Hi Switching Yard,
I'm glad you're contributing your precious research to this topic and not letting the sting of insults or the sludge of cover-up artists discourage
you. Thanks to your hard work we are moving ahead, with in sight one day making this obvious to more people than not. We are helped by the active
harassment of trolls whose hysterical efforts to cover up Paul's murder and impede our investigation is flagrantly visible to anyone reading this
thread, so that should spur us on instead of impede our participation.
Originally posted by switching yard
I viewed the DVD of the PBS show LENNON NYC.
May Pang is right. It's a load of propaganda mainly from control freak Yoko's perspective. I'm guessing she had final approval over every visual and
every word of narration. Some of the friends of "Lennon" seem like, in interviews, CIA undercover agents trying their best to make the story sound
plausible, to reinforce the "legend" (a word that has special meaning in the intelligence commuity).
May Pang may be right, but we should be square on one thing. Yoko wasn't a "control freak". She was a 'controller' also known as a professional
'handler'. Handlers are trained to handle and 'control' other agents and every aspect of their lives, one main agent or an array of smaller level
agents, depending on their place in the pecking order of mission competences and on the requirements of their assignment. I've known handlers and
they can readily be detected by this same characteristic behavior, taking charge, assuming direct authority for things which shouldn't be of their
concern, creating a buffer between their operative and others, running the show from the sidelines if not behind the scenes.
Also, such intelligence "sting operations" where an actual contrived community is set into place in order to create a setting and a backdrop to
justify one or a group of agents' activity, you will find that there is actually a network of agents with mutually interacting cover identities who
gravitate around one another in small groups of "friends or colleagues" in their mission roles for a number of reasons. First it provides each agent
with a credibility of being who they are presented as being, and nothing else. the group validating each others identity thanks to the image of social
acceptance Next it gives each one of them a social outlet so reducing the inclination to overly expose themselves to the risks of external social
contact unrelated to their mission.
Also it provides an informal support network so that agents don't find themselves psychologically isolated and makes them feel less like abnormal
freaks. It also grants the agency a useful monitoring matrix with each agent reporting on the others, in a more or less friendly and collegial way,
giving an advance alert system in case of suspicions about an operative being 'turned' and becoming a double agent or the burgeoning mental breakdown
of a field operative. Lastly it give occasion for a central coordinator to evaluate and assess his agents and semi-private opportunities to debrief
and advise them as well as manage their concerns.
Given the characteristic behavior of intelligence handlers trained to take control of pretty much every parameter of social interaction, it stands to
reason that Yoko exercised routine adamant control over every aspect of the story as pertains to the history of John Lennons life. She did this not
just to forge a "Legend" if a cult icon, and this for Cointelpro Mass Mind Control Propaganda reasons, but also because as a handler she is
accountable for protecting the specifics of her mission as well as masking any trace of agency intervention.
That you noticed that some of the friends of "Lennon" seem like, in interviews, CIA undercover agents trying their best to make the story sound
plausible, to reinforce the "legend", this is mundane in this type of agency operation. It's done all the time, they weave their social presence
around one another, and they are compelled to support the web of lies because their own identity and individual mission is dependent upon the solidity
of that fabric.
Anyone who has ever been around intelligence service agents can well understand that this sort of situation becomes glaringly obvious when they've had
some experience. Having been around them from very close up as well as from afar, it is something which requires no effort to do, and would actually
require quite the trick of the mind to occult from one's vision. Insiders know this full well because an integral part of their field reports include
individual assessments of every person they meet each day and include their impressions as to whether a given one might be an intelligence operative.
These entirely subjective field assessments are not requested as a routine backup information but are used with the utmost seriousness in determining
dangerous operations where national interests and human lives are in jeopardy. This is usually more relied upon than "hard" evidence which is more
easily infiltrated with disinformation, whereas the instincts of a good agent are highly respected as more valid and relevant.
Originally posted by switching yard
The official stories of every "Beatle," from 1967 to now, present more questions than answers. Some parts of the story lines seem to be illogical and
not easily explained except that we're always conditioned to think, "Oh well, they were and are artists and artists lead strange lives." That's what
we're supposed to think.
Artists do happen to live lives which are different from the run of the mill wage slave, both because they have a different lifestyle due to flexible
schedules, touring travel and evening performances, but also because their interests are different and their activity is creative and not routine or
humdrum. But this does not mean by any stretch that they are necessarily unstable, fickle, capricious, disoriented, amoral or otherwise constituted
differently from ordinary people. The Beatles are testimony to that. They thought the media madness created around them was nuts, that the
personality cult was improper, that fame and wealth were traps and they wanted to have meaning in their lives. A far stretch from the vanity,
pretense, cupidity, materialism and self-sufficiency of their character deficient and even perverse replacement impostor doppelgangers.
There is a relatively normal projection of each of The Beatles' lives up until the mid sixties. Any researcher looking into that will note that apart
from a few adjustments and minor corrections of their trajectories, they each followed their own interests, preoccupations, inclinations and
aspirations in a progressive manner without drastic changes or paradigm shifts. The year was 1966 when either they became possessed with another
person's individuality, character and personality at the same time as their physical body was swapped, or else they were killed and replaced - take
your pick, it pretty much comes to the same thing.
There is no accounting for this common trait of full fledge personality swing and modification of talent, tastes and beliefs. Artists may indeed live
bohemian lives and act in eccentric ways, but when you know them well over any period of time they invariably become predictable and pursue their
originality in a flowing and progressive trend. So it is hard to accept that each of them would radically change, these are no longer teenagers but
men in their mid twenties who have had a measure of success and have already found their way of accommodating to their environment, living some
aspects to their fullest yet taking tough stands on other issues in a courageous rebellion.
Then all of a sudden we find that John Lennon after making ardent public declarations to that effect no longer denounces the Zionist control bringing
forth an Orwellian New World Order, instead we get a mainstream leftist Ghandi making peace signs. Paul violently opposes drugs and has little
tolerance for others using them. Then he becomes a promoter and role model for drug use. Let us look more closely into the Blood Libel which they
openly opposed in graphic terms. And we should remember that Zionists should not be in reference to the Jewish people nor the Jewish faith but a
small group of non Jews who are not practicing believers in Judaism but who claim themselves to be from an ancient Hebrew Bloodline at the source of
today's Royal families and their stealth bloodline relatives better known as the Illuminati.
Zionists of Hebrew descent but NOT Jewish
British subject Rik Clay spoke out about the Queen's claims of descending from King Salomon and wanting London to become the new Zion at the 2012
Olympics. He was assassinated a few weeks later.
Rik Clay murdered for outing QE II as a Zionist
John Lennon made similar claims back in 1966 to the international press, referring to the Zionist control of the entertainment industry. Given the
consequences for an anonymous nobody, a bloke like you and I, we can imagine how seriously this was taken in the highest places. I let you draw your
own conclusions - the Spooks at MI6 took orders from the Queen. At minute 3:15 in the following video Alan Watts explains how it was public knowledge
printed in the newspapers that Hollywood was granted the rights to create international culture. This is the exact Zionist policy decision which John
Lennon had publicly protested.
Mass Mind Control by Hollywood Zionists
Next is a video of the August 28th, 1966 Los Angeles press conference in which some particularly interesting questions were asked. At this date it is
uncanny that John (or his impostor) would not confirm or deny his earlier statement about Hollywood Zionists running show business.
Press conference on 8/28/66 with The Beatles or their impostors?
At minute 12:35 John (or Fohn) uses a 'question avoidance' tactic by replying
"No comment" to a simple question about a public statement
he had recently made to a journalist and which had been published in the press. Faul, noticing that his response was unsatisfactory and maybe not
wanting to be the only one looking like a looser in front of their 'agency impostor handlers' - taunted John saying
"Come on, John, tell them
what you mean". Thus pressured by his co-conspirator's prompting, John nevertheless was unable to reply to a clear question for any
politically structured individual such as John Lennon was purported to be. Here is the question along with John's clueless answer:
QUESTION:
"Show Business is an extension of the Jewish religion. Would you mind amplifying that?"
John Lennon:
"I mean, you can read into it what you like. It's just a little old statement. I was not very serious about it."
QUESTION:
"And those words, how did you piece them together?"
John Lennon:
"Oh, I don't know..."
Was John Lennon someone who lent himself to making trivial statements about fundamental political matters? Hardly. On this subject, here is what
Texe Marrs confirms:
Do The Jews Own Hollywood And The Media?
Let us please remember that this is not the Jewish people nor the Jewish religion, but only a small group of fanatics who have infiltrated several
nations among which Israel and the USA and who hide behind judaism to dissimulate their plans which have nothing to do with the welfare of anyone
Jewish. They are Zionists, and as our current US Vice-President so eloquently puts it, this has nothing to do with being Jewish.
The Zionists are the Illuminati
As recently as this week Sarah Palin spoke of Blood Libel and she is widely believed to be a Zionist, calling into question the Kabbalistic ritual
practices of this group behind the New World Order and making us wonder if Sir Faul so appointed by the Zionist Queen Elizabeth II isn't himself not
just a practicing satanist but also a Zionist? The following video cites at minute 2:05 that Jews are prohibited to engage in human sacrifice in 4
passages of the old testament. This is evidence that the Zionists do not practice Judaism but are pagan satanists
Blood Libel
Paul took a very hard stand against satanist ritual abuse, as can be noted by the Butcher Album Cover which cannot be explained away any other way.
It showed life sized dolls of babies, mangled and dismembered and mixed in with hunk of raw bleeding meat, with themselves dressed in butchers'
smocks.
Blood Sacrifice as practiced by the British Royals
In case you hadn't understood, they made sure the back cover explained that a woman seen from the back, illustrating that her identity was kept
hidden, officiating as a high priestess in such rituals with a string of sausages especially chosen to look like human intestines presented before
her. Today we note that it is hardly credible that a militantly opposed Paul would side with the enemy and turn practicing Satanist, making his
replacement a closed case.
Saxe Coburg Gotha British Royals at RItuals
Some of the kids who were sacrificed Here
Originally posted by switching yard
The guy in the documentary film LENNON NYC has a voice that sounds like the original, but physically, he doesn't look like original John. Maybe it's
possible, with many hours of practice, to imitate someone else's voice.
Originally posted by switching yard
Also, I think the original was a bit more macho, had a fuller face, not so beaky and caved in on the sides nose, and had a somewhat more stocky build.
As we've noted before, the original was into anglo or French blondes, not Asian women. The whole thing about the so-called "house husband" period is
weird, too. Like, he just wanted to bake bread and watch TV while Yoko's job was handling all the finances and making all the big decisions. I just
don't buy it. Something smells fishy about the "true" stories in LENNON NYC. May Pang has already spoken out that the show is full of disinformation.
Originally posted by switching yard
The filmmakers have the big graphic at the end: "John Lennon 1940 -- 1980" as if to burn that into your brain. If Lennon was replaced at the end of
1966, as I suspect, then that graphic is a lie. But you see, they want everyone to believe the official story. Sometime in the future when Sir passes
away, there will be no end to the TV documentaries emphasizing that "Paul" lived a long, successful life touring right until the end, etc.
Originally posted by switching yard
Something is rotten about all the official stories regarding The Beatles. So much of it seems like cover stories to mask what really happened.
edit on 21-1-2011 by Getsmart because: the shills got to my computer and crashed my post, deleting its cache history.