|
|
My List
Oct 28, 2008 19:27:42 GMT -5
Post by lostworld on Oct 28, 2008 19:27:42 GMT -5
Personally, I think John's assassination had something to do w/ PID - maybe he was threatening to spill the beans, or something. Plus, the amount of control exerted over him by Yoko makes me think it was the real John. However, I have not researched this to any great extent, so I'm not going to say one way or the other. I do think that pic comparison of John on Icke was showing one person. Anyway, I didn't want to start talking about the possibility of a Fohn on Icke, b/s some of those people can't even see that Paul was replaced. Talking about Fohn would just make their heads explode :-P Agree with you Falcoun, I also feel that I know too little about it to make a fair statement. But, since I´ve lately done so much research about the MK mindcontrol programs and how advanced and common this part of their agenda seems to be I think that Yoko definitely was Johns handler , the way he so totally let her take over him etc. Normal love isn´t like that, especially not after the first "happy phase" together. We see this in other examples too but I´m not gonna get into that now. You´ll see another example of this in my new thread that´s coming soon ( wow, what a cliffhanger!  ) Don´t get me wrong, there are still plenty of doubles and clones out there! And we have plenty of good examples of it right here on this forum. Just be open to the fact that sometimes it´s "just" mindcontrol, even if I think that that´s actually even a worse fate to the victim... I think I´d rather be dead then live in a zombie state, completely in someone elses power, and with no control over my body and soul.  |
|
|
|
My List
Oct 29, 2008 13:24:41 GMT -5
Post by sherlok on Oct 29, 2008 13:24:41 GMT -5
Makes me wonder what criteria they use for deciding whether to
replace or kill?
Maybe they only replace if they already have a good double on hand
and otherwise they just kill them?
I mean, I'm sure they kill them in either case but sometimes they
choose to go through the whole replacement thing which must be
a lot of work.
|
|
|
|
My List
Oct 29, 2008 14:22:49 GMT -5
Post by beatlies on Oct 29, 2008 14:22:49 GMT -5
I notice that the Beatles where thrust on the US stage in NYC February 1964 to uplift and distract people from the recent brutal-traumatic horrifying, depressing murder coup against President JFK, and that this "sixties counterculture period " ushered in by the Beatles was brought to a mass psychological brutal-traumatic end with the unexpected assassination of the leader of the Beatles in NYC in December 1980. The circle was sealed, now enter the new age of the cold, brutal, inhumane Reagan-Bush era of 1981-2008.
It's all about the CIA and Friends/Fiends creating a psy-war mass narrative to control the people. This, from a Lennon fan myspace page, summarizes the psy-ops effect on the
public of the staged Fohn Fennon murder:
"Gore Vidal. "Lennon... was a born enemy of the U.S. He was everything they hated." It was the time immediately following the first landslide election of Ronald Reagan, a discouraging prospect to so many who had embraced all that Lennon seemed to stand for and believe in. If the two events were unrelated, and clearly they were, they are indelibly linked on an emotional level. Not only had Ronald Reagan been elected president, with all his cold, brutal values coming to ascendance -- but the one rock star who seemed the warmest and most human (much of that merely public image, as it turned out) had been summarily slain a month later. Asked about Lennon's death within days of its happening, Ronald Reagan cupped a hand to an ear and then shrugged and grinned, saying something affably inaudible toward the crowd of reporters. He obviously didn't care. But don't get mixed up about John Lennon. His true genius, which he practiced all his life, was to make people love him. As a human being, he was seriously ......."
|
|
|
|
My List
Oct 29, 2008 14:24:58 GMT -5
Post by faulconandsnowjob on Oct 29, 2008 14:24:58 GMT -5
"Makes me wonder what criteria they use for deciding whether to
replace or kill?"
Yeah, I've wondered that, too. Maybe it has to do w/ the strength of the individual's personality. Maybe a particularly strong personality isn't amenable to mind control, & so that person is taken out & replaced (I'm thinking of Paul McCartney). Maybe someone who is not as strong, or has gone thru some trauma, would be easier to control. I'm thinking of John Lennon here... Anyway, I would like to know more about MKULTRA & other mind control ops, but I understand they basically have to "break" someone's mind first w/ some sort of traumatic experience or something. I have heard rumors that John actually witnessed Paul being murdered. Of course, I have no proof of this & can't substantiate that claim at all, but if something like that *did* happen, then it might make John quite vulnerable to control. This is pure speculation, of course.
|
|
|
|
My List
Oct 29, 2008 15:07:04 GMT -5
Post by lostworld on Oct 29, 2008 15:07:04 GMT -5
Good point Sherlok! And - you´re reasoning is right on Faulcon. I haven´t either full understanding in why they sometimes kill the character permanently and in other cases replace or use mindcontrol. But some minds are stronger than others... I´m glad that you´re also interested in this part of their agenda Faulcon and there is lots of information on MK (ultra) mindcontrol on the net. I can provide you with some good links that I have used myself in my research if you want. Will post them asap...  Also check my thread "I sold my soul to rock'n'roll" here where I post my argument for this - that still hasn´t got much response here, I´m sad to say. There are also some links that I´ve posted here on Mel Gibson and today I saw that Lucy has sent a post there too about this. This will also be posted on PID very soon. |
|
|
|
My List
Oct 29, 2008 15:52:42 GMT -5
Post by sherlok on Oct 29, 2008 15:52:42 GMT -5
I would like to know more about MKULTRA & other mind control ops, but I understand they basically have to "break" someone's mind first w/ some sort of traumatic experience or something. Different methods are used but the most frequently described is horrific torture from birth (or even earlier) combined with degrading/terrifying incidents such as being buried alive with repulsive insects, forced to kill others or to witness brutal murders (some real, some staged), eating feces, heavy betrayals, etc., etc. over a long period. Drugs and hypnosis are also used along with certain enforced concepts, symbols, etc. This "splits" the personality into "alters" (personalities). Each alter has a trigger (a word, phrase, color, etc.) that can be used by a programmer to "bring the alter to the front" (switch the person into that personality) and then other predetermined triggers are used for that alter to perform certain tasks such as murder, suicide or whatever. The victim ends up with no memory of any of this. Newer methods include brain stem scarring (done electronically) brain surgery and chip implants. It's said that certain of these methods can produce a sort of genius (such as an artist), or a photographic memory (used as information couriers, computer techs, etc). |
|
|
|
My List
Oct 29, 2008 19:31:14 GMT -5
Post by faulconandsnowjob on Oct 29, 2008 19:31:14 GMT -5
It seems like Mark David Chapman might have been a victim of MK w/ "Catcher in the Rye" being the trigger... Didn't he say he didn't remember anything about what happened? He also flew to NY from Hawaii a couple of times before he went thru w/ killing John Lennon. Anyway, "The Murder of John Lennon" by Fenton Bresler talks about how MDC might have been a Manchurian candidate. Yep, quite disturbing....
|
|
|
|
My List
Oct 29, 2008 19:48:12 GMT -5
Post by sherlok on Oct 29, 2008 19:48:12 GMT -5
^ Yes, Chapman has all the earmarks of an MKULTRA/Monarch slave. But, he may or may not have actually killed anyone. Infamous "killers" are often slaves but also patsies who take the rap for murders committed by others. For more info see this brilliant but disturbing book:  |
|
|
|
My List
Oct 29, 2008 20:08:23 GMT -5
Post by faulconandsnowjob on Oct 29, 2008 20:08:23 GMT -5
"But, he may or may not have actually killed anyone."
Excellent point. MDC just sat there & waited for the cops to show up. I wouldn't be surprised if Yoko didn't off John!
|
|
|
|
My List
Oct 31, 2008 11:40:04 GMT -5
Post by artemis on Oct 31, 2008 11:40:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
My List
Oct 31, 2008 12:15:42 GMT -5
Post by lostworld on Oct 31, 2008 12:15:42 GMT -5
"Mistress of the Dark"  |
|
|
|
My List
Oct 31, 2008 14:05:05 GMT -5
Post by sherlok on Oct 31, 2008 14:05:05 GMT -5
god, she looks weird!  |
|
|
|
Post by artemis on Nov 1, 2008 9:53:53 GMT -5
PRISCILLA was ressembling KING ELVIS a lot. Lets not forget she comes from a military background, and she is of course part of the Hollywood/entertainment elite. CIA/occult connection a lot. She was groomed to become his wife, without a doubt. Enuff to take a look at many couples in the show-biz industry and to notice their striking ressemblance. In the real life u dont see often this...
|
|
|
|
Post by lostworld on Nov 2, 2008 6:48:55 GMT -5
PRISCILLA was ressembling KING ELVIS a lot. Lets not forget she comes from a military background, and she is of course part of the Hollywood/entertainment elite. CIA/occult connection a lot. She was groomed to become his wife, without a doubt. Enuff to take a look at many couples in the show-biz industry and to notice their striking ressemblance. In the real life u dont see often this... One comment I have about Sting (the current Sting) is that I think he resembles Malcolm McDowell. I don't want to push this off-topic but this is something I see frequently with celebs. I see what I perceive to be a family resemblance between those that are supposedly not related. Of course, there's no way to prove a resemblance -- it's totally subjective. But, I'm beginning to believe that many celebs are related and they may or may not even know it. The illuminati families are known to produce "illegitimate" babies that are then secretly given to other families for raising as their own. This helps hide the bloodline connections from the masses but the connection is there and it's kept track of by the PTBs. I suspect that many celebs are closely related and come from only a relatively small number of families. Their "success" in show biz is made to appear to be based on luck and/or talent but it's really just because of their true bloodline which is known by a few on the inside. The connection, I think, to the topic of this forum is that "closet relatives" of a celeb may also be used when replacements are needed. Just a thought I have.  This is very interesting Sherlok. Just like the royals, you mean that the celebs are doing the same thing to "preserve the blood"? You could be on to something... even if I haven´t noticed it before. If you come up with some examples, please post! |
|
|
|
My List
Nov 2, 2008 21:32:23 GMT -5
Post by sherlok on Nov 2, 2008 21:32:23 GMT -5
^ This is conjecture on my part but I do think it's true. When you study all this stuff about the illuminati for a while you begin to think like they do and certain ideas come to you that resonate as probably being true just because you become familiar with their methods and goals and such. I frequently see what appears to me to be family resemblances between various celebrities, especially actors. It's totally subjective and can't be proven without DNA testing, I suppose. It's not always the same thing -- maybe the eyes, or the mouth or an expression, or facial line, etc. Sometimes a certain voice quality too. What got me thinking about this is the information in Icke's books about Hitler actually being a Rothschild baby that was secretly moved to another family. Also, as another example, the actors Clint Eastwood, John Lithgow, the Baldwin brothers, and Christopher Reeve are all noted as being descendants of a politician named William Bradford ( reference). That means these actors are related yet we rarely hear about that. Why is that? Seems like it would be interesting yet it's hardly, if ever, mentioned. Makes me wonder -- what other actors are related? If the illuminati likes to do this -- move their "illegitimate" babies to other families to hide their true bloodline and if I'm seeing what appears to be family resemblances with celebs then maybe that's what I'm seeing. It does make sense to me. They want their bloodlines in controlling positions within the society and famous actors are certainly influential. In fact, movie stars, TV stars and rock stars are more influential than any political leaders as far as really influencing public opinion. At the same time they pump a tremendous amount of hype and publicity into these celebs so that the public worships them. Then the public see their movies and absorb all the manipulation and propaganda and mind control that Hollywood pumps out. Also the private behavior of some of these celebs that is hyped up by the press influences people a great deal too. |
|
)
