๐งต๐๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฃ๐ฎ๐๐๐ ๐๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐๐ ๐๐ถ๐ฑ๐ป๐ฎ๐ฝ๐ฝ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐ฎ๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ธ๐ฒ๐ฑ
The first clue is that it involved Patty Hearst, who is the granddaughter of billionaire newspaper mogul William Randolph Hearst. This was Citizen Kane, the owner of the Hearst publishing empire, famous for yellow journalism all the way back to the Spanish-American warโand before
His flagship papers were the San Francisco Examiner and the New York Journal. Through them and others he stoked the Spanish-American War (1898) with cries of โRemember the Maine!โ
This was a famous false flag, since the Maine was a ship sunk in mysterious circumstances in Havana Harbor, Cuba. Its sinking was blamed on Spain in order to start a war with them. Sound familiar?
We have seen numerous instances of that since then, including the Gulf of Tonkin event, which was used to gain Congressional approval for the Vietnam War. Remember how Jim Morrison's dad was the admiral involved in that false flag?
They even went back to Havana for a later false flag: the fake Bay of Pigs event, which kept the Cold War hot. This was no coincidence, since the US has been in control of Cuba all along.
Cubaโand all its fake Presidents like Castroโare just hired opposition. Yes, that's right. The entire battle of words with Cuba has been manufactured all along, like all the rest. Castro was an actor.
The same can be said of North Korea, which is our fake enemy on the other side of the world. Ever notice how footage from North Korea of the Presidents and Generals always looks like an MTV video?
They have it all, including studio lighting, make-up artists, wind machines, and a soundtrack. Haven't you ever found that the least bit curious?
But back to Hearst. Hearst's involvement in the Spanish-American War false flag just reminds us that family has been involved in faking events for a long, long time.
The Hearsts have been linked to US Military Intelligence since the Civil War, when George Hearst owned some of the biggest mines in the country. Mining is very important to the military, of course, since they need iron and other minerals for ballistics.
Yes, the Hearsts were billionaires even before William Randolph and the publishing empire. There was a mining empire before the publishing empire, though you aren't ever told that.
William's father George just set him up at the San Francisco Examiner, which the family already owned by 1880. George Hearst was already a billionaire (in today's dollars) by 1865, at which time he went into politics. He was a California Senator and then US Senator.
That was back when Senators actually had some power. Most Congresspeople are now just decoys, put in place to keep your eyes off the real action.
So, when the name Hearst popped up in 1974 in this Patty Hearst kidnapping, it is hard to believe no one was suspicious. Actually, I assume a lot of people were suspicious, but those people weren't working in the media or governmentโso you didn't hear what they thought.
The only opinion you got at the time was planted opinion. As now, you got two sides appearing on TV and radio discussing the event, both assuming it was real with no evidence it was real, and both misdirecting you wildly on every point.
As now, you got a Republican opinion and a Democratic opinionโor a right opinion and a left opinionโbut neither opinion contained a jot of sense or got near any truth. All discussion then and now is prepared for no other purpose but to stir your brain into mush.
We have also seen the very wealthy using their own kids in these big events many times. We saw it in the Manson event, where many of the top actors were either children of the very wealthy or children of Intelligence: Sharon Tate, Abigail Folger, Lynette Fromme, and many more.
We saw it with John Hinckley, Jr. and Ted Bundy. The children of the super-wealthy like to go into art or music or acting, since those fields are seen as sexyโand are thought to require little real workโand so all three fields are now completely owned.
These super-wealthy kids also like to be involved in spycraft, for the same reason. Ian Fleming made Intelligence almost as sexy as โThe Artsโ, and so the rich kids love to be involved in big psy-ops.
It gives them something to talk about at parties besides the fake paintings, bad movies and shit songs they have created and forced upon the world.
I mean, for pity's sake, look! Patty with a submachine gun in front of a 7-headed hydra (or cobra), supposedly the symbol of the Symbionese Liberation Army. Who comes up with this stuff? Is this what they do at the Mickey Mouse Club when they aren't rehearsing dance numbers?
At Wikipedia, we are told the group was started by a professor at UC Berkeley, originally being a study group to tutor black inmates. Right. As usual we aren't told the name of the professor because as usual they are too lazy to be bothered to write all the details of this fake.
UC Berkeley is already another huge red flag. Why? Because Patty Hearst's great grandmother Phoebe Hearst had been the first lady Regent at Berkeley, serving on the board for 23 years starting in 1897. She was a major benefactor of the University, giving it millions of dollars.
It has been so controlled by the family over the years they should have renamed it Hearst University. It also has strong ties to Military and Intelligence, and has since the beginning.
All the nuclear facilities are still managed from Berkeley, including Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore. And we saw both Berkeley and Stanford caught in the Zodiac and Unabomber fake stories.
Universities are centers of control, which is why many fake events are run from there. Although we won't have time to pull them apart here, I point you to the Virginia Tech event of 2007 and the University of Texas Sniper event of 1966, whichโ like all the restโwere faked.
Next, we are told the Symbionese Liberation Army was led by Donald DeFreeze. DeFreeze was supposedly one of the prison contacts of the UC Berkeley Study Group. Problem is, DeFreeze was supposed to have been at Vacaville.
Why were Berkeley students tutoring at Vacaville, which was about an hour away north, when they could have been tutoring at San Quentin, just across the bay? I'll tell you why: because Vacaville has an entire fake wing, filled with fictional characters.
This is where Manson was supposed to be for a long time, and we now know he was a fictional character. He was never there.
Same for the Aryan Brotherhood, which is another figment. It is a pretend group, set up to scare you into submission.
ADX Supermax in Colorado also has one of these fake wings, set up to house its fictional characters like Ted Kaczynski, Zacharias Moussaoui, Richard Reid, Umar Abdulmutallab, and so on.
But it doesn't take much money to house them and feed them since they aren't there. The wing exists only on paper.
And how about that name, DeFreeze? Does that sound real to you? It's a fake name. You can easily prove this to yourself. Go to any People Search on the web and type in the last name DeFreeze. There is no one by that name. It isn't a real last name.
They have a fake name playbook they can go to. We saw it most recently with the fake Santa Barbara shooter, Eliot Rodger. There is no one by that name in all of California, since no one has a last name of Rodger. It is Rodgers, or Rogers.
Same with DeFreeze. That is like a name from a movie: Mr. DeepFreeze. No real person has that name. It is Defries, or Defreese, or Defrees. They all come from the Dutch name DeVries.
Conveniently, DeFreeze supposedly died in a shoot out in which his corpse was so badly burned it could not be identified. We see that in most of these fake events: corpses that can't be identified. You should ask, โHow do you get burned beyond recognition in a shoot out?โ
Well, the house is alleged to have burst into flames from a smoke grenade. Convenient. Sounds like Waco, doesn't it?
Just as it is impossible to bring down two 100-story steel-frame buildings with isolated fires, it is impossible to burn a corpse beyond recognition with a standard house fire. They are just assuming you don't know anything about fires or about identifying corpses.
That is DeFreeze's Wiki and FBI file photo. Convenient that you can't identify him from that, right? Nice floppy hat. All bad-ass criminals in 1974 wore floppy ladies' hats, right?
That is another image of DeFreeze. Do we have a match? No. Not only does the nose not match, the facial hair doesn't either. Study the mustache. The black DeFreeze liked to wrap his mustache around his mouth, as we see in the last image. But the DeFreeze with the gun didn't.
If that doesn't convince you, here's another one:
Look first at the hat and head. That has been tampered with, since it doesn't have the resolution of the rest of the photo. See how grainy it is? The hat almost look like straw nowโas if it has webbing of some sort.
Look first at the hat and head. That has been tampered with, since it doesn't have the resolution of the rest of the photo. See how grainy it is? The hat almost look like straw nowโas if it has webbing of some sort.
But in the photo from Wikipedia, the hat has much less of that texture. That is because they hit the head and hat with a filter. Why? Because the face showed something they didn't want to show, and they needed to get rid of it. Look at the face. Where is his nose? Gone. Why?
The photo is peculiar for several other reasons. Look how he is holding the gun. It looks like his hand is in his pocket, but then the rifle comes out of his coat. Have you ever seen anyone hold a rifle through their coat pocket? No, the rifle was added later, in the photo lab.
Still don't believe me? Let's do another one:
Look at DeFreeze there, and compare it to the previous one. Some will tell me the bright light washed out his features and blew his nose right off. But the light is just as bright here, and yet his face and hat are ten shades darker.
Look at DeFreeze there, and compare it to the previous one. Some will tell me the bright light washed out his features and blew his nose right off. But the light is just as bright here, and yet his face and hat are ten shades darker.
Also notice the gun. He isn't holding it through the coat, is he? No, we can see his forward arm and hand. And notice the strap! The strap attaches to the end of the gun, doesn't it? But in the previous picture they forgot to draw it in.
Well, this was 1974, and they were still doing mop-up on the hippies and the anti-war movement, which included any links to the black community. Remember, Nixon had just resigned in August, about a month before Hearst was arrested so they needed to create continued cover for that
1974 was a busy year for fake events and events of misdirection. Dylan's Blood on the Tracks album came out almost simultaneously with this Hearst event, and they were both used as cover.
They didn't want you to realize that Intelligence had just finalized its takeover of the US Government, via the utter destruction of the Presidency and Congress. So they had lots of misdirection that year, including the high-profile kidnapping of Hearst.
It is no coincidence that the โreal lifeโ Hearst event looked so much like the Hollywood events of those years, sinceโas it turns outโthey were all the same sort of fiction produced by the same sort of people.
Patty has been in seven films and six TV shows since 1990, including Frasier, Boston Common, and a movie called Pecker. She was an actor in all of them. She also has two writing credits and a producer credit.
Here's something funny from the Wikipedia page. Remember how the SLA demanded the Hearst family distribute $70 million worth of food to the needy in California? Well, we are told Patty's father took out a loan and arranged for $2 million to be distributed in the Bay Area.
Do you really think the Hearsts needed to take out a loan for $2 million? Patty's father could have paid the entire $70 million immediately in cash and never missed it. The Hearsts spend that much each year on bottled water, or on electricity for their hair dryers.
Then they tell us the distribution of that food in San Francisco โdescended into chaos.โ Of course it did. That was part of the plotโan important part.
To start with, Papa Hearst didn't want to lose $2 million to a bunch of beggars, so he no doubt had to be sure to steal the food back before it hit anyone's lips. But the whole point of this subplot was to show people that direct charity doesn't work.
Feeding people doesn't work, because they will always riot. Better to put them in private jails first: that way they get fed but they can't cause any trouble. You may think I am joking, but I'm not. This is exactly what these โphilanthropicโ rich families have done.
They shut down free distribution of food by churches or other nice people, in the name of sanitation or something, then pass more ridiculous laws by which poor people can be thrown into jail for almost nothingโ private jails invested in by the same rich people.
Those are supposed to be Patty Hearst's booking photos, also known as mugshots. Has anyone ever asked why she looks like a silent film starlet there?
The story is, she was kept in a closet, beaten, threatened with death, then repeatedly raped. Then she lived in squalor for months, sleeping on floors and robbing banks and hiding in crawlspaces.
So you might want to ask when she had time to get her hair coiffed and her eyebrows waxed and to have her eye make-up professionally applied? I was not aware that the local police station offers such services.
Then there is the matter of the background. That is another reason these photos look like period pieces, though I doubt many others have noticed it. Those look like fluted columns behind her, with some sort of art deco capitals on them.
Do you think the booking rooms at the police station look like that? I encourage you to study a thousand or so real booking photos. They are shot in front of blank screens, usually white or gray, or they are shot in front of a height gauge.
As with passport photos, they don't wish for the background to compromise the likeness in any way. Also notice the quality of the light. This is another reason she looks so good: the light is soft and even. In booking photos, the light tends to be glaring.
They don't have filters on their bulbs at the police station. But in these photos of Patty, we have professional studio lighting, with filters on the bulbs and the lights arranged at the proper angles.
My guess is Patty is at home here, lounging around the Hearst Castle. They simply faked the San Mateo Sheriff's plaque.
As more indication of that, a real Sheriff's plaque would have movable letters below for the prisoner's name and numbers, but the top line wouldn't need to be movable, would it? The words โSan Mateo Sheriffโ would always be the same, wouldn't they?
Here's a real mugshot: See how the name and numbers are written in, but the top line is printed? The top line is permanent, so it doesn't need to be movable or changeable.
Now let us look at the trial. It was a show trial, in the fullest sense of the word. We can tell this by the way Patty Hearst was first railroaded into a conviction and a very long sentence, and then quickly let out.
The long sentence was well publicized, but her sentence reduction, commutation and pardon were not. Why? Because the conviction and long sentence were part of the script. This is one of the ways they keep you in line.
They want you to think you are going to get an extremely long sentence for any crime you commit, even if there are extenuating circumstances. โThe Law is a stern judgeโ and all that old rot.
They also want to be sure the hippies and extremists get what they have coming to them, as in the Dirty Harry movies. Acquitting Hearst would have sent the wrong message in that regard.
Remember, Hearst's role was the bad girl here, and she was expected to play it to the end of the trial.
We can see the outcome of the trial was predetermined by the very odd actions of the judge. This judge Oliver Carter is odd even before the trial, since his page at Wikipedia has anomalies of its own.
We are told he was nominated by Truman in 1950 for a new seat authorized by statute. We are then told he was confirmed by the Senate. But if we take the link, we find this strange admission at the Federal Judicial Center: โNo Senate vote.โ
How does a judge get confirmed by the Senate without a Senate vote? Isn't a confirmation done by voting? How else would a Senate confirm a judge, if not by voting?
Judge Carter allowed testimony by the prosecution of Hearst's โwillful sexual behavior since the age of 15.โ But in a real trial such testimony would be considered both hearsay and external, and thereby inadmissible.
He allowed tapes from jail, of Hearst speaking with a friend, in which โshe used profanities and spoke of her radical and feminist beliefs.โ To start with, feminist beliefs are neither radical nor illegal, and could have no bearing on any legal matter.
That was as true in 1974 as it is now. Beyond that, these tapes were clearly planted, since no one on trial for bank robbery would be mouthing off to a friend in front of guards and cameras.
This fake evidence was scripted for the express purpose of blackwashing any and all progressive sentiments by any and all progressive persons, whether they were hippies or blacks or otherwise.
The lesson you were supposed to learn by watching the trial or reading about it was this: using profanities, talking of your beliefs, or questioning authority in any way is illegal and may be used against you in a court of law.
When just the opposite is true, of course. None of those things is illegal in any way. You have the right to talk about whatever you wish, in jail or out of it.
Then there is the question of putting Hearst on the stand, only to have her refuse to answer questions. Alan Dershowitz criticized F. Lee Bailey for allowing Hearst to do this, since it made her look guilty.
But all this is part of the charade, since Bailey did it on purpose, and Dershowitz knows that. Both Bailey and Dershowitz are further actors in the play. Bailey blew her defense on purpose, because that is what he was paid to do.
To give you clear evidence of that, we are told that Judge Carter appeared to indicate Hearst would have Fifth Amendment privilege, and then changed his mind. What? It is either one way or the other.
There should be no confusion on a point like that, and if Judge Carter had really simply changed his mind, Bailey would have used that as the perfect hook for an appeal. Nothing that happened during the trial made any legal sense.
For more indication of that, we find that Dr. Harry Kozol testified that Hearst had been โa rebel in search of a cause.โ In a real trial, Bailey would have objected and that would have been stricken from the record, with the jury instructed to ignore it. Why? Because it is absurd
It implies Hearst had been asking to be kidnapped, and was happy when she was. Even if she had been a rebel in search of a cause, it is unlikely the cause she was searching for included being kidnapped by criminals, beaten,raped, and threatened with death.
The whole idea is nonsense. Then we get this:
The problem there isn't whether Hearst was or was not in fear of death, or that Bailey objected. The problem is that we are supposed to believe a psychiatrist would be asked such a thing in the first place.
A psychiatrist is supposed to give professional testimony on psychiatric matters. A psychiatrist would not and could not be asked to give his opinion as to what a defendant thought or did not think.
What Hearst was feeling during the robbery is not a psychiatric matter, and it is simply ridiculous to imply that anyone would be asked such a question in a court of law, much less a psychiatrist.
A real judge wouldn't just uphold Bailey's objection, he would reprimand the prosecutor and might even move for his disbarment. But this kind of thing just doesn't happen, except in Hollywood movies.
In a real court of law, the only person you could ask that question of is Hearst, since only Hearst could possibly know if she was in fear of death at the time. Any other person would just be speculating wildly, and testimony is not the same as wild speculation.
Convicted by the jury of bank robbery, Hearst was sentenced to the maximum of 35 years. Mysteriously, the sentencing judge Oliver Carter (allegedly) died before the final sentence hearing could convene. The new judge William Orrick immediately reduced the sentence to 7 years.
After allegedly serving 22 months, Hearst found her sentence commuted by President Carter and she was released. President Clinton later granted her a full pardon.
Despite that, Wikipedia maintains this quote from California Attorney General Evelle Younger: โIf there was a double standard for the wealthy it was the opposite of what was generally believed.โ
I take that to mean Younger was saying the jury was harder on Patty Hearst because she was rich. However that may be, we see the jury was ignored.
Orrick and then Carter and Clinton basically nullified the jury finding of guilty. So to say that there is a double standard against the wealthy is doubly rich.
But all that hardly matters here, since everything was faked. No one needed to commute or pardon Patty Hearst, sinceโin my opinionโshe never spent one day in jail. They say she did, but that doesn't mean I have to believe it.
I have the rare and uncanny tendency to believe only what is believable, and absolutely nothing about the Hearst event is believable.
Loading suggestions...