BabaWawa, the final cut

“I get all the news I need from the weather report.” (Paul Simon)

Jim Morrison and Pamela Courson, circa 1970

Prior to going through the evidence regarding the body switch done with Barbara Walters in 1976, I am going to attempt to set the scene and describe the terrain on which such hoaxing takes place. Many readers know that my friend “Straight” and I worked for many months with David McGowan’s (fake death, 11/22/2015) book Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon. I contended that of the seventy or more deaths of rocks stars, actors and hangers-on described in the book, perhaps one or two might be real deaths. My reasoning was that these people were all young, so even if abusing drugs and alcohol (most of that was mere stage-setting for the fake deaths), it is unlikely they would die. Even in war zones, I told Straight, you don’t see that kind of mortality rate.

Something else was up. Straight is a man with a very sharp mind with a highly developed eye for fakery, and was a great research companion. Together we went through the deaths, one by one, in the beginning searching the Social Security Death Index (basic research that McGowan did not do), and looking for clues and contradictions on Wikipedia. I operated on the assumption that these people, admitted by McGowan (himself a spook) to have intelligence connections, were merely reassigned to less public roles, perhaps in embassies around the world or an office at Langley.

My timing memory may not be clear here, but I was shocked beyond belief when Tyrone McCloskey presented us with photos of a singer who faked his death in 1966, Bobby Fuller (I fought the law). He was our first “zombie,” or walking dead person. At that time all I could do was face splitting based on identical pupil distance, but the results were stunning. (Our search engine here will take you not to the original post, but a rework.)

That set us off, and we began finding others who were in the news or entertainment business under new identities. These included Janis Joplin (who became Amy Goodman), Brandon DeWilde (Thom Hartmann), Jimi Hendrix (Cornell West), Gary Hinman (Maury Povich), Freddie Mercury (Phil McGraw), and my favorite, spotted by Straight, Bruce Lee (Judge Lance Ito). For some others we had suspicions, but not enough photographic evidence – Pete Ham (Bill Maher), David Box (Charlie Rose), Minie Riperton (Gwen Ifil), and a few others. Buddy Holly led to Gram Parsons led to David Geffin and Jeffrey Katzenberg, a long and complicated slog of research. (All of this work can be found by use of the search engine, upper right.)

We encountered much skepticism, had to back away from some, but I stand by all of the above except Gwen Ifil, as I could not make it work a second time through. And that is a critical point – critics of this work need to use replication and falsification rather than off-hand dismissal.

It was hard work, but fun and exciting. But what was the point? So what if news people have fake identities, took their training in the music business? We all, or most of us here at this site anyway, know that news is a largely fabricated to misinform, mislead, misdirect and distract. Beyond the weather report, which can be shown to be accurate or not, it is not of any use. Who cares how the talking heads got there?

As time went on I was able to rise above it and get away from it. I no longer search for zombies. I came away with a much more profound sense of our perceived reality. Take two people on perceived opposite extremes, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!, and Rush Limbaugh (who appears to me to be who he says he is, though he has on occasion used a body double, probably for security purposes). Imagine that you are in the Truman Show, a motion picture subtly hinting about our reality. Imagine that closing scene where Truman makes his exit, opening a door and leaving the set.

Imagine now instead of one door, there are many. If he opens one to the “far left” he will find Amy Goodman waiting for him to escort him out. On the “far right” he will find Rush Limbaugh. Behind the “conspiracy” door he will find Alex Jones. For “intellectuals” awaits Noam Chomsky. Behind the other doors he’ll find Hartmann, Brian Williams, Melissa Block, Judy Woodruff, Diane Sawyer, Katie Couric, Wolf Blitzer, Charles Gibson, Nina Totenberg, Cokie Roberts, and behind barely concealed doors on the fringes people like David Ickes, Jim Fetzer and “Dr. ” Judy Wood. They are all “spooks,” as we like to call them, though false agents, operative, Intel, or just “lifetime actors” work as well.

The point is that the outer perimeter of the herd is guarded by fake newscasters, pundits, leaders, thinkers, even supposed scientists. They ride the fence line and usher back escapees and mavericks. They act as gatekeepers.  These are all actors assigned various roles. There is no escape from our world of fabricated news and views. Our rulers do not care that we disagree and fight among ourselves and have differing points of view. They like that! They want it! It reinforces illusions – that we in any sense self-govern; that our opinions matter, and that we think for ourselves. Our opinions are all formulated elsewhere and fed to us by various authority figures in a breakfast bar of choices. It is total information control.

I quit searching for zombies, but did have one project I did that hung in the back of my mind and that I had never effectively sold. I had a choice of either revisiting or abandoning it. I elected to revisit it, doing better photographic analysis.

Back in our heady days when the work was new and exciting, I came across a beautiful woman who was married to Jim Morrison of the Doors (fake death 7/3/71) for five years. Her name was Pamela Courson (fake death 4/25/74). Both were on our Laurel Canyon list. We never found Jim (though there are claims he is “Jim Loyer” and now lives in Oregon – you’re on your own. It reads like a trap.) Something struck me about Courson, her hair, posture, facial features, and though I don’t remember how many comparisons I did before I found her and Barbara Walters as an exact match.

In those days we would merely write stuff up, throw some photos at the readers, and call it good. I had no idea of the amount of work goes on behind the scenes in crafting our news and sculpting our opinion leaders. I was satisfied knowing that Courson, like so many others, had faked her death, that she looked exactly like Walters, and so had probably stepped into her shoes. It was becoming common to us.

Little did I know the amount of planning and preparation that went into the Courson/Walters switch, which I now think happened in 1976.

If you can grapple with the list of names behind the escape doors I listed above, you will see the depth of planning in our Truman Show world. Our opinions are based on authority figures and images, but those images can be changed, removed, manipulated and subtly altered. In the case of Barbara Walters, there were indeed two of them, the original, and Pam Courson. However, if I were to ask any reader today to describe Barbara Walters, her voice, appearance and mannerisms, that reader would describe Pam Courson. The original Walters was removed not only from TV, but from the Internet and from our minds. Replacement Barbara Walters became the real one.

So please follow me now as I again go through the evidence, this time with a clear eye, as unlike before, when I only knew that Courson replaced Walters, I now have a photo of the original Barbara Walters, taken from a video supplied by Kevin Starr, who is not on board with my findings here, but who, as always, deserves credit as a thorough researcher and smart man.

Here is the video.

At first glance she sounds like our current day Walters, and I find myself wondering if Courson has overdubbed that video – this could be perhaps the only reason it has survived. We will see later with a book cover that spooks have reached far into the past to alter evidence. But this woman is not today’s Barbara Walters, and I will prove it. Here is a still of her taken at 1:29.

First, let me preview not the technology I am going to use on Walters above, but older techniques I used during the face splitting days. While it is inexact and prone to error, it is often useful as a directional indicator, and nothing more. My example is … me.

On the left is me in about 1980, and on the right perhaps 2015. The only thing I have done with these photos is to set my eye pupils at common distance in each photo. Note how over thirty years I have somehow made better teeth for myself, lost hair and grown longer ears, but that I am easily recognizable as the same person. It helps that my posture and smile have not changed over the years, and that the camera angle is identical on both photos.

But pupil distance is the key – everything about us ages, but our eyes do not shift or move about and our skull does not change in size after our late teens. So by aligning a common pupil distance in each photo before splitting the faces and placing them side by side, I was dealing with a constant in our appearance that does not change over time (unless we are afflicted with diseases such as ALS).

This is critical information if anyone wants to do this kind of work. We cannot simply place photos of people side-by-side and draw any insight from that. Imagine placing a basketball aside a baseball and trying to draw inferences about their relative features without knowing their actual size. We must have a constant to apply to each.  In facial analysis angular distortions are a huge problem (along with Internet monkey business by spooks). If we are going to rationally analyze photos of people, we must at least try for an objective standard. Pupil distance is one such standard. (There are others – some use triangulation methods with eyes and base of nose, etc.)

You can easily see how well it worked on me above. In 1980 I had no idea that photo would be matched against a 2015 photo, and therein lay the value, monkey business aside. The evidence is objective. By setting pupil distance to a constant on both photos, everything else lined up because in fact, I am the same person. I have no power, and no reason, to go back and alter old photos. Spooks, as we will see, do have this power, and are all over the photo archives we randomly encounter on the Internet.

This at least allows me some insight in analyzing Barbara Walters in 1961 from the video, and Barbara Walters from anytime after 1976. The video to me appears unaltered except perhaps as to voice. I now use facial overlays, showing a comparison of all features. Below I start with a photo said to be of Barbara Walters taken in 1960, or one year before the video. Using Photoshop layering, setting the pupils at common distance on bother photos, I place one photo atop the other, and adjust opacity to create a gif.

Barbara Waters from 1961 Today Show video versus “1960” photo of her

We should see the same woman. We do not. We see two different women. In fact, the head shape is quite different. I aligned the eyes, but nothing else is in line. I froze the gif with opacity at 70% for five seconds so that we could see that we are looking at misaligned noses, mouths, chins … it is not even close.

Let’s try another – this is a photo of Walters in 1989 again against the 1961 video.

Barbara Walters from 1961 Today Show video versus 1989 photograph of her

We have the exact same set of problems! These are two different women.

Who, then, is the woman in the supposed 1960 photo? Here is another comparison, the 1960 shot compared to the 1989 shot, both said to be of Walters.

Barbara Walters, 1960 photo versus 1989 photo

That is how it is supposed to work! Those are the same woman at different ages, said to be 31 in the younger photo and 60 in the older one, a thirty year difference, just as with my own photos above. This woman shown in both the ‘1960’ and ‘1989’ photo is not the woman in the video.

Shall we do another comparison?

“Barbara Walters” 1960 photo versus circa 1970 photo of Pam Courson

The wig in the b&w photo creates the illusion of a larger head, as it sits atop her real hair and so is piled on. Again, we are getting an exact match of features, one smiling, one not. The eyes, nose, head shape and mouth placement all align. The color photo is Pamela Courson. The “1960” photo was probably taken in 1976 or so, as that is when the switch was made. Spooks deliberately went back and got a 1960-style wig to make it appear that Courson, who would have been 14 that year, was actually the then-31-year old Walters.

Let’s try a profile of Walters and Courson.

The difficulty with profiles is to have an objective standard by which to set two images aside one another. It is easy to just arbitrarily adjust the relative sizes to make them match. with these two, however, I have already shown in frontal shots with pupil distance adjusted that they are almost identical. So it is not unreasonable to set skull size to a common distance for the mere purpose of comparison of features. So with the profile I used the distance between the tip of the nose and the extreme left of the eye sockets to adjust them to the same distance. I see exact alignment of features. The hair is even in touch in the two photos. (Unfortunately, there are no photos that I have seen in which Courson’s ears are visible.)

Pamela Courson, fake-wife of Jim Morrison for five years, faked her death in 1974 and was reassigned. Her role as the replacement for Barbara Walters was to act as gatekeeper. She was a “groundbreaker” in the nascent spook-influenced movement called “feminism.” (This is not the place to discuss merits of this movement. Suffice it to say I am a firm believer in exercise of free will.) Feminists, while supposedly making their escape, would encounter Walters, who would guide them back to the her to join Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, conspirators, right wingers and pwoggies, all fighting among ourselves, all under control of a watchful overlords. There is no escape.

In the comments below the replacement post I put up while this was in the works, a reader brought to my attention a book supposedly written by Walters. The photo on the dust cover, he said, is the same woman I claim to be Courson. But the book was published in 1970! At that time, Courson was still “married” to Morrison, and so could not be taking over the Walters name.

Indeed this is good evidence.

To start, and just an aside, Walters did not write this book. These people don’t undertake such projects. They don’t have to. Ghost writers are used for celebrity books, I would say without exception. JFK did not write “Profiles in Courage“, Nixon did not write “Six Crisis,” and anyone with a brain knows that George W. Bush did not write “Decision Points.” Walters was being groomed for her future work as groundbreaker, so a book had to appear and be favorably reviewed in the right places.

I have not read it, and will never go near it, but note that used copies of it are now for sale for $56.00! It is not a valuable book! Some other game is afoot. Below is a photo of Walters taken in 1968 or so, holding her adopted daughter, Jacqueline.

Look at her face – it is so much darker than the baby’s, and is lit from above while the rest of her appears to be suffering a flash photo (the flash not lighting  up the shelves in the background). The photo is an obvious paste-up. But why? If Walters has better photos of herself and the baby, they should be easy to find. There are none.

Here are the two photos of “Walters” on the cover of her book, and with her baby.

I won’t bore you with the actual analysis, but merely confirm that they are both Pam Courson. I have viewed thousands of photos these past years, and see things easily that others might overlook. One is that smiles are not in the mouth, but in the eyes. In both of these photos, we are looking at angry eyes. These are not good photos, and would not be used on a book cover, which would require a professional session and attention to detail.

What has happened here is that spooks have gone back and altered Internet photos of the mother-baby shot and the dust cover of the book, substituting Courson for the real Walters. That is why there is a tell-tale halo around her hair on the book cover photo. That is a Photoshop effect, and not a dark room cut-and-paste, so it is of recent origin, not 1970. They have also bought up old copies, driving up the price to $56.00 for a worthless piece of pulp. The Barbara Walters project is a big one.

The only thing that will dissuade me from this view is an actual paper copy of the book in my hand. Good luck on finding one.

But why the elaborate ruse? Why not just rename Courson and use her in a different venue? I can only speculate, of course, but did you notice that the original Barbara Walters in the 1961 video above was effete and very feminine? I like feminine, but it is not a good attribute for a feminist. She was mocking French fashion, probably her assigned task (in 1961 feminism was on the horizon for us), but her gestures and eye movements were very much like a debutante, a frilly, silly female.

I wonder if it was seen that even though given the role of “groundbreaking female journalist”, the original Walters was not getting it right.

The photo below appears to me to be the original Walters, as she does not at all look like either Courson or our present-day Walters.

That would be a very hard angle to do a profile comparison due to the small size and bad angle. She does not look anything like the photos just seen above. But note her slumped shoulders and hands under the desk. That is a submissive posture.

What I am getting at here is admitted speculation that the original Barbara Walters was faltering in her assigned role, and needed to be removed. But you don’t conjure up a “groundbreaking” journalist, and then just fire her. It would create a firestorm and defeat the whole purpose of the Barbara Walters project.

So, you replace her. Pam Courson had recently faked death (not voluntarily) and was available, and so was chosen.

But how can they possibly insert one person for another right in front of our eyes?

It is not as hard as it may seem. Most people, especially passive television viewers, are simply not that observant and are highly suggestible when watching TV. Television is mildly hypnotic, and we are easy to fool when watching. And, frankly, I don’t think the original Walters had caught too many eyes – she just wasn’t that good.

Take a look at the video below, about three minutes. Saturday Night Live was a key element in moulding our perceptions of the (new) Barbara Walters.

That skit features Gilda Radner, another suspicious character who most likely faked her death in 1989. This is a 1976 skit done to lampoon Walters, making fun of the way she talks, the (then-recently invented) hair, and a lisp, undetectable to most of us, including me. She coins the phrase “Baba Wawa.”

We could not know it at the time, but this skit was (in my view) deliberately done the reinforce the switch that had occurred behind the scenes. SNL had a very young demographic who would not know the original Walters too well. Its cast members then and now are spooks or spook-related. Using that venue to introduce the replacement Barbara Walters to a young and non-news watching audience cemented in our minds the idiosyncrasies of the replacement, making Pam Courson forever in our minds Barbara Walters. In with the new, out with the old.

For older viewers, the original Walters went out of sight for a while after co-hosting the evening news with Frank McGee, and forever disappeared. Her replacement moved over to CBS, had a high-profile squabble with co-host Harry Reasoner (doing her “groundbreaking” thing), quit or was fake-fired after two years, and reappeared on ABC’s 20/20 in 1979. For the next 25 years, she would be the leading interviewer of famous real and fake people and witnesses to the fake events of our time. This was her larger role. Just as Anderson Cooper is the go-to for cementing false impressions in fake mass shootings and the like today, Walters did that task from 1979 to 1984.

She then moved on to “The View,” a whole ‘nuther discussion topic. I’ve never watched it so have no clue as to its true function. Nor will I.

One final word, age. I know that they can do great things on TV with wigs and makeup and camera angles, but they cannot hide an 88-year-old woman, which is what Walters would be today if still alive. By the time we reach that age, if any of us live that long, our skin has developed deep wrinkles, our posture slumped, bones shrunk, and our cognitive abilities have become impaired.

Take a look at the interview below from April of 2017, when Walters was said to be 87 years old.

You can talk all you want about the magic of television, but I have eyes and abilities too, and I am not seeing an 87-year-old woman there. Pam Courson’s official birthday was 12/22/1946, so that at every turn in Walters career when you look at her official photos, subtract seventeen years (her birth date 9/25/1929) from her official age. So the “Barbara Walters” we are seeing here is not 87, but rather 70, and now she makes sense.

Anyway, this blog post has been a long slog for me, as I had to come through lots of false leads and data, take wrong turns. I would not have made it through it without Kevin Starr, who supplied the 1961 video. Even as he does not agree with my findings, I thank him for taking the time to think about it and get in touch and supplying the video.

I rest my case. (My apologies to those who commented on the original Baba Wawa post, now in the trash bin. I cannot recover them.)

Share this:
Like this:Like Loading...