind of analogue humanity can survive this long campaign toward monoculture. We need to make the enemies our friends & that's going to be the only way it will work out. And to do that we must be sympathetic to their habits of language, their connotations, ways of translating and understanding. Most important we need to be able to see ourselves entire in the mirror. It is not only ourselves that we will rescue, but it is they we will be rescuing, if we are successful, if we can help them understand what is at stake. Not by evangelism or smug certainty in our narratives, but by exposure and human dialog, in escape of the manipulations of the middlemen inside the screens, where they cannot see us, or color us darkly.
Keep your guns to protect yourself, of course, both literal and metaphorical, but aspire to assemble Christian Armies at your own certain peril. You'll surely get the dramatic armageddon you were looking for... And the Borg will then get its depopulation & Christian Slaves it so coveted, too, all in the same breath.
... And to the most important point:
Bowie IS alive.
But not how Celia was so easily seduced into believing. More like Elvis, or Lazarus, or the Christ, Himself: he lives in each of us, as we participate in animating the living logos by the recitation and re-performance of Their Great Works: Their words and songs resonating aloud, vibrating on the air, living libraries in palaces of sound.
Bowie was born on Elvis's birthday, a joke and an opportunity surely not lost on him. Of any celebrity in contemporary awareness, Bowie above all
others, instrumentalized his inevitable passage and built for himself an ark/argo in the form of his final works that held a mirror up to then incorporate his entire body of work. Before casting about for re-animated, faked-death Bowies, first become expert and intimate with everything he produced in his life. Neither will you be disappointed, nor will you look like a gullible, if occasional fool.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." - Often attributed to William J. Casey, CIA Director (1981) but probably too good to be real.
Barbara Honegger herself confirmed the attribution of the quote to Casey:
"Barbara Honegger, studied at Stanford University Answered Nov 25 2014
"I am the source for this quote, which was indeed said by CIA Director William Casey at an early February 1981 meeting of the newly elected President Reagan with his new cabinet secretaries to report to him on what they had learned about their agencies in the first couple of weeks of the administration.
"The meeting was in the Roosevelt Room in the West Wing of the White House, not far from the Cabinet Room. I was present at the meeting as Assistant to the chief domestic policy adviser to the President. Casey first told Reagan that he had been astonished to discover that over 80 percent of the ‘intelligence’ that the analysis side of the CIA produced was based on open public sources like newspapers and magazines.
"As he did to all the other secretaries of their departments and agencies, Reagan asked what he saw as his goal as director for the CIA, to which he replied with this quote, which I recorded in my notes of the meeting as he said it. Shortly thereafter I told Senior White House correspondent Sarah McClendon, who was a close friend and colleague, who in turn made it public. Barbara Honegger bshonegg@gmail.com
I tend to believe Barbara Honegger, mostly because of her excellent work on the bombs planted in the Pentagon on 9-11:
"Behind the Smoke Curtain - The 9/11 Pentagon Attack by Barbara Honegger - Barbara Honegger's presentation titled "Behind the Smoke Curtain" in Seattle's Town Hall Theater, January 12, 2013, on what happened and what didn't happen at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001."
(not yet taken down by YT as of this writing - EXCELLENT!!! Highly recommended.)
Also:
"Casey estimated that over 80% of intelligence was based on open public sources like newspapers and magazines; thus, disinforming the Soviets required disinforming the American public."
I believe it about the Casey remark, and furthermore I believe he included Reagan himself as the “American public “. Presidents are prisoners of their briefers who are prisoners of their briefers etc. It really comes down to who is fooling who who is then fooling us. If so our official government lines proscribed to us are formulated as a sort of group AI (to use the current most overused buzz-acronym) . This is the same as what happens to corporations which become inhuman in their actions but when someone gets to know the CEO they find them to be quite agreeable and helpless to stop the egregious behavior of the outlaw corporation. It comes down to profit at all costs driving the operating paradigm.
I swore it was him when Bowie “died” and I remember Prince “dying “ around the same time and his long lost “sister “ showed up to be interviewed,I believe it was them in each case
was thinking about bowie yesterday, not about how he might have faked his death, but rather, how he was the avant garde in many ways for what we are witnessing ( or fed ) these days...
(Kudos to MI6/CIA /Adorno - they wrote some great songs...)
and funny how Klaus Schwab likes to dress like Klaus Nomi- except when he's on vacation....
From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible makes clear, over and over, that those who trust their eyes will be led astray by plausible fakes... by sights, sounds, and smells... by sleights-of-hand, moods, and clever atmospherics. Which is not to take a position on the post topic. Bowie could be faking his death, or someone else could be faking Bowie faking. Either way, it's a hall of mirrors, and technology is only accelerating its reach and its sophistication.
"The grass withers, the flower fades,
But the word of our God stands forever." Isaiah 40:8
ROME IS BURNING. I don't give a s**t if Bowie is still alive, or sorry, if he passed. Why the distractions? Look at the latest Cindy Niles live stream video and see her describe what they've done to the city of Melbourne. Let's stay focused as to what's really going on instead of being distracted by whether stars fake their own death. If I had to sell my soul to the devil to get famous for a few million, I'd get out from under the grasp of my controllers by staging my own death if I were Bowie. So what about it? How is this relevant to what's being planned for the human being in the future technocratic, WEF, Klaus Schwab, Yuval Noah Harari and others wet dream for the trans human agenda? And what about Melbourne?
Cindy Niles explains it better than I can about Melbourne Australia. You're right about taking a break and having a good laugh at Clown World and its theatre of the absurd those ptsb try to pass off to the rest of us as normal.
First raw impression. Jack Steven is not David Bowie but there is a strong resemblance between the two men. Happens all the time. To pull this off they must have known each other and may even have been good friends. For the news clip above Bowie, after his 'death', slipped into the role of Steven, with Steven's agreement, and gave a sterling performance providing a eulogy for himself live on air. I can imagine them having had a great laugh in the pub after that one if they met.
It would also qualify as an artistic destruction of the media as an organ of current affairs reportage. Having crept into the heart of the news gathering beast Bowie would have pulled off a performance which utterly dismantles any semblance of credibility which is left of the media as a dissembler of facts. It displays the media as no more than a theater of lies. Bowie's performance as Jack Steven live on air would have been more real that the news of his death. What a thought!
At this point, nothing would surprise me because of what we've uncovered about "serial killer"(note the quotes) Jeffrey Dahmer. There's a HUGE story here just waiting to be picked up.
Right now most of the information is contained in our subreddit (TheDahmerCase) and in a Google Doc (150+ page dossier) that you can access via the subreddit (link in the sidebar). (You may have to create a Reddit account, sorry. We're moving the info to Substack.) We have a few of the articles here on Substack already.
Among other things we found victims alive, a victim who died in 1960, and the involvement of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee.
Jeff Dahmer was convicted based only on his confession. We have an in-depth legal analysis of HOW they pulled it off in the dossier, in the subreddit, and here on Substack. Wait until you see what they did.
So, why did Jeff Dahmer agree to star in a fake news story?
We speculate that his first - and only real victim - was killed ACCIDENTALLY in 1978...while Jeff was driving drunk. He had just turned 18 less than a month before. We think his father forced him to bury the body on their secluded property and not tell anyone. At some point, Jeff couldn't take it anymore and confessed. Then, some government agency had in front of them two middle class white men who would do anything to avoid spending the rest of their lives in a maximum security prison surrounded by violent offenders. They agreed to star in a fake news story.
You can make a bet this has happened to other people. It's so simple. They are making deals with people and then using their names and faces. My guess is Jeff Dahmer was given a new identity.
If you watch the two interviews with Jeff Dahmer you'll immediately see that he doesn't strike you as a gay serial killer. This is why.
From what we've been able to tell, it looks like it was cooked up to help the Archdiocese of Milwaukee with its problem regarding pedophile priests. Obviously, they had some help, but the key players all connect back to the Archdiocese.
I've heard that this case was fake but when so many things are said to be - and often shown to be - fake sometimes you just baulk and go, "No more!" but I have to say how you put it makes it sound reasonably compelling.
The legal process his attorney, Gerald Boyle, used alone shows it was a show trial. They disposed of the ''evidence'' before the trial even began in violation of a Wisconsin statute. Jeff then signed the guilty pleas and that was it. We lay it out in detail and have links to the courtroom videos where you can see this for yourself.
However, Jeff and Lionel Dahmer weren't crisis actors as some claim. They were two ordinary middle class men who were in a big jam, probably because one of them - Jeff - needed to lift a burden from his soul by confessing to what happened in 1978.
What they did to Jeff and Lionel Dahmer was horrible.
I have to admit I think the Yorkshire Ripper murders are also fake simply because the way Wikipedia speaks of the alleged Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe, reveals typical psyop features such as contradictions that make no sense. What alerted me was that we were told he died of covid in prison to which my immediate response was, "Well, that's a lie, let me check this guy out."
No doubt there are terrible murders taking place. However, there are also psyops taking place.
IMO, the ''programmed to kill'' idea may have been put out there to throw people off the scent...get them chasing their tail instead of finding the truth. We found out what we did about Jeff and Lionel Dahmer merely by looking carefully at the trial and going through public records. There's a TON of data out there. It just needs someone to sift through it. However, if someone has latched onto the ''programmed to kill'' theory...they won't do this because they'll think there's nothing to find. They believe it all happened just as the government and MSM say except the perp was ''programmed to kill''.
Parts of the Jeff Dahmer ''serial killer'' show seem to have been lifted from the Dennis Nilsen case in the UK.
fascinatin' stuff--I thought Dahmer was a military-created spook part've the "trend" (like hijackin'!) of mkultra-made serial killers. some say charlie manson was just a jail punk (also some military in the bkg) in same boat--jailed in TX and they got him to do their biddin' with a git outta jail free card... ANYWHO, do ya know about the "rumor" (ha!) that John Walsh (some hero, not) "GAVE" Dahmer his son Adam (aka the dead kid that started the kidnapping at the mall/maul fear trend) as part of some arrangement? Some who find Walsh innocent think Dahmer was just by chance the mall napper... those who find Walsh not innocent (given his daughter's testimony and evidence the parents were involved in trafficki') got me wonderin' if Dahmer was given Adam Walsh as an "assignment?"... thoughts? (this is waaaay off topic so if ya cover it on a stack, just share a link!)
Jeff and Lionel Dahmer were just two ordinary middle class guys caught in a jam and who then got blackmailed (made a deal). No MK-Ultra or ''programmed to kill'' necessary. In fact, I think stuff like ''programmed to kill'' is a great way to throw people off the scent. Get them chasing their tails and going nowhere. Note that the ''programmed to kill'' theory argues that Jeff Dahmer actually killed those people. That's complete nonsense. We've found a few of them alive and well. Another one was killed by someone else in 1999. (This info is on the Substack.)
The Laotian boy who supposedly had a hole drilled into his head - ''Konerak Sinthasomphone" - never existed. He was created using a photo of someone else: Somsack Sinthasomphone:
Our Substack has several articles up already, including an in-depth analysis of the legal process they used to pull off this fake news story. The legal process ALONE proves this was a fake story. You won't find this information anywhere else. As far as we know, we're the first to truly tear apart this fake news story with real investigation and an analysis of the legal maneuvers Gerald Boyle used:
There's a lot more information on our subreddit. I think you're going to need to create an account to read some of it, though. Sorry :) That's an unfortunate feature of Reddit. We're transferring the content to Substack now...and working on a website.
Conclusive Evidence that Jack Steven Is Not Bowie
So, I spent an hour today and did some research. (This has really be gnawing at my head since I saw Jack Steven.) Everybody keeps saying that no record of Steven exits before Bowie or that Steven exists only in one video called "Dallas Roundtable." This isn't true. I've written something called the "Jack Steven Timeline", which makes it very clear that Steven is not Bowie. The earliest first hand proof that Jack Steven exists can be traced to 1982. (Even if Bowie had concocted Steven, there's no way he could have done that.)
"Jack Steven Timeline"
~In August 1956, Jack Steven is born.
~From 1970‐1980, Stevens claims he was the International Manager and Profession Manager for companies such as Essex Music, Dick James Music, and Chappell Music (the largest independent music publisher) managing the publishing of work from acts such as The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, The Who, T Rex, Elton John, and songwriters such as Terry Britten (Tina Turner) and Geoff Stephenson (Barry Manilow).
~"From 1980‐1990, Jack Steven ran the A&R divisions of Paramount films, RCA Records, CBS Records, and MCA Records, discovering diverse acts such as Eurythmics and Sade; and product manager for acts such as David Bowie, George Michael, and Musical Youth." (This is from Steven's LinkedIn, it's the only thing I don't understand. How was a 14 year old kid running film or music companies?)
~In September 1981, Eurythmics premiere the album, In the Garden.
~In 1981, Jack Steven was a junior A&R member at RCA in London. Steven was a young “street kid” at the time tasked with signing new acts to RCA. Steven fell in love with Annie Lennox’s voice when Eurythmics performed on Old Grey Whistle Test.
~Later in 1981, Steven told the head of RCA to keep Eurythmics and drop the rest of the bands that RCA had signed. (Steven was unaware that RCA had actually just dropped the band.) Steven gained a reputation as hard to handle and was almost fired from RCA three times. Jack Stevens was a huge source of help and provided a lot of assistance.
~In 1982, the single of This Is The House features a thank you to Steven.
~In 1982, Eurythmics dropped all managers and conducted all business out of Steven's office at RCA. All ideas for the record, artwork, and tours were planned in Steven's office. RCA ultimately agreed to resign the band. Annie Lennox remembers how Jack Steven, aided by Sheila Sedgwick, convinced RCA to resign Eurythmics. Eurythmics retreats to Chalk Farm in Northern London. In 1982, Lennox has a nervous breakdown and Stewart experiences a collapsed lung. Eurythmics frequently conducts business out of Steven’s office.
~In September 1982, behind the Marketing Director of RCA’s back, Steven arranged for Eurythmics to shoot a music video for “Love Is A Stranger” was shot in a limousine, bathroom, Hammersmith Bridge, and outside Dave Stewart's mother's Maida Vale flat.
~At the end of 1982, Eurythmics plotted the band's next album with Jack Steven. Steven was pressured by RCA and given a budget of 15,000 pounds to do the album. Most albums at the time cost 60,000 pounds to record. Jack convinced Dave Stewart to continue producing Annie rather than find another producer.
~Also at the end of 1982, Steven demanded an extra 70,000 pounds for the funding of Eurythmic's promotional tour. The Managing Director at RCA was enraged that Steven, a junior A&R, was making such requests.
~In January 1983, Eurythmics releases Sweet Dreams and there’s also some difficulty over the artwork due to the cutting edge images used, RCA wants more conceptual stuff. Also in 1983, RCA reissues In the Garden. Steven burst into the RCA office and demanded a recall. Jack introduces Eurythmics to Laurence Stevens, fresh out of college, who will design the artwork for Sweet Dreams.
~The week before February 28, 1984, Jack Steven attended a dinner that RCA set up between Annie Lennox and a Radio 1 executive. After she was offended at something the executive said, Lennox told the executive off. The Head of Promotions at RCA pulled Annie Lennox from a big event.
~In 1984, Steven decides to use Geffen Records to release the next album rather than RCA America. RCA America gets in a fight with Steven. RCA still releases the record.
~From 1990‐2000, Jack set up his own independent management production company which developed acts such as Jay Kay (Jamiroquai) and Dorren Waddle (Soul To Soul); he developed the music label of the Ministry of Sound; and was the Executive Producer and instigator of the Session Series (which to this day is the most successful dance compilation series in the world). He subsequently joined M&G Records (owned by Lord Michael Levy, personal advisor to the Right Honorable Tony Blair).
~In 1991, Zoe presented Jack Steven with an album that would become Scarlet Red and Blue. Steven, who was the new A&R Director at M&G records, was impressed and arranged for a concurrent US release of the album by RCA.
~In May 11, 1996 of Billboard, Steven appears hyping Zoe’s Hammer.
~In August 2, 1997 of Billboard, Steven announces signing of Jai.
~In May 2009, Pete Freedman, Music Editor of the Dallas Observer, and Hunter Hauk, Quick Entertainment Editor, release “Dallas Music Roundtable” which features Steven. Steven is in Dallas, has a record label in London that is distributed through Universal. Chardan, Eva Cherry, Xray Specs, Bow Wow Wow, Jamiroqui. Is on vacation in Dallas because he has a girlfriend that he has fallen in love with. Steven lists his age as 53. Trying to get into the scene.
~In January 2010, Jack Steven founds Kuba Entertainment. Founds Kuba along with Larry Little. Kuba signs Apartment, Ashock, Florence Welch of Florence and the Machine. Kuba manages the Sansara Festival.
~At some undisclosed time this decade, Steven founds Kew4, an online music marketing/PR company.
~In January 2013, Jack Steven founds 3Fifty5 in Cyprus. He does this along with Anthony Melas aka A.M. SNiPER. Melas calls his cultural home Cyprus. Melas claims relationships with Kanye West, 50 Cent, Memphis Bleek, Akon, Julian Marley, Juelz Santana, NORE, Sway, Mutya Buena, Curtis Young, Rick Ross, Lethal Bizzle, Sway, JME, Ghetts, Wiley, and others.
~In February 2013, Jack Steven founds Fortress Music.
Sources This Is The House Single, 1982/ Billboard May 11, 1996/ Billboard August 2, 1997/ Virgin Encyclopedia of Music, 2000/ Annie Lennox: The Biography by Lucy Ellis, 2001/ Dallas Music Roundtable, 2009/ Sweet Dreams Are Made of This by Dave Stewart, February 9, 2016/ Jack Steven’s LinkedIn
From Reddit post.
You are wrong Celia.
Celia is never wrong. :) There must be another explanation.
Perhaps the same actor played Bowie and Steven concurrently, although never simultaneously, of course?
Barry Humphries played Dame Edna Everage and Sir Les Patterson for years. What gave the game away to astute ten-year-old observers was that you never saw those two characters in the same room. Adults were aware from from the start that this was a case of an actor playing two characters, of course.
In Bowie's case, it's a little less straightforward, as Bowie himself was an actor and a performer who changed personas as frequently as a chameleon changes is camouflage throughout a long career in the music industry.
Was Bowie really an actor/performer, or was he himself a character invented by the artist originally named David Robert Jones?
And if Bowie was an unacknowledged music industry character, then what would stop Jones from inventing or playing the role of another unacknowledged music industry character called John Steven?
(Possibly relevant trivia: The surname Steven comes from the Old English stefn, stemn (“voice, sound”).)
Frally Fratelli reckons that two people have played the role of John Steven and that one of them (the one shown in the interview above) is Bowie. Perhaps the other John Steven is the man in the following video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onDwtTT4Qfk
One last observation. There is a lot of mosaic (squares) on the Sky News video, particularly around Steven's face. This is an indication that it has been digitally faked to insert Bowie's face onto Steven's body.
On the other hand, it could be evidence that Bowie was and is a reptilian shape-shifting entity who is having difficulty maintaining human form. :)
No I just saw that I wrote that it was 'clearly him' last night and I don't know why I was that certain, last night. So I have amended it.
You "saw" David Bowie on that Sky News interview because the people making the video wanted you to "see" him. And not just you, but most people who are familiar with Bowie's face.
I "saw" Bowie too. But like Margaret Anna Alice, I also saw mosaicing around the head, which is evidence of crude and obvious deliberate tampering. It's as plain as the nose-out shot on 9/11.
The New York Post ran a short article on this story at the time.
https://nypost.com/2016/01/11/fans-freak-out-after-david-bowie-lookalike-appears-on-tv/
It would be nice to see a video of the original broadcast without the tampering. But so far I haven't been able to locate one. Did somebody make a crude deepfake in order to play a prank? And if so, at what stage? I can't conceive that the original broadcast would have been put out with all those video editing artifacts on it.
On youtube, I saw a video in which it's suggested that Steven's is a real person who resembles Bowie. And for this particular interview, Stevens was impersonated by Bowie as part of a Revelation of the Method.
I didn't see any suggestion in Celia's post that Jack Steven wasn't a real person with a history. Seems to me you're assuming that on your own. What if David Bowie was a character, or alter-ego, played by Steven? This is the entertainment industry we're talking about, where playing a convincing character IS the business.
slop slop slop
Replies like this demonstrate why you are only the 2nd smartest guy in the world.
I know, right.
😂
He did say "it felt like a part of me had died" 🤔
And the evidence was much more than that. Not only did Steven drop a bunch of suggestions that he and Bowie are 'connected', but I watch the person behind the words. Steven was as comfortable in front of the camera as any A-list actor, and when he spoke of how deep the 'loss' of Bowie was to him, he showed zero emotion of loss of someone close. Rather, his emotions were very positive toward that 'loss'.
Of course none of this 'proves' anything, but when weighed objectively it adds weight to the suspicion that they are the same person. And, it all creates more questions than answers.
Amazing. At age 14 Steven was, among other notable positions, the international manager of Essex Music. Thanks for giving us an accurate timeline of this marvelous person who is not David Bowie.
Good catch!
If he was born in 1956 he would have been 24 in 1980, not 14....simple math
I think the time frame given by 2SG was “From 1970-1980” he claimed he was international manager (or whatever the title was). So Robert’s correct, Steven would’ve been only 14 years old when he started his reign in 1970.
There is some evidence that Steven interviewed Bowie at some point. Sure. But the similarity is beyond a mere passing one. I just think the strangest thing is that he’s SUDDENLY brought out the very day Bowie died. And the interviewer doesn’t even mention, “Hey has anyone told you you look just like the dude you’re eulogizing?” I think a lot of this stuff is done to willfully confuse the masses. I’m not buying the whole “every celebrity is trans” thing, but you gotta admit, when a trans person was crowned Miss Netherlands this week…. Had they not told us explicitly that this was a trans person, I would never have known!
As for “Miss” Amsterdam .... naw. 2nd look up close says it not a she
The point is, they’re now telling us openly. I don’t know a single woman with a body like the Victorias Secret models. Some people have looked at their gender markers and say they’re trans. We would never know. But now they’re openly telling us.
Miss Netherlands looks sort of like a cross between Bill Hader and Klaus Kinski with a wig on.
Tom and Giselle have had me scratching my head for awhile. Could they create a better fairy tale for the masses?
Guys, n/m Thailand, have you heard of Blaire White?
It's clear that Jack Steven was a separate individual (see here for an interview of him, clearly NOT Bowie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onDwtTT4Qfk).
However it's also clear that the interview of 'Jack Steven' on Bowies death does not look like the original Jack Steven and indeed looks and sounds more like Bowie (compare pics here https://twitter.com/EmmaRoulstone/status/1308745153826484226)
Also of interest, in his last few mths Bowie wrote a musical 'Lazarus' and shot the film clip for the song Lazarus. The musical Lazarus was about "a humanoid alien who is stuck on Earth, unable to die or return to his home planet." (a similar vibe with Elon Musk quipping that he keeps telling people he is an alien but no one believes him).
As I'm sure most know, Lazarus was a biblical character that Jesus raised from the dead after 4 days. Apparently the last account Bowie followed on Twitter had the handle 'God'. https://twitter.com/consequence/status/686752002064429061
This is reminiscent of the 'Dave Dave' interview on Michael Jackson post his death. Was Dave Dave a separate person? Yes. However, that does not preclude the possibility that Jackson dressed up as Dave Dave to give an interview post his death.
Or maybe not who knows!
https://www.tiktok.com/@mjthe_legacy777/video/7236846620363574533
I think this is nearer the truth.
When in doubt, always, always consult Miles Mathis.
http://mileswmathis.com/game.pdf
Appreciated the Miles Mathis paper about David Bowie and Prince:
"But if Prince and David Bowie were agents in a project, what was the point of that project? Well, we have already seen it above, when I said Bowie was promoting schizophrenia, paranoia, delusion, androgyny and bisexuality. The mainstream bios admit he was doing that. It is no secret. And Prince was doing the same thing. That's Project Chaos, and of course it has continued to accelerate since Prince's heyday. All those things and many more are being used to break up the male-female relationship, the family, and the general stability. "
~ Miles Mathis, page 10, http://mileswmathis.com/game.pdf
That paper is pretty funny, but the reasoning is tautological. He lost me at numerology. I went back and read more and there was a lot of gibberish. I am with him on the CIA movies, and iffy on the origins of Bowie. I wrote poetry and knew poets in my late teens and early 20s and it's not impossible to find people writing incredibly good lyrics at that age. So Bowie's lyrics never shined as much. He was a sellout and that's hardly surprising. And as for Prince--I don't even like his music but as a musician he is practically unparalled.
"... He lost me at numerology. ..."
Happens a lot.
Lol. i've chatted with Miles. He didn't trust me - said he suspected I was an agent., because I'd actually spoken to some of the people he talks about.
I bet!
Well, wow. Just read that paper.
Looks like we've been played on EVERY front, for just about ever.
Yep, For ever!
"When in doubt, always, always consult Miles Mathis"
Typo - I think you meant "never, never"
~In August 1956, Jack Steven is born.
~From 1970‐1980, Stevens claims he was the International Manager and Profession Manager for companies such as Essex Music, Dick James Music, and Chappell Music (the largest independent music publisher) managing the publishing of work from acts such as The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, The Who, T Rex, Elton John, and songwriters such as Terry Britten (Tina Turner) and Geoff Stephenson (Barry Manilow).
He would have been fourteen years old in 1970. Isn't that a bit young to be an International Manager in the music industry? Also, as the Beatles broke up in 1969, it is a bit of a stretch to imagine this teenager publishing their work in the seventies.
"(This is from Steven's LinkedIn, it's the only thing I don't understand. How was a 14 year old kid running film or music companies?)"
Well, that alone puts the whole thing in doubt if you ask me. Don't forget that this is the internet, where history can be rewritten and republished at the drop of a hat. It sounds convincing, but then if you were faking something of this magnitude, you'd put some effort into making it convincing wouldn't you? And frankly, anyone with a reasonable knowledge of the industry could write this kind of Bio in half a day. Anyone with enough clout with a social media company like LinkedIn could have the bio creation date revised as well, these creation dates aren't set in stone, quite the opposite, they are set in electronic bits and bytes, which any programmer with adequate access to the servers can modify at any time.
Bowie was/is a very wealthy man and his handlers are even wealthier, and they basically control not only the entertainment but also the social media industry. If they seriously meant to pull this off they'd have an entire team working on it for weeks or even months, creating the persona of Jack Steven, complete with history, not just on LinkedIn, but also on other sites, and they'd do so retrospectively, thanks to the malleable nature of the internet. The video/s of Jack Steven that can be found on youtube, for example, can quite easily be faked, especially if Bowie willingly participates in their making, no need to even deep fake them! Other industry stars would willingly participate in abetting such a cover up. After all, they themselves might want or need an out some day, especially if the alternative is being accidented or suicided, because their handlers have decided that they've passed their useby date.
Or, as David pointed out, maybe Bowie played both Bowie and Steven at the same time. Since Steven was a small side gig, not requiring any very professional production, that'd be pretty easy to pull off. Just slap on the goofy wig and a cheap suit and talk to some people for 15 minutes once a month or maybe just twice a year. Not really a big deal
Otoh Bowie was getting old (69, hmm another one of these funny numbers, and within two days of his birthday) at his supposed time of death, and none of the above is definitive by any means. Also Stevens, if he's really Bowie, would have been 71 at the time of the interview, yet he doesn't look that old. Then there's the old question of motive, ie why would they bother with this at all?
Otooh, these points can also be rebutted, let's take the age as an easy target. If one looks at the last photo of Bowie that pops up on a google search, he's presumably 68 years old, looking pretty good for that age of course, so if we add 2 to 3 years to that photo, but slap a goofy brown haired toupee on him, then we basically get Jack. Jack does indeed look exactly like Bowie at 68-69, but has somewhat larger circles under his eyes and droopier skin around the mouth. Iow, exactly what one would expect to happen from someone who still looks good at 68, but then gets whacked by the aging club after he hits 70. In french we call this "un coup de vieux", to reflect the fact that these unwanted physical changes tend to hit us fairly suddenly. The whole thing is of course dissimulated by the youngish looking goofie toupee.
I'd hesitate to declare certainty either way, but there are certainly good grounds for suspicion.
Your citations of sources are inadequate for the claims. They may turn out to be adequate, but the work I'd have to do to hunt down the actual verification is unreasonable to expect, if you're expecting us to believe you uncritically.
As usual, nothing gets past the Second Smartest Guy in the World.
None of this proves who is *actually* in the video.
If he was born in 1956 he would have been 24 in 1980 not 14....simple math
Wait…Andy Kaufman as in the 2020 Covid and virus isolation/existence objector?
"... when I walked away from a lucrative career in the fashion business in NY, I ran into someone on the street from that world who blurted out, "Oh my god! Everyone thinks you're dead!" Since no one could imagine I just wanted to walk away. The world is a very funny place. ha."
"Master Jack" by Four Jacks and a Jill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDH9G-qWM8Q
Update: I wrote last night “this is clearly him,” now I need to update that with:
I am no longer sure at all if this is “clearly him.” I think it just seemed that way when I watched it.
Have we stumbled upon something time consuming and “important” or just something inscrutable, creepy, and unresolved? (Un-resolvable.)
The pixelation over the faces is typically a dead giveaway that it's a deep fake.
I thought it was evidence of reptilian shape-shifting...?
;)
😆
Probably to obscure the deep-fake effect on Steven and make it look like it's a technical glitch across the whole video. I haven't had time to listen to the video with sound so am not drawing a definitive conclusion but just know that is a typical indicator of a manipulated video.
http://mileswmathis.com/updates.html
'doc' Ed says:"take everything with a grain of salt..."
Haha you beat me to it! Yes, this guy is phenomenal. I found his blog after Anne Heche’s bizarre death. They didn’t even try with that one!
"...There's something happening here,
What it is, is not very clear..."
“But what it is ain’t exactly clear”
I stand corrected, &
I'm a stickler for gramma-
(said some vaxxed person somewhere...)
;)
It’s one of my favorite songs from “my youth” (high school). Even saw BS in person at my County Fair! So those word are imbedded into my brain. Something seemed ‘off’ so I looked it up to verify…the brain is still chugging along some 56 years later! 😉🧐🤪
Ed has been here before ( as might well have you) and probably knows what to do...
;)
Oh my. He's "phenomenal" if secondary, tenuous and circumstantial evidence is enough for you. I've never read such speculative, reaching, grasping nonsense in my life as on his site.
I wouldn't doubt anything much in this crazy upside down we're in. Yes I had seen this early on and I think this one is a staged death. What about if someone like Paul McCartney was dead for decades? Have you heard about that?
YES. That is the only "rabbit hole" almost too scary. The Paul one.
Beatle George Harrison's widow Olivia Harrison greets the fake Paul McCartney replacement by his real name "Hello, Billy!" in 2003 at the Concert for George.
🧐 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bO1Q8qkVf6c
(20 seconds)
Standing nearby is Billy's second wife Heather Mills in the gold dress, so she is also in the know. ALL of the Beatles' wives and inner circle know he's a talented though fake Paul. "Nothing is real."
🎸+ 🎸+ 🥁 + 🎻 = the original 4 lads
4 lads minus -🎻(?⚰️?💀?) in 1966 = only 3 lads left
3 + William Campbell Shepherd/Billy Shears/Faul = 4 again starting in 1967 on Sgt. Pepper
Most compelling to me was Heather's interview saying that she was this close to revealing it all as a fraud... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJOngpYVcOM&t=5s&ab_channel=JusticeforJamesPaulMcCartney
So glad someone posted ^these clips^ of Heather Mills! You are so right that Heather's interview is compelling. 💯
These channels are the very best:
"Mike Williams' Paul Is Dead Channel" (Sage of Quay)
https://www.youtube.com/@MikeWilliamsPaulIsDeadChannel
"Justice for James Paul McCartney" (many great, short, fun videos here)
https://www.youtube.com/@justiceforjamespaulmccartney
"Shadow of a Bass Man" (the research of Anne Walsh and Mary Ann Howard)
https://www.youtube.com/@theshadowofabassman6394
Never been convinced of that one. I guess that it's possible. And maybe Billy is an injoke who knows.
What convinces most doubters is many dozens of photographs. Once one compares the 1960-1966 photographs with the 1967-present photographs, one sees the facial differences ... and realizes that after 1966 the role of Paul McCartney is being played by a different man/replacement actor.
channel - "The Shadow of a Bass Man"
"#7 Paul McCartney vs Billy Shears Photo Comparison Discussion"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLI5iifzd9s&t=6284s
(starts at about the 20 minute mark)
I've spent many hours on this. I find the photographic / videographic evidence not only laughable but surreal. Paul's physiognomy is highly singular. There's no one on the planet who looks quite like him (though some have vague resemblances to features of his physiognomy -- for example a young Sly Stallone has similar droopy eyes). There's a powerful je ne sais quoi similiarity about his appearance post-supposed death that matches the pre-death Paul -- a similarity far more remarkable than any supposedly perceived subtle difference in earlobes or whatever.
That said, I have noted an interesting change in early Paul to later Paul. Early Paul in concerts routinely bobbed his head side to side, whereas (unless I'm mistaken and missed some) in concerts after 1966 (what few there were) up to the Abbey Road rooftop, then his early Wings era -- no head bobbing at all.
You can't really believe this. No'one can. There is a continuous series of public appearances, interviews and of him playing bass and singing, often in public. What on earth are you talking about? Do you think someone could go into your job tomorrow and impersonate you and no'one would notice?
Apples and oranges. You are comparing an every day Joe to a 1960's money-making boy band cash cow.
"... There is a continuous series of public appearances, interviews and of him playing bass and singing, often in public. ..."
Not really continuous. The Beatles quit touring in '66 (why would they do that suddenly?) and they all changed their appearances by growing mustaches for the next LP release in '67 (perhaps to disguise the departure/or/death of biological Paul and the substitution of his replacement Billy/Faul by changing the appearances of all 4 Beatles at once).
IIRC after 1966 they appeared in public as the Beatles only TWICE:
1- They performed "Hey Jude" on the David Frost show in Sept. '68.
2- They performed for just 42 min. in the "rooftop concert" Jan. '69 on the roof of Apple Records studios.
That's it.
"... of him playing bass ..."
You also mention them playing playing bass guitar.
Well, as far as comparing the differences in how LEFT-handed bio Paul and RIGHT-handed Billy played the bass, they play very differently:
Bio Paul was a super smooth bass player who rarely if ever needed to bend his head down to look at where his fingers are going on the neck of the bass when he plays; whereas Billy/Faul was RIGHT-handed, had to learn how to play a LEFT-handed bass ... and to Billy's credit, he did it ... BUT Billy was never as good as bio Paul ... which is why Billy when playing constantly has to bend his head down to watch where he places his fingers on the frets, examples in link here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VB3Q9GXCs8
(5 min)
Something serious happened in 1966. Something that jeopardized the Beatles enterprise. Biological Paul was replaced with Billy. There were millions of dollars and British pounds at stake. They felt they had to do a substitution ... Surely you've heard the expression "The show must go on"?
Musicians, like Hollywood actors, are governed by the legally-binding contracts they sign. They are people, yes, but are also owned PROPERTIES. The contracts limit what they are permitted to do and say without breaching the agreements.
The remaining 3 Beatles were only young lads in their 20's in 1966. The big decisions would have been decided for them, not by them, in 1966. E.M.I./Capitol records would have been calling the shots, not so much John, George, Ringo ... nor Billy.
The 5 Beatles have played their roles. Ringo and Billy are STILL playing their roles to this day!
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5HMOvZ4zcRI
(30 sec)
: : slaps forehead : :
I'm actually from Liverpool and very familiar with the history of The Beatles, and also a guitarist and musician. Your argument is simply ludicrous and full of Miles Mathis-like reasoning, where "they all changed their appearances by growing mustaches" is considered evidence. I cannot believe anyone can think something so ridiculous.
Perhaps you need to hear it "from the horse's own mouth"?
Paul McCartney 2.0 / Faul / William Shepherd / Billy Shears admits here, in one of the very best short video clips, that he was asked to join the Beatles AFTER the band was "ALREADY FORMED," that "I'd been lucky just falling into the Beatles," that "They asked me to join," "So that was there ... I never had to form a group." "No, I didn't get the Beatles together at all." "That was ... already formed."... and, as u listen, observe how Paul 2.0's RIGHT (prosthetic) eye has a tendency to wander OUT OF SYNC with his good LEFT eye:
Paul 2.0 / Billy Shears:"They asked me to join The Beatles."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH9DqTdO8Po
(1 min 22 sec)
Paul 2.0, whoever he really is, has *repeatedly* made MANY admissions (and various masterfully-spoken references) over the years concerning the switcheroo. NUMEROUS instances of this caught on this 7-min video here:
"The truth is in front of us - Billy Shears has admitted many times that he replaced Paul in 1966"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr-ONYdH_io&t=25s
(7min 45sec)
♫ Yeah, yeah, yeah
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah ♫
A good book to have a little dive into on the subject is called the life and death of Paul McCartney by Nicholas Kollerstrom. All the world's indeed a stage!
P.I.D. rivals Flat Earth as my favorite conspiracy theory. Mike Williams is the main expert/grifter promoting that. He seems like a nice guy, articulate, personable; yet there's a glint in his eyes that (along with of course his batshit content) indicates schizophrenic disconnection from the Mothership.
"... He seems like a nice guy, articulate, personable; yet there's a glint in his eyes that (along with of course his batshit content) indicates schizophrenic disconnection from the Mothership."
No. Mike Williams/Sage of Quay is a sane, logical, and serious researcher. Mike would never base a hypothesis or an argument on somebody having "a glint in his eyes," 🙄 nor would Mike dismiss anyone out of hand by calling their content "batshit." 🙄
Mike/Sage of Quay deals in facts and sources about the Beatles. Mike is also very importantly a musician himself, which is key to his detecting musical fakery in the recording industry.
The tale of the 4 lads from Liverpool rising from rags-to-riches because they were musical geniuses was a Cinderella story ... in fact the Beatles were the biggest of all the Cinderella stories in the highly fictionalized music industry ... as well as the most successful social engineering experiment of the era.
His very fine Paul-is-dead research may have the (unintended or intended) effect of promoting sales of the historical fiction "The Memoirs of Billy Shears" (various editions) ... idk ... but Mike's videos are definitely worth a closer look ... and they are FREE of charge to watch.
Like many of us who were lied to that Lennon/McCartney were genius songwriters who wrote all their own songs, arranged their own songs, and played their own instruments on their recordings, Mike Williams is obviously also a GENUINELY DISAPPOINTED FAN to learn the truth:
*** That the Beatles merely SANG the harmonies -- not unlike karaoke -- on songs WRITTEN BY OTHER PEOPLE like Theodore Adorno ... and arranged by producer George Martin ... over instrumental tracks pre-recorded by truly skilled session musicians (following the Wrecking Crew model). ***
Mike Williams' Sage of Quay™ hub website [http://www.sageofquay.com/]
Mike Williams' Rumble channel [https://rumble.com/c/SageofQuay] and
Mike Williams' Paul-is-Dead YouTube channel [https://www.youtube.com/@MikeWilliamsPaulIsDeadChannel/about]
Mike Williams needs to submit to a long critical interview with an interviewer who will ask critical questions and follow-up questions -- politely but firmly probing apparent weak spots in his theory. Mike Williams has created a safe cocoon of brown-nosing fans and colleagues who already agree with him. He needs to be tested by critical skeptics and to my knowledge he hasn't done that.
I don't know about Mike Williams - thought you were describing Bill then.
Yes! I went down that rabbit hole a couple years ago and was stunned to find there was a lot of hard-to-ignore evidence indicating Paul may have died back in the 60s (car accident I think was suggested..?) and replaced following a “look-a-like” contest. It’s been too long since I dug into this and my memory fails me, but the most intriguing evidence to me involved a team of Italian forensic pathologists/analysts (a man/women team) who set out initially to debunk the persistent “rumors” of Paul’s death decades before, but were stunned to find that their in-depth investigation actually ended up confirming (in their minds, conclusively) that Paul had indeed died and been replaced in the 60s. As I recall, this team’s findings were quite convincing.
Researcher Mike Williams (Sage of Quay) has in my opinion definitively proved Paul was replaced in 1966. He also proved that they did not write any of their music pre 1966 or play the instruments on their recordings. The Beatles were a cut from whole cloth Tavistock institute creation designed to move the culture in the precise way the controllers wanted. As John Lennon famously sung but almost definitely did not write “nothing is real”. That’s the biggest truth drop in pop music
He's the guy. For people who have nothing but time!
Not to me. Williams is talented at weaving a tissue of bewildering word salad that seems beguilingly to lead from one claim to the next, creating a mesmerizing narrative, but it tends to fall apart on closer inspection of any specific detail.
My money is on the "Paul is twins" hypothesis. And apparently, both twins are still alive.
Let me give a shout out to Mark Torkarski, who explains beautifully with the aid of photos.
https://pieceofmindful.com/2023/07/06/the-longwinded-road/
Miles Mathis has a similar theory about Elvis except he thinks one twin died and the remaining twin still makes appearances. He also thinks Lennon is still alive.
http://mileswmathis.com/lennon.pdf
"Miles Mathis has a similar theory about Elvis except he thinks one twin died and the remaining twin still makes appearances"
Literally indistinguishable from parody.
I'm not saying this theory is true- but it's not impossible once you realize the extent of MSM propaganda. And yes, I'm aware that some accuse Mathis of being a Tavistock writing committee (the same institution that allegedly wrote the Beatles songs)- but that doesn't mean Mathis doesn't reveal genuine truth per the Revelation of the Method.
http://mileswmathis.com/elvis.pdf
"I'm not saying this theory is true- but it's not impossible" - are some of you people are losing your minds? Since when is the category of "not impossible" interesting? How about we continue to make the distinction between to things we think happened and things we think didn't happen.
Do you think the "Miles Mathis has a similar theory about Elvis except he thinks one twin died and the remaining twin still makes appearances" thing is true? If so, say so. If not, why argue with me about things that aren't true just, because they aren't "impossible"?
"... Literally indistinguishable from parody."
Speaking of parody, if you were to ask "Are the experimental mRNA injections safe and effective?", Google will tell you that they are FDA approved (which is another lie) and that they are "safe and effective."
You could say that about the last 3 years John, or even the the whole of the false reality that has been painted for us our whole lives, but you can't deny that all the crazy of these years still actually happened. Everything that has been sold to us is parody.. they are literally taking the piss. Its what they do.
You are not thinking clearly. I'm claiming X, and you are saying "no, Y is true". You are arguing with me again just to argue. Rather than sit on the fence - do you think Elvis was a twin, and that one of them died and the other is still around making appearances? You have your savings one the line, do you bet it on this being true or not true? Yes or no?
If you think it's the truth, say so. If not, why are you arguing with me? I don't deny the last three years has contained events that seem impossible, that celebrities have been paid off etc. - but this does not mean any impossible-sounding celebrity event is true. Some of them can be false. Like this - Mathis has some absolute bollocks theories on his website, and this is one of them.
Holy mackerel.
One problem with your anecdote. Paul is on record answering questions on the Internet from fans. One was "Are you a vegan?" He promptly answered: "No. I'm a vegetarian."
It's a little segment he does. He's sitting in a chair reading questions off a screen and answering them. He himself is talking for the camera. This isn't some text written by a staffperson.
Billy's Q&A on the internet only proves that he's cultivated a fairly smooth, charming persona as an actor ... and Billy should be pretty good at it by now ... But even with 57 years to practice, he still has slipped-up on numerous occasions ... Billy's slip-ups usually tend to be factual errors concerning the historical details of biological Paul's very close friendship from 1957 to 1966 with John Lennon ... a period of time Billy/Faul is much less familiar with, because Billy wasn't there.
Asking Goolag or Wikipedia for info = wasting time.
That may be, but the specific point was that he himself says he's a vegetarian, not a vegan (which even in the conspiracy narrative would be unobjectionable because the transition into vegetarianism began long after the "death" -- some time in 1969 or 1970), so that anecdote about some "Vegan" operation under Paul/Faul's direction doesn't pass the smell test.
Linda may have choked to death on a veggie-burger.
And the half-eaten sandwich found in her London flat gave flight to the rumor that Ellen Naomi Cohen (who played the role of "Mama" Cass Elliot) had choked to death on a ham sandwich. And since she was fat, the public ate it up (pun intended).
Keith Moon, drummer for The Who died 4 years later in the very same London flat where Mama Cass had her "heart attack." Could be both were taken out (?).
Many 1960s performers had family in military and/or intelligence backgrounds ... Like Sharon Tate's father Paul Tate ... Like David Crosby's father was too ... and like Jim Morrison's father Admiral George Morrison, who was in charge of the ships involved in the (faked) "Gulf of Tonkin" incident -- immediately used by President Lyndon B. Johnson to deceive the US into supporting the big ramp-up of the Vietnam War.
If anyone's just getting started on this material, Dave McGowan's work on Laurel Canyon is an eye-opener to say the least.
https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/laurelcanyon/
Or the work of Mae Brussell ... not vouching for it but is a good introduction:
https://constantinereport.com/cia-drugs-death-cass-elliot-reason-sharon-tate-died/
So little of the music and political news that we grew up with was true or organic. It was, as i am realizing now, lies upon lies upon lies ...
"Nothing is real"
~ "Strawberry Fields" a song written (?) by the team at Tavistock (?)
Keith Moon also apparently accidentally ran over and killed his chauffeur in the Bentley. This story is so bizarre that I tend to believe it has to be true.
https://ultimateclassicrock.com/keith-moon-chauffeur-killed/
wow. never knew that. thank you.
“I felt that part of me had died”
“Sadly this one’s affected me more than any other”
New meaning may be ascribed to these statements, then?
Celia! Hoppas du ser detta! Yes, that Bowie video is equal parts shocking and hilarious - BUT. The wildest celebrity “death” was Anne Heche’s. PLEASE google the woman whose house she supposedly rammed into with her car, Lynne Mishele. You might think they’ve put Anne’s picture there because it’s related to the article. But no :-) Just google it.
Hi there! I did write about that case, here. I will find it and put it in the comments. yes, incredibly strange and disturbing like all of this.
Lynne Mishele https://www.today.com/news/news/lynne-mishele-anne-heche-rcna42989
"... A very good reminder to anyone NOT to cross Ellen DeGeneres. Ever."
DJ Stephen 'tWitch' Boss, Ellen DeGeneres' Co-Host & DJ, was found dead in a hotel at age 40 in Dec. 2022. Which is strangely interesting , IMO, coming fairly soon after the August 5 2022 fiery car crash allegedly involving Anne Heche who is allegedly dead now also.
https://deadline.com/2022/12/stephen-twitch-boss-dead-ellen-degeneres-show-dj-was-40-1235198835/
Lost Angeles is Satan's playground therefore it's almost impossible to know who's a spook, or who committed suicide versus was knocked off by the powerful in Hollyweird.
I wouldn't wanna live in that kill box.
photo of Stephen 'tWitch' Boss' Family Guide: Wife Allison Holker, 3 Kids
https://www.usmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Stephen-tWitch-Boss-Family-Guide-Feature.jpg?w=1600&quality=86&strip=all
Trying to learn from Celia Farber and take her seriously but this person with her name keeps getting in the way with wacko bs like this. Can we please get Celia Farber to stop spreading nonsense that undermines Celia Farber's credibility? Someone told me they are the same person, but I just can't imagine the intelligent and well-sourced journalist and historian would be the same person spreading weird unsubstantiated claims that some tv host is David Bowie who faked his own death. I mean, if you were Pharma trying to discredit the real Farber it wouldn't get any more perfect than this. I was just watching her interview with Mercola and want to read more of Farber's work... then I come across this other person with her name and well I lose my confidence what can I say.
I think my "credibility" is fine. But I support anybody's right not to think so, and unsubscribe.
Normie take. You are under their spell
That's an interesting comment. Several Internet writers I follow have had to deal with this problem, and have sent out email messages about having had their identity 'borrowed.' I agree -- this does not seem like the Celia Farber I admire so much.
I don't think I spread nonsense. I think I allowed a post about a very strange thing, which has now garnered many interesting comments on all sides, so indeed—it's either a planted Tavistock-ish PSY Op, or it's a path to serious questions-- but nobody is worse off for discovering there are all these "rabbit holes."
And I'm not in any need of anybody admiring me. I just work here.
Well said.
I find a similar quality of self-sabotage whenever Celia or Katherine Watt over extends the antichrist metaphor or couches great analysis inside of so much christian mythos or rhetoric & also then exclusively decorate their ideas with Christian iconography. It totally prevents a vast audience of would-by sympathizers who take a banal aesthetic view of new content & don't have the sophistication to parse ideosyncratic, personalized framing from legit factual content and universal concerns like free will, liberty, privacy, analogue identity, and everything inherent to the Bill of Rights.
I'm so glad for these great researchers that the Christian deity inspires them, but it reads as so much superstition to secular non-christians, and the unintended result is that those people who need to understand this stuff throw the baby out with the bath water.
I must reserve a special comment for the satan-projection impulse, which is perhaps the most frustrating motif in this sphere. Satan is an Abrahamic deity, folks. If you're christian he's yours; he's a part of you & your cosmology. Every Satanist is a Christian at root and every Christian is a Satan-enabler. He's inside your stories that you have elected to repeat & embrace. It's not some outside religious personification. It's not Other from you; it's merely "other" within you.
Think about the implications: IF in fact some of the elite globalists, vatican hierarchy, Royals & whomever else who possess your imagination as evil personified (I agree they are, by and large, in any case)... if they really do practice satanic child sacrifice and all that other morbid pomp, guess where they got their ideas from? They got them from you! They got it from your cosmology so evangelically and self-righteously cast about willy nilly to "save" everyone. Nice work Christians. Just like so many Christians hastening the return of the Jews to their homeland, so they, too, can get their own private Zion eternal holiday package.
I mostly jest. Don't take it personally.
The Christian mystics even assert that "The Evil One" is a personification of the physical body itself, and so belongs to everyone who has the privilege, the grace to be a physical living being (as viewed through an Abrahamic lens.) It's a warning against NOT cultivating higher function & abandoning spirit all together.
People of other faiths and cosmologies do not meditate (pro or con) on the figure of the devil. And if you do meditate/pray against the figure of Satan too much, then it generally means that you may be leaning away from your vaunted monotheism and even abandoning the trinity, because in practice you have embraced dualism, which closely resembles the computer's mind, or a quaternion structure of divinity, one that demonizes the South, just as do the colonialists whom we should all loath for their evil, inhuman treatment of other divine beings - that is, living beings imbued with spirit.
I really wish we... even agnostics, atheists, gnostics, Buddhists, Taoists, Dudeists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and everyone in between... could thoughtfully meditate together and in conversation on the profound metaphor of The Beast/Anti-Christ/Borg as a rational shorthand and useful personification of the Technocratic Leviathan which is hell-bent on the bio-digital convergence, the singularity, 4IR, Great Reset, what-have-you. We need to socially and civically, constructively personify this thing & understand it is an analogy describing an extremely complex REAL phenomena, a Frankensteinean simulacra of universal proportion, a bad imitation of the omniscient/omnipotant Totality, and it is of such immense universal threat to every aspect of humanity and of nature itself, that we cannot ignore it, misname it, mistake it for our blind neighbor, or underestimate it.
But instead for so many otherwise good writers The Beast becomes lazy shorthand, or something integral to that vision of the final battle that so many Christians fantasize will bring the fulfillment of His prophecy through a world devastating conflagration. That image of fire & brimstone is exactly what the depopulation globalists want! And you risk enabling them getting it all the faster.
Here's a little FYI: The minute we descend into violence in this fight against the emergent globalist hegemon is the minute that you've lost sight of your Savior's lessons, and mark this: it is the minute when THEY/IT will win.
As Lennon said (while we're on about the Beatles): "The minute you turn to violence, they know exactly what to do with you."
This fight is going to take an infinite well of forgiveness, fortitude, faith that it can be won, patience, beatific grace, and a cultivation of zen-like acceptance if some kind of analogue humanity can survive this long campaign toward monoculture. We need to make the enemies our friends & that's going to be the only way it will work out. And to do that we must be sympathetic to their habits of language, their connotations, ways of translating and understanding. Most important we need to be able to see ourselves entire in the mirror. It is not only ourselves that we will rescue, but it is they we will be rescuing, if we are successful, if we can help them understand what is at stake. Not by evangelism or smug certainty in our narratives, but by exposure and human dialog, in escape of the manipulations of the middlemen inside the screens, where they cannot see us, or color us darkly.
Keep your guns to protect yourself, of course, both literal and metaphorical, but aspire to assemble Christian Armies at your own certain peril. You'll surely get the dramatic armageddon you were looking for... And the Borg will then get its depopulation & Christian Slaves it so coveted, too, all in the same breath.
... And to the most important point:
Bowie IS alive.
But not how Celia was so easily seduced into believing. More like Elvis, or Lazarus, or the Christ, Himself: he lives in each of us, as we participate in animating the living logos by the recitation and re-performance of Their Great Works: Their words and songs resonating aloud, vibrating on the air, living libraries in palaces of sound.
Bowie was born on Elvis's birthday, a joke and an opportunity surely not lost on him. Of any celebrity in contemporary awareness, Bowie above all
others, instrumentalized his inevitable passage and built for himself an ark/argo in the form of his final works that held a mirror up to then incorporate his entire body of work. Before casting about for re-animated, faked-death Bowies, first become expert and intimate with everything he produced in his life. Neither will you be disappointed, nor will you look like a gullible, if occasional fool.
With Love,
MGC
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." - Often attributed to William J. Casey, CIA Director (1981) but probably too good to be real.
Barbara Honegger herself confirmed the attribution of the quote to Casey:
"Barbara Honegger, studied at Stanford University Answered Nov 25 2014
"I am the source for this quote, which was indeed said by CIA Director William Casey at an early February 1981 meeting of the newly elected President Reagan with his new cabinet secretaries to report to him on what they had learned about their agencies in the first couple of weeks of the administration.
"The meeting was in the Roosevelt Room in the West Wing of the White House, not far from the Cabinet Room. I was present at the meeting as Assistant to the chief domestic policy adviser to the President. Casey first told Reagan that he had been astonished to discover that over 80 percent of the ‘intelligence’ that the analysis side of the CIA produced was based on open public sources like newspapers and magazines.
"As he did to all the other secretaries of their departments and agencies, Reagan asked what he saw as his goal as director for the CIA, to which he replied with this quote, which I recorded in my notes of the meeting as he said it. Shortly thereafter I told Senior White House correspondent Sarah McClendon, who was a close friend and colleague, who in turn made it public. Barbara Honegger bshonegg@gmail.com
https://archive.org/details/cia-director-william-casey-disinformation-program-quote-soruce
I tend to believe Barbara Honegger, mostly because of her excellent work on the bombs planted in the Pentagon on 9-11:
"Behind the Smoke Curtain - The 9/11 Pentagon Attack by Barbara Honegger - Barbara Honegger's presentation titled "Behind the Smoke Curtain" in Seattle's Town Hall Theater, January 12, 2013, on what happened and what didn't happen at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sALa-E56Zms (3 hours 4 min 47 sec)
(not yet taken down by YT as of this writing - EXCELLENT!!! Highly recommended.)
Also:
"Casey estimated that over 80% of intelligence was based on open public sources like newspapers and magazines; thus, disinforming the Soviets required disinforming the American public."
https://swprs.org/the-cia-and-the-media/
I believe it about the Casey remark, and furthermore I believe he included Reagan himself as the “American public “. Presidents are prisoners of their briefers who are prisoners of their briefers etc. It really comes down to who is fooling who who is then fooling us. If so our official government lines proscribed to us are formulated as a sort of group AI (to use the current most overused buzz-acronym) . This is the same as what happens to corporations which become inhuman in their actions but when someone gets to know the CEO they find them to be quite agreeable and helpless to stop the egregious behavior of the outlaw corporation. It comes down to profit at all costs driving the operating paradigm.
Btw the last president who wasn’t a prisoner of the briefers was killed.
Reagan was also a Mafia/MCA plant. If you seek it, you'll find the ballast which makes the case.
I swore it was him when Bowie “died” and I remember Prince “dying “ around the same time and his long lost “sister “ showed up to be interviewed,I believe it was them in each case
This is a video of Sharon Tate pretending to be her younger sister: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXelFWKaXrI&t=11s
Yes! The Miles Mathis paper on Tate “murders” is a mind blower. EVERY big story they put on our screens is a lie http://mileswmathis.com/tate.pdf
Wonder if he's done any investigation on Big Mike?
was thinking about bowie yesterday, not about how he might have faked his death, but rather, how he was the avant garde in many ways for what we are witnessing ( or fed ) these days...
(Kudos to MI6/CIA /Adorno - they wrote some great songs...)
and funny how Klaus Schwab likes to dress like Klaus Nomi- except when he's on vacation....
;)
Ha! it's cuz he goes inta Total Eclipse for "werk@"--ya know, NO SUN (in die bunkerz)
I think it's 'cause the WEF's too cheap to send his stylist w/him while he's on 'hiatus'...
;)
yuval noah harari wrote that one,-I think...?
;)
I'm couching my jokes like loose change, stale, sticky breath mints, and broken cigarettes...
(all in all I personally prefer "eight line poem")
From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible makes clear, over and over, that those who trust their eyes will be led astray by plausible fakes... by sights, sounds, and smells... by sleights-of-hand, moods, and clever atmospherics. Which is not to take a position on the post topic. Bowie could be faking his death, or someone else could be faking Bowie faking. Either way, it's a hall of mirrors, and technology is only accelerating its reach and its sophistication.
"The grass withers, the flower fades,
But the word of our God stands forever." Isaiah 40:8
ROME IS BURNING. I don't give a s**t if Bowie is still alive, or sorry, if he passed. Why the distractions? Look at the latest Cindy Niles live stream video and see her describe what they've done to the city of Melbourne. Let's stay focused as to what's really going on instead of being distracted by whether stars fake their own death. If I had to sell my soul to the devil to get famous for a few million, I'd get out from under the grasp of my controllers by staging my own death if I were Bowie. So what about it? How is this relevant to what's being planned for the human being in the future technocratic, WEF, Klaus Schwab, Yuval Noah Harari and others wet dream for the trans human agenda? And what about Melbourne?
Cindy Niles explains it better than I can about Melbourne Australia. You're right about taking a break and having a good laugh at Clown World and its theatre of the absurd those ptsb try to pass off to the rest of us as normal.
I'm kind of a dim wit when it comes to computer skills and I don't know how to forward you the info. If you're on FB, she's on FB.
OMG, not another one! Where is the outrage because we need people to become outraged in this country now!
Indeed overwhelming. It's Clown World and I don't like it very much. But I especially do not like it for my grandchildren!
First raw impression. Jack Steven is not David Bowie but there is a strong resemblance between the two men. Happens all the time. To pull this off they must have known each other and may even have been good friends. For the news clip above Bowie, after his 'death', slipped into the role of Steven, with Steven's agreement, and gave a sterling performance providing a eulogy for himself live on air. I can imagine them having had a great laugh in the pub after that one if they met.
It would also qualify as an artistic destruction of the media as an organ of current affairs reportage. Having crept into the heart of the news gathering beast Bowie would have pulled off a performance which utterly dismantles any semblance of credibility which is left of the media as a dissembler of facts. It displays the media as no more than a theater of lies. Bowie's performance as Jack Steven live on air would have been more real that the news of his death. What a thought!
At this point, nothing would surprise me because of what we've uncovered about "serial killer"(note the quotes) Jeffrey Dahmer. There's a HUGE story here just waiting to be picked up.
Right now most of the information is contained in our subreddit (TheDahmerCase) and in a Google Doc (150+ page dossier) that you can access via the subreddit (link in the sidebar). (You may have to create a Reddit account, sorry. We're moving the info to Substack.) We have a few of the articles here on Substack already.
Among other things we found victims alive, a victim who died in 1960, and the involvement of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee.
Jeff Dahmer was convicted based only on his confession. We have an in-depth legal analysis of HOW they pulled it off in the dossier, in the subreddit, and here on Substack. Wait until you see what they did.
https://thedahmercase.substack.com/p/jeff-dahmers-trial-an-exploration
So, why did Jeff Dahmer agree to star in a fake news story?
We speculate that his first - and only real victim - was killed ACCIDENTALLY in 1978...while Jeff was driving drunk. He had just turned 18 less than a month before. We think his father forced him to bury the body on their secluded property and not tell anyone. At some point, Jeff couldn't take it anymore and confessed. Then, some government agency had in front of them two middle class white men who would do anything to avoid spending the rest of their lives in a maximum security prison surrounded by violent offenders. They agreed to star in a fake news story.
You can make a bet this has happened to other people. It's so simple. They are making deals with people and then using their names and faces. My guess is Jeff Dahmer was given a new identity.
If you watch the two interviews with Jeff Dahmer you'll immediately see that he doesn't strike you as a gay serial killer. This is why.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDahmerCase/
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pkFTNcRTo9bx5eYrl_VsCzHhUJsumf4LQVcebx06a8o/edit
But why?
What was the motive for concocting the whole Dahmer case?
From what we've been able to tell, it looks like it was cooked up to help the Archdiocese of Milwaukee with its problem regarding pedophile priests. Obviously, they had some help, but the key players all connect back to the Archdiocese.
https://thedahmercase.substack.com/p/somsack-and-konerak-sinthasomphone
Thank you.
It's breathtaking.
Dave McGowan's "Programmed to Kill" is a good place to start. O'Neil's "Chaos" is a good foil as well.
I've heard that this case was fake but when so many things are said to be - and often shown to be - fake sometimes you just baulk and go, "No more!" but I have to say how you put it makes it sound reasonably compelling.
The legal process his attorney, Gerald Boyle, used alone shows it was a show trial. They disposed of the ''evidence'' before the trial even began in violation of a Wisconsin statute. Jeff then signed the guilty pleas and that was it. We lay it out in detail and have links to the courtroom videos where you can see this for yourself.
However, Jeff and Lionel Dahmer weren't crisis actors as some claim. They were two ordinary middle class men who were in a big jam, probably because one of them - Jeff - needed to lift a burden from his soul by confessing to what happened in 1978.
What they did to Jeff and Lionel Dahmer was horrible.
I have to admit I think the Yorkshire Ripper murders are also fake simply because the way Wikipedia speaks of the alleged Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe, reveals typical psyop features such as contradictions that make no sense. What alerted me was that we were told he died of covid in prison to which my immediate response was, "Well, that's a lie, let me check this guy out."
https://off-guardian.org/2020/11/04/the-gunpowder-plot-and-second-lockdown-on-5-november/#comment-275997
So many fakeries, too little time!
I'd say the Fred & Rosemary West murders are real though. There's definitely hideous murders going on, God knows why they need to fake them too.
No doubt there are terrible murders taking place. However, there are also psyops taking place.
IMO, the ''programmed to kill'' idea may have been put out there to throw people off the scent...get them chasing their tail instead of finding the truth. We found out what we did about Jeff and Lionel Dahmer merely by looking carefully at the trial and going through public records. There's a TON of data out there. It just needs someone to sift through it. However, if someone has latched onto the ''programmed to kill'' theory...they won't do this because they'll think there's nothing to find. They believe it all happened just as the government and MSM say except the perp was ''programmed to kill''.
Parts of the Jeff Dahmer ''serial killer'' show seem to have been lifted from the Dennis Nilsen case in the UK.
fascinatin' stuff--I thought Dahmer was a military-created spook part've the "trend" (like hijackin'!) of mkultra-made serial killers. some say charlie manson was just a jail punk (also some military in the bkg) in same boat--jailed in TX and they got him to do their biddin' with a git outta jail free card... ANYWHO, do ya know about the "rumor" (ha!) that John Walsh (some hero, not) "GAVE" Dahmer his son Adam (aka the dead kid that started the kidnapping at the mall/maul fear trend) as part of some arrangement? Some who find Walsh innocent think Dahmer was just by chance the mall napper... those who find Walsh not innocent (given his daughter's testimony and evidence the parents were involved in trafficki') got me wonderin' if Dahmer was given Adam Walsh as an "assignment?"... thoughts? (this is waaaay off topic so if ya cover it on a stack, just share a link!)
Jeff and Lionel Dahmer were just two ordinary middle class guys caught in a jam and who then got blackmailed (made a deal). No MK-Ultra or ''programmed to kill'' necessary. In fact, I think stuff like ''programmed to kill'' is a great way to throw people off the scent. Get them chasing their tails and going nowhere. Note that the ''programmed to kill'' theory argues that Jeff Dahmer actually killed those people. That's complete nonsense. We've found a few of them alive and well. Another one was killed by someone else in 1999. (This info is on the Substack.)
Here's what we think really happened:
https://thedahmercase.substack.com/p/what-really-happened-to-jeff-dahmer
And it looks like the Archdiocese of Milwaukee was involved. Trying to cover up a scandal involving pedophile priests:
https://thedahmercase.substack.com/p/what-role-did-the-archdiocese-of
The Laotian boy who supposedly had a hole drilled into his head - ''Konerak Sinthasomphone" - never existed. He was created using a photo of someone else: Somsack Sinthasomphone:
https://thedahmercase.substack.com/p/somsack-and-konerak-sinthasomphone
Our Substack has several articles up already, including an in-depth analysis of the legal process they used to pull off this fake news story. The legal process ALONE proves this was a fake story. You won't find this information anywhere else. As far as we know, we're the first to truly tear apart this fake news story with real investigation and an analysis of the legal maneuvers Gerald Boyle used:
https://thedahmercase.substack.com/
Our subreddit is here, which has more information:
https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDahmerCase/
There's a lot more information on our subreddit. I think you're going to need to create an account to read some of it, though. Sorry :) That's an unfortunate feature of Reddit. We're transferring the content to Substack now...and working on a website.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDahmerCase/