I don't believe in Featles:
CIAlebrity impersonator, "John Lennon" (updated)
Beatles will exist without us.
~ George Harrison
Someone once asked, "OK, so Paul was against the
Illuminati's dark agenda, but the other Beatles were OK
with it?" This made me cringe, because no, I don't
believe the other Beatles would have gone along with
promoting war or a
psycho-chemical, psychological warfare agent
Timothy Leary once said: "I declare that The Beatles are
mutants. Prototypes of evolutionary agents sent by God,
endowed with a mysterious power to create a new human
species, a young race of laughing freemen." I do not
know about the "mutants" part, but I do believe Leary
had the rest of it pretty much right.
I believe that the original Beatles were a
powerful force of light and love. The Beatles were
laughing men who were warm and funny. The music was
amazing, and they had a great time playing live.
The dark forces had to take control of the music and the
message, because the Beatles had the power to effect
change. The dark ones do not want Light forces of truth
and goodness to lift up the masses and wake people up.
They had to stamp out the Beatles to suppress the
positive energy and effects the Beatles were having.
They had to wrest control of the juggernaut that was the
Beatles since the lads were not going to play ball. Some
of the personnel had to be "let go" so that the power
and influence of "the Beatles" could keep the cash
flowing and could keep manipulating the masses.
There were clues in "Yellow Submarine" and Sgt. Pepper
that there were duplicate Beatles. For example, the
"old" Beatles were shoved to the side on Sgt. Pepper,
while the "new and improved" Beatles are front and
center. The Beatles were dead, as the grave with
"BEATLES" on it attests:
In "Yellow Submarine," there is a scene with a duplicate
Beatles band playing in a bubble. It is interesting how
the mustached Sgt. Pepper version of John is showing the
Illuminati sign of allegiance to Lucifer ("Lucy
in the Sky," "Bring on the
All of this is old news as far as it relates to Paul
McCartney. It should not come as a shock that Paul
was not the only person to ever be
impostor-replaCIAed in the history of the world. In
Questions about John Lennon's assassination,
I posted an interview with
Dr. Stephen Lynn, the physician who attended to
"John Lennon" after he had been shot on December 8,
1980. The interview raised some very troubling
issues. The doctor and nurses did not recognize the
man who had been shot as John Lennon. In addition,
the doctor admitted to with-holding and even
destroying evidence of the crime. I believe the
simple answer to why they didn't recognize the man
as John Lennon & why they destroyed evidence is that
John Lennon was a victim of impostor-replacement.
Please click on image to see comp in its entirety.
Montreal, May 1969, there was a confrontation between
"John," Yoko and Al Capp. Capp remarks to "John" to his face
that "at least the other three guys are English...." "John"
responds: "what does that mean?" Al Capp replied, "You think
about it." What was this all about? Perhaps Capp was onto
1967, "John" starred in the movie, "How I Won the War," but
in a 1966 interview, he said, "We all just don't agree with
war. There's no need to kill anyone for any reason." [Source]
It just seems a little strange that someone who was against
war would star in a movie about war. Was this really John,
or was it just his image being used to promote an agenda?
This was 1967, and certain elements wanted to expand the war
in Southeast Asia. When the powers that be are gunning for
war, they will prep the masses with a spate of war-movies.
It gets people "in the mood."
my opinion, John Lennon's name and image were hijacked to
make "him" an ineffectual "leader" of the anti-war movement.
The double's interviews with the Illuminatus, Yoko Ono,
while sitting in bags made the peace movement look
ridiculous and the helped to discredit the peace movement.
This would be an example of controlled opposition.
will admit that the John-double is a better match than Faul,
but if you study the following comparisons carefully, I
believe you will be able to discern physical differences
that betray the impostor. The main physical differences I
have noticed are a square chin changing to a pointed chin, a
straight nose turning into a beak, lips getting thinner, and
the physique going from strong to thin and weak. There is
also something about the eyes...
this comp, the double's profile is more rounded than John's.
this comp, the nostrils are noticeably different, and the
nose on the right is a bit "sharper":
John Lennon had a particular idiosyncratic stance he assumed
when he played live. The impostor failed to assume that
position, which some consider to be a give-away.
John at 1:00, impostor at 3:48:
John Lennon had a funny, cheeky sense of humor that
the impostor just could not duplicate.
It is interesting that John was successful with his
two books, "In His Own Write" and "A Spaniard in the
Works," but never wrote another book.
In a 1965 interview, John said he wrote "all the
"Have you been writing lately?"
"I write all the time. I don't actually put it
on paper so much these days, it goes on tape.
I've got lots of tape... which, if I put down on
paper it would be a book. Thoughts come, and end
up in songs or films. It's just a matter of...
do I want to make those tapes into paper, or
make those tapes into records."
"John, do you find your second book is doing as
well as your first?"
"I haven't asked anybody, you know. It did as
well initially. It wont sell as many, but it's a
better book so I don't care."
"Do you plan another book in the near future?"
"I don't really plan them, you know. They just
sort of happen. The publisher plans them, and I
just sort of scribble."
I find it a little sad that people just blindly
accepted without question that John abandoned his
beautiful wife and child for an Elite Japanese
banker's daughter who passed herself off as an
John and Cynthia Lennon
There are conflicting stories by Julian and
"John" about how much time Julian spent with
his father. "John" says at 3:17 his son
(Julian) spends every weekend with him:
At the beginning of this interview, Julian
talks about how he saw his dad "8, maybe 10
times" between when he left Cynthia and
before his death:
Mark David Chapman was carrying a copy of
A Catcher in the Rye when he was
arrested. Interesting that the book is about
At 0:38, the self-proclaimed witch, Yoko
Ono, says "the
last John I remember
is a very gregarious, energetic,
high-spirited guy." Does this not sound like
the last "John" in a series of "Johns?"
This recent occurrence bolsters the
theory that John was replaced. Why would
the Feds care if his fingerprints were
in the public domain? Perhaps they are
afraid people will compare the later set
of fingerprints to the earlier set and
prove John, too, was the victim of