|
|
Post by The Mask on May 11, 2011 19:33:50 GMT -5
Sidenote: Martha Stewart was featured in a recent issue of New Jersey magazine and it contained some photos of her when she was younger - she doesn't look at all the same. Also, the text within the long article seemed the usual manufactured fake bullsh*t back story. I've never bought the idea that this plain Jane "housewife" suddenly wrote a book about folding napkins and became a gazillionaire with a huge media empire. It just doesn't work that way. Something to check out in future! PS Not to mention that you dont' get off as easy as she did when you've been convicted of insider trading. Just doesn't happen. Oh yeah Martha was replaced. Most definitely. I think there were actually two Martha's before Martha of nowadys. doppels.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2&page=135 |
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on May 12, 2011 12:57:40 GMT -5
Sidenote: Martha Stewart was featured in a recent issue of New Jersey magazine and it contained some photos of her when she was younger - she doesn't look at all the same. Also, the text within the long article seemed the usual manufactured fake bullsh*t back story. I've never bought the idea that this plain Jane "housewife" suddenly wrote a book about folding napkins and became a gazillionaire with a huge media empire. It just doesn't work that way. Something to check out in future! PS Not to mention that you dont' get off as easy as she did when you've been convicted of insider trading. Just doesn't happen. Oh yeah Martha was replaced. Most definitely. I think there were actually two Martha's before Martha of nowadys. doppels.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2&page=135Martha Stewart, or Fartha Fewart, was the scapegoat media figure for the enormous USA corporate-financial accounting and fake-profit-reports scandals of 2002 (Worldcom, Enron, Arthur Anderson etc. etc., just as Bernard Madoff (and his wife, Ruth) are the sacrifiCIAl media scapegoats for the top Wall Street firm corruption scandals, collapse and trillion dollar u.s. government TARP "bailouts" of 2008. Sacrifical lambs and diversions held up for the masses to throw rocks at; in Madoff's case with anti-Semitic overtones (a tactic of the white powers-that-be going back to the Middle Ages). |
|
|
|
Post by The Mask on May 14, 2011 23:02:16 GMT -5
Martha Stewart, or Fartha Fewart, was the scapegoat media figure for the enormous USA corporate-financial accounting and fake-profit-reports scandals of 2002 (Worldcom, Enron, Arthur Anderson etc. etc., just as Bernard Madoff (and his wife, Ruth) are the sacrifiCIAl media scapegoats for the top Wall Street firm corruption scandals, collapse and trillion dollar u.s. government TARP "bailouts" of 2008. Sacrifical lambs and diversions held up for the masses to throw rocks at; in Madoff's case with anti-Semitic overtones (a tactic of the white powers-that-be going back to the Middle Ages). Yep, all for public consumption and assimilation. |
|
|
|
Post by The Mask on Jun 4, 2011 20:28:12 GMT -5
Famous astrologer Linda Goodman looks as if she was replaced twice. The first pic is from the back of her 1968 book Linda Goodman's Sun Signs, who I believe is the original. Linda  Flinda #1  Flinda #2  |
|
|
|
Post by artemis on Jun 5, 2011 3:52:04 GMT -5
Absolutely right u are, 2wice replaced. Besides, I go out on a limb and say that her replacement is connected to the mysterious disappearance/death of her daughter Sally.
"Goodman's books also reference what she referred to as the "disappearance" of her eldest daughter, Sally Snyder, and the mystery around her reported death. Linda Goodman spent much money and many years trying to find Sally, long after police closed the case as a suicide or accidental suicide. Goodman never accepted the official police report and continued to search for Sally for the rest of her own life."
|
|
|
|
Post by goro on Jun 5, 2011 7:49:32 GMT -5
Thanks for posting about Goodman, Mask. If you look at her writing, Sun Signs and Love Signs seem to have been written by the same person (to me anyway) while Star Signs reads more like a Californian wannabe Shirley MacLaine New Age person wrote it instead of the very warm, witty, and empathic style of writing in the earlier two books. I would bet that the first two might have been written by the original but a replacement was used on the photo for the second one, Love Signs, and from then on it wasn't the original.
All the stuff about her daughter was very strange. Complex story where the husband supposedly went and positively identified the body, but Linda found evidence to believe that it wasn't her daughter and there was weirdness afoot with it all.
Also, Linda's other book, Goobers, was always meant to be a sort of stream of consciousness channeling type book of ideas, (and which I always found unreadable,) and it had been written decades earlier than it was published - her publisher quite rightly balked at publishing it although Linda wanted it published after Love Signs. So although it was the last book of hers that was published it was not written in that sequence.
The glamorous photo used on Love Signs (published in the mid to late 70's I believe?) of a 30-something looking woman contrasted with the much older and haggard looking woman on the book jacket for Star Signs, which was published around 1987 I believe? -- either she got in the wrong time machine and fast forwarded to a much older future, the Love Signs photo was a very OLD photo even when that book was published, or, again, we're dealing with a replacement and they didn't even try to get the ages right on her photos.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Mask on Jun 5, 2011 22:39:13 GMT -5
I agree Sun Signs and Love Signs are similar enough to be written by the same person. And your scenario does seem plausible. However, when I read Sun Signs I feel good about the humourous approach that's taken towards my own sun sign and the sun signs of people I know. Love Signs has a slightly different feel to it to me. It's almost written in a 1970's pseudo-feministic style that makes me feel worse after reading it. That screams C I A all the way to me because I have seen it done with other authors in the self-help, New Age field. Regarding the pic I posted of Linda's double in the latter years, here are some more pics. She died in 1995 which would have put her at 70 if that pic was taken right before death. The first pic below is on the back of her 1987 book Star Signs:    ...looking at the bottom pic compared to the two above, it almost looks like there was a third double.  |
|
|
|
Post by artemis on Jun 6, 2011 3:11:19 GMT -5
When I saw her, I thought its ELLEN BURSTYN, what the hell?
|
|
|
|
Post by goro on Jun 6, 2011 8:33:34 GMT -5
Another thing about Linda/Finda is -- why are all the "official" photos of her so blurry? And there are relatively few photos of her available, too.
I agree that Love Signs could be very condescending in its way. She absolutely eviscerates my sign, Virgo, and I hated that because it seemed to unprofessional to basically take one sign of the zodiac and treat it like complete crap. So given those facts, maybe it WAS a "project" taken on by the psy-ops types since her "brand" was already so successful.
And I agree that there is a lot more stylistic fluff and pseudo-feminist crap in Love Signs which isn't in Sun Signs at all. That book is more direct and clear.
|
|
|
|
Post by artemis on Jun 6, 2011 8:38:42 GMT -5
So ure a Virgo after all? Ive got Virgo rising  |
|
|
|
Post by The Mask on Jun 6, 2011 9:01:42 GMT -5
I agree that Love Signs could be very condescending in its way. She absolutely eviscerates my sign, Virgo, and I hated that because it seemed to unprofessional to basically take one sign of the zodiac and treat it like complete crap. Yes, condescending is a good word. I think that's done on purpose. And I agree about your sign, there's certainly a lack of sensitivity in that book imo. Part of the problem with things written about the sign Virgo along with Gemini(which actually 23 degrees of it is really the sign Auriga) and Libra is there hasn't been a ruling planet discovered for those signs(Mercury is correct for Gemini but not Auriga) so a basic understanding of those signs is lacking even with trained astrologers. It all got screwed up when the Illuminati decided to f-up astrological predictions by removing one of the signs, the most important one at that, and suppress other information needed to make accurate predictions. Astrology is still looked at as a joke to many people, whereas people may accept psychic ability as being real, etc. Yes, seems that way to me, but your earlier scenario could be correct. I will have to take a look at Sun signs again. It's been a long time since I've read through that. |
|
|
|
Post by goro on Jun 7, 2011 17:24:30 GMT -5
Heh, Virgo rising makes sense, Artemis! It's definitely the position for being a diligent researcher, one who sifts through information and filters it carefully. My Leo rising gives me my problem with putting my foot in the mouth frequently and offending folks because I get passionate and fired up - and my Virgo sun sits back and goes, "What are you DOING???" Yes, there has been much manipulation about astrology - most of it, actually. Some of the financial cycles that Gann studied were SO threatening to the Powers that Be that they pretty much bought up all his books and hogged his information for themselves so they could use it to profit from the markets and make sure nobody else understood his work! Meanwhile, they started a disinformation campaign to reduce the average person's knowledge of astrology to natal sign/sun sign horoscopes, which were rarely used to predict things by real astrologers, and which have led to all the highly convenient skepticism and dismissal of real astrology. But anyway. For a long stretch of at least twenty years, probably more like thirty, Linda Goodman's Sun Sign and Love Sign books were THE definitive pop culture astrology books - found in every bookstore and airport. So making sure that she was positioned this way, and didn't reveal anything TOO important or empowering, was obviously a "campaign" somebody undertook. |
|
|
|
Post by artemis on Jun 23, 2011 13:05:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by goro on Jun 23, 2011 13:25:43 GMT -5
UGH! I guess Amy Fisher/Famy has been working as a porn star for a while - porn stars always get replaced, sometimes faster than they get new breast implants. But the telling thing here is how the "original" or earlier version of Amy had an upturned piggy type of nose and the "new" version has a nose that tilts down - not possible in the world of plastic surgery. Usually things go the other way with nose surgery - the downturned nose is sliced and adjusted to tilt upwards a bit more. The "original" Amy had an extreme pig nose, though, where the nostrils were completely exposed - no way you could get her nose to look like it does in the second photo. And what an appropriate post for the "less famous" thread! LOL! She was such a strange character back in the day - a pseudo celebrity from back before we had all these reality shows. |
|
|
|
Post by artemis on Jun 23, 2011 13:30:31 GMT -5
At first sight I thought it was nose surgery. But it isnt and ure rite. Here's the original AMY. She reminds me of MARIAH CAREY...  |
|
