The Beatles Never Existed


A Journey of Multiples

Pete Townshend Multiples?

Post picture comparisons and discussions here.

Pete Townshend Multiples?

Postby Silversong » Sat Dec 27, 2014 10:50 pm

In the New Member section, there was a small initial discussion about Pete Townshend, and how Tink believes he was replaced sometime after 1981. I said I would do some research on it, and begin a new post in this section.

Tink wrote:
...I'm posting some links to photos that are I think illustrative of the change in Pete Townshend, and hoping you can do the copying and put them up for me in a subsequent post. I would be very appreciative!

Here are some links to sites with photos of pre-1980 Pete, the one who enchanted me and was the center of my world from when I was 12 to about 18:

(Sixth image down on this page:)
http://halsprogressiverockblog.blogspot ... chive.html[/size]

Here is that picture:
Image


This is the picture:
Image

(Fourth photo down:)
http://thefrodisroomrockblog.blogspot.c ... chive.html
Image

And here is the post 1980 Pete. Even if your highly advanced skill in the science of features comparisons (far more sophisticated and astute than mine, I willingly concede) concludes that the two Petes are physically exactly identical, Silversong, nevertheless, nothing, absolutely nothing, will convince me that this is the same person. The second man is a Replacement, as so creepy (and talentless), you'd think his manufacturers didn't even sufficiently bother to train him, or program him, on how to "be Pete Townshend":

(Fifteenth photo down:)
http://www.thewho.info/Showcase.htm

Image


Image


Image

And here's one where the site itself puts photos of Pete 1 and Pete 2 side by side with the intent of merely showing how different one looks with and without a beard, but inadvertently (perhaps, though since it is Rolling Stone, it may be a subliminal psy op) demonstrates that the two are completely different people. If clones can be said to be said to be "different" from their originator templates:
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/pictu ... nd-0354512

Image

In all of these before and after Petes, the second one has a lighter eye color than the first. This last photo pair is a good example of this. And the second one's lips are thinner. But most of all, the second one always gives me the major creeps!

==

I will show you what I've discovered. It isn't what you expected, but it's probably worse. Maybe you will agree with my findings, and maybe you won't. I can assure you I won't be trying to convince you there's only one Pete Townshend of rock legend fame -- or ever was -- or that the post-1980 Pete is the same Pete you were fond of before that.
Make America Moral Again (But first, make it America again.)
Silversong
Banned On The Run
Banned On The Run
 
Posts: 2318
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2014 6:50 am

Re: Pete Townshend Multiples?

Postby Silversong » Sat Dec 27, 2014 11:24 pm

In my opinion, these are two younger Petes. When a person has a crease between their eyes, it usually indicates they're a stomach-sleeper. However, these two creases are in different locations, and I think one nose is shorter than the other.
Image

Here again are two different forehead creases, and two different lengths of noses, between a younger and a middle-aged Pete. In my opinion, they do not match.
Image

These two 'might' match.
Image

The first three Petes seem to have a center crease with a varying deepness (does the one on the far left look slanted, and are there noses shorter?), and for comparison, I'm showing one of the younger Petes with the off-center crease and longer nose.
Image

Now, for a full comparison, here are two younger Petes on the far left and right -- one with a center crease, and one with an off-center crease -- and two older Petes with a center crease, but why does the oldest Pete have a shallower crease than the one to his left, who must be several years younger? Don't these creases grow deeper with age? Do the two older Petes have a shorter nose like the younger Pete on the far left?
Image

Did Pete Townshend ever exist? :geek:
Make America Moral Again (But first, make it America again.)
Silversong
Banned On The Run
Banned On The Run
 
Posts: 2318
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2014 6:50 am

Re: Pete Townshend Multiples?

Postby Silversong » Sat Dec 27, 2014 11:28 pm

Here are some of his covert/ satanic poses and hand signals over the years. It's only logical and "fitting" that each subsequent rock group which followed the Beatles would amp up this project:

Whoever captioned this picture says he's doing the "Wingspan", which may be correct, but in addition, he is also posing in the form of an "X", as in Planet X/ Nibiru. It is also the symbol for the Cross of Constantine.
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

And isn't this supposed to be Wingspan?
Image

Is John making a "W" for "Wings"?
Image

Someone else we know did a lot of those "X" poses, too, but not with his arms extended. They started out more secretive and covert, then got bolder over the years with successive rock groups. Here are a few examples.
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

A "V", an "X"? Both?
Image
Image
Image
Image
(Is there anyone who doesn't know yet why Ronald McDonald's mouth is painted red?)

666
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

Mothers, lock your doors.
Image

All-Seeing Eye
Image
Image

Is he a nairf, too? "Pete Townshend Over Times Square"
Image

Is Paul the nairf over Planet Earth?
Image

Is this the pose of the "Hidden Hand" of Freemasonry? Or maybe the Atonist "Lion's Paw"?
Image

Such wanton wastefulness. Such a nice example for the youth, and desensitization to the destruction of valuable property, especially in a world where so many are starving and homeless. And of what is smoke a signal or metaphor?
Image
Image
Image

Image
Image

When we saw this with McCartney and McDonald, it was said to be a swastika.
Image
Image
Image

This one is debatable, but I personally think it's a Bolshevik symbol, as in their Soviet flag the "hammer and sickle" (which is where the "arm and hammer" baking soda symbol came from). Most people thought it stood for "agriculture", but it literally represented cutting off man from the earth, and the earth's sustenance. It's like a symbol for "get your feet off our planet". I see him in this pose a lot in his performance photos.
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

Which Paul is with which Pete?
Image Image Image Image
Make America Moral Again (But first, make it America again.)
Silversong
Banned On The Run
Banned On The Run
 
Posts: 2318
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2014 6:50 am

Re: Pete Townshend Multiples?

Postby Tink » Mon Dec 29, 2014 3:20 am

This is amazing work, Silversong.

With all you've presented here, I absolutely have to agree with you. Fortunately, I stopped loving The Who, and Pete Townshend, a long, long time ago, and in recent years have become all too aware of how they were just another fabricated, carefully orchestrated gadget in the complicated re-engineering of the human race by TPTB. When their "rock opera" Tommy came out -- first in record, then in movie form -- my peers and I went cuckoo over it, like it was the greatest thing in the world, though none of us had any idea what it was actually about. There was no rhyme or reason to anything we were hearing or seeing in this story, but we didn't care. We just got sucked into the alchemical initiation of it. Of course now it's obvious that the whole thing is a thinly veiled account of MKULTRA trauma-based mind control programming. This is even more heavily referenced in the movie than in the record. Only decades after the fact, with the arrival of the Era of Disclosure, and the internet, has any of this become evident to us.

Similarly, we all rocked and cheered to the anthem-like song Won't Get Fooled Again , not understanding that the lyrics of this piece of Predictive Programming were purely ironical, because we would get fooled again, and were being fooled at that moment, and were being readied for the "change" and the "revolution" mentioned in the song. We also didn't understand -- and this is astounding to me now -- that the band was contemptuously mocking the audience when after the line, "Though I know that the hypnotized never lie", Townshend says, "Do ya?" They did this both on the recording and in concert. The band was revealing to us that we were hypnotized, and that they were the hypnotists. We were passive, hoodwinked stooges. We had no idea what was being done to us, and even cheered as it was being done.

I now hate The Who, in all their incarnations, forms, types, multiples, clone models, etc. However, I don't find them quite as spooky and eerie as The Beatles. Though I hate them too.
Tink
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
 
Posts: 244
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2014 6:46 pm

Re: Pete Townshend Multiples?

Postby Silversong » Mon Dec 29, 2014 3:33 am

Thank you. Yes, hating the Beatles. Even if there were a true, original group -- they were working against humanity at every step and turn of the screw, and they had to know they were working among fake multiples all along since 1959. So that makes them frauds and con artists, too.

That's why the Beatles never existed. We were to believe they were innocent and non-threatening, and had our best interests at heart. No one like that going by the name of that rock group existed. They were always wolves in sheep's clothing, as was shown so many times at FFD. They were always Sgt. Pepper, with all it entailed in taking down our moral values, our virtue, and our self-respect.

"Human rights can only be assured among a virtuous people." -- Benjamin Franklin
Make America Moral Again (But first, make it America again.)
Silversong
Banned On The Run
Banned On The Run
 
Posts: 2318
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2014 6:50 am


Return to Celebrity Clones, Multiples, Replacements

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron