This time, one shall present to one’s loyal readers the story of a man who became one of the twentieth century’s most legendary, if not enigmatic characters.
While still a young man, though he appeared before the public both adored as a triumphant hero and scorned as a villainous scoundrel, the question remains: did Howard Hughes ever really exist?
Though often a genuine enigma, Hughes’ indelible image left such a lasting impression upon the general public’s consciousness, that he managed to eclipse both fame and infamy within the span of a single lifetime.
But, was this self-made tycoon, this epitome of the American dream, this eccentric hermit flesh and blood or, did he merely exist as a celluloid image?
Was he, in fact, merely yet another actor in history’s grand stage play?
The answer to those pertinent questions, may duly reveal itself during our near thorough examination of yet another of the twentieth century’s grandest Hollywood mavericks and legends, the director, writer and producer of Citizen Kane, the cinematic epic that featured a mythical narrative about the rise and fall of an eccentric, tyrannical, and even self-destructive American billionaire uncannily resembling Howard Hughes, the brilliant creator of the transcendent movie that for decades, movie critics have heralded as the single most seminal example of American cinema – Orson Welles.
Although it has been by now well-established Kane was a cinematic portrayal of billionaire newspaper magnet William Randolph Hearst, does the possibility exist Welles may have secretly designed the movie’s narrative as an epic sketch of Hughes?
Is it possible, the controversy between Welles and Hearst subsequent to Kane’s release was drummed up by Hearst himself? Could it be, that Wells and Hearst were genealogically related, and that their vicious public feud was merely a ruse, hatched and perpetrated for nothing more than mutual profit?
And, perhaps more intriguing still, does the possibility exist that Hughes was merely a celluloid characterization of Welles’ alter ego?
Could it be, Hughes was a fictional character after all, and that none other than Orson Welles was his host actor?
If so, were there other characters Welles portrayed throughout the course of his storied career?
Stick around folks, because you may be surprised to learn that Welles – it must be remembered – was not only first and foremost a man of the theater, and himself an accomplished actor, but a genius thespian, who wore several, publicly prominent masks. And one of these, he wore as an active participant in the JFK assassination hoax!
During the course of his lifetime’s great adventure, Orson Welles became known as America’s, if not the world’s foremost raconteur.
In addition to his other considerable talents in many artistic disciplines, perhaps Welles’ most discernable skill was his ability to spin an intriguing yarn, a skill that throughout his career, even after it had seemed his days of Hollywood glory were well in the rearview, earned him top billing on several prime time network talk shows.
Quick with quips of memorable repartee and possessing a saber sharp wit, Welles was, above all, a showman par excellence, an inherent gift he utilized to its maximum capabilities when he decided, late in his career, of all things, to become a stage magician.
Though seemingly an incomparable and towering figure while basking in the limelight of his career’s early triumphs, Welles seemed just as conspicuous even when withdrawn from the public spotlight, casting the enormous shadow of a dormant giant over the landscape of American popular culture.
By way of comparison, however, the illustrious careers of these indomitable men – Welles and Hughes – who thrived during the early to mid-twentieth century era as two of America’s most legendary figures, also seemed to curiously parallel one another.
As an unexcelled raconteur, the story Welles seemed most fond of retelling while starring as the featured guest on late night American talk fests, was one involving his formative years, of the time when subsequent to his withdrawal from the pursuit of higher education, he suddenly found himself a very young and itinerant young man, wandering about the British Isles equipped with nothing more than the clothes on his back, and the quixotic notion he desired to become a star of the theatrical stage.
Throwing all caution to the four winds, and though he possessed no prior documented experience treading the boards, Welles brashly informed the director of the theater in Ireland’s capital city of Dublin that, he had starred on Broadway and was renowned for his many featured roles in Shakespearean productions. Improbably, Welles was reportedly given the starring role in that season’s production of Hamlet.
While regaling captive audiences with his grand adventures as a young man wandering Europe, he would go on to joke, though he had scaled to the summit of success with this early triumph, his career had been in precipitous decline ever since.
Whatever else critics claimed about Welles, he always remained clever enough to temper his hubris with strategic bits of humility. Not so, however, with Howard Hughes. While Hughes brimmed with almost insufferable hubris, his publicly displayed persona, on the other hand, seemed incapable of expressing any such redeeming traces of humility.
Could it have been possible, that Howard Hughes represented Welles alter ego?
Like Welles, Hughes was a movie producer, and in 1930, produced Hell’s Angels, which when finally released became known as an epic and, at the time, controversial film concerning the world’s first global conflict. The overriding question here is, how is it a young man, bequeathed ownership of Hughes Tool Company, was allowed by the company’s board of directors and stockholders to begin investing raw capital and valuable resources into making films?
This represents one of the most conspicuous anomalies of Hughes’ mainstream biography, and for all intents and purposes, raises many red flags. The most plausible answer to the author’s hypothetical query, is that Hughes wouldn’t have been allowed to quickly transform the company’s focus away from the manufacture and distribution of tools, especially given that his first film offering, Hell’s Angels, cost over four million dollars to produce, and was released during a time of great economic depression in America.
Certainly, the stockholders would have balked at the notion of embarking on such a project, in lieu of a much more conservative fiscal approach. Unless, the film was made not with Hughes’ money, but with tax payer funds funneled to a company Hughes created called Hughes Aircraft, an offshore entity that due to US tax laws, would have been exempt from scrutiny, from either probate examination or from the prying eyes of bureaucrats at the IRS.
Given that Hughes’ Hell’s Angels was a war themed picture, could it have been that this movie was created as a psychological, predictive programming instrument, to prepare the American general public for the 9/11-like event that would soon arrive after the release of Citizen Kane in 1941 – Pearl Harbor – which thrust America into yet another global conflict?
Furthermore, given the film’s exorbitant cost and the long duration involving its production schedule, could it have been that the many outtakes not making the final cut of Hell’s Angels’ commercial release also served an ulterior purpose, providing the footage that would later be sold to the American public as actual war footage, dramatic footage of aerial dog fights which would, in turn, establish and historically solidify the mythical tales of wartime heroics, laying the historical groundwork for the daring myths of first world war villains such as the “Red Baron”?
Hughes went on to produce other films during America’s era of economic depression in the 1930’s, but the one detail of Hughes’ biography that is often left unaccentuated, and perhaps, as loyal readers shall soon observe, for good reason, involves what occurred soon after the release of the film Scarface in 1932, when Hughes gained complete financial control of RKO studios, the same studio that produced Citizen Kane, whose board of directors went on to not only hire the then unknown Orson Welles to produce and direct the seminal film, but unequivocally chose to allot Welles complete creative control over the project.
At the time, this was unprecedented in Hollywood, and even today, such a highly irregular decision to give a neophyte complete control over the production of a full-length film slated for worldwide distribution would be unheard of, and considered absolute financial folly.
Nevertheless, Hughes and his board of directors reportedly green lighted Welles’ Citizen Kane, and added to that, agreed to a contract stipulating Welles’ explicit demand that the dailies (daily footage mixed and printed) could not even be seen by studio brass prior to its release. The pertinent question to consider here, how is it Welles, an unknown film maker who, at that incipient juncture of his career had no previous Hollywood credits on his resume, was awarded such complete artistic and creative control of his debut film?
The only logical explanation seems to be the following: either Welles had highly-placed family members working on his behalf who were also major stockholders of RKO or Welles was in fact Hughes in disguise, and his rich and prominent family owned RKO.
Regarding Welles’ tale of his adventures in Europe, following his hasty exit from formal education, one is reminded of an implausible historical account involving one of America’s founding father’s, Benjamin Franklin (See: America’s war for independence: revolution or hoax? (part II).
Among a consensus of mainstream historians, it is believed Franklin reportedly traversed, on foot and while still a callow and penniless teenager, from Boston to Philadelphia to begin an apprenticeship in the printing business, a thriving business he very soon came to solely own and operate.
The narratives of such well-known historical tales, involving major and even mythical historical figures, seem to invariably follow an identical pattern, of rags to riches and improbable scales to quick fame and fortune. Given, that the author’s research has demonstrated Franklin most likely possessed genealogical relations to European nobility and even royalty, could not the same be found true of Orson Welles?
While examining television and movie trailer clips of Welles’ performances, it became terribly obvious, he had been much better bred than the average Hollywood character actor known to the era, and considering his plumy baritone, regal posture, and expertly and theatrically trained timbre, could it be that Welles, while still a very young man, absconded off to Europe because that is where his noble and aristocratic family belonging to royal genealogical ties happened to have resided? Could it have been during this time, Welles was being prepared and trained for the role(s) he would portray while acting under various pseudonyms to help increase the family’s public and business profile?
If, thus far, one still doubts the validity of the author’s hypothesis that Hughes was a fabricated character, one has provided a visual aid that shall perhaps exhibit what could be construed as empirical evidence.
While examining the clip displayed below, which contains footage of Howard Hughes grilled by Maine senator Owen Brewster before the senate investigatory subcommittee in the late 1940’s, note how his Texas accent – though the voice heard from the audio resembles a well-done facsimile – sounds almost a bit too theatrical, as if it were an accomplished theater actor’s conception of how someone from the American Deep South or Southwest might be expected to sound.
Perhaps more than any other bolstering the author’s hypothesis Welles may have been Howard Hughes’ host actor, is the fact that during his lifetime, Welles possessed not only theatrical experience with props, makeup and lighting, but he had worked extensively as a radio voice actor, performing imitations of a diverse number of voices and dialects, including even that of a Chinese laundry owner.
As for the validity of senate hearings and other such “official” government proceedings, loyal readers have by now discovered that the government broadcasted on corporately owned television networks like CSNBC, amounts to nothing more than a theatrically contrived farce. Such is the case now, and such was the case then.
Additionally, perhaps the most conspicuous clue Welles could have very easily portrayed Hughes, was that still later in his career, he became a master of illusion working as a stage magician. Together now, shall we perform, as yet unaided by software confirmation, a preliminary facial recognition and comparative analysis between Hughes and Welles?
Here, below, are but just two prime examples, of some quite telltale images to aid us in our preliminary investigation:
If possible, note the almost identical shape and contour of the brows and the comparatively identical features of various facial landmarks – nose, lips and chin.
It also appears, not just in the image of Hughes displayed above, but in all images said to represent the eccentric billionaire, that his face had been restructured and reshaped with either strategic application of Hollywood makeup or stippling, perhaps both.
Then, concerning Hughes, there is the issue of his purchase and subsequent ownership of TWA, a then fledgling airline with plummeting stock that suddenly transformed into a post-war leader in transcontinental air transport. If in fact, Hughes was a fabricated character portrayed by the theatrical magician Orson Welles, he no doubt acted in the capacity of a mere front man, a memorable face and charismatic persona designed to direct the attentions of the public and garner additional investors, much in the same way that today, Elon Musk portrays the acting public front for both Tesla and Space X.
Upon further examination of the timeline marking Hughes’ major achievements in the field of commercial aviation, it is clear these accomplishments had been well-timed to profitably benefit the prominent family for whom the character of Hughes was serving as public front man. The sudden emergence of TWA as a major player in the growing wartime field of commercial aviation during the 1940’s, is tied-in with the crash of the airship Hindenburg over Lake Hurst, New Jersey. Turns out, that event was a hoax too, folks, for the footage of the Hindenburg was leftover B-roll footage from Hughes’ maiden film, Hell’s Angels:
Crashing Zeppelin over London from Hell’s Angels:
Two anomalous elements struck one’s immediate notice concerning the Hindenburg footage:
1.) Take note of the clumsy cuts made to the footage, both before the crash of the air ship and after, probably made to accommodate the announcer’s audio overdub tracks.
2.) Take note that the initial footage of the air ship soaring over an urban area minutes before it approaches the landing in New Jersey is daylight footage, while the footage subsequent to the crash appears to have been shot during the break of dusk. This anomaly more than implies and exhibits the Hindenburg footage was pieced and edited together to produce a dramatic, visceral presentation that would elicit the required emotional reaction from an unsuspecting public.
The date of the Hindenburg disaster, from the standpoint of numerology, is telling as well: May 6 (5+6=11/pillars of Boaz and Jachin), 1937 (=29/2 9’s/occult mirror reversal=66/12/21/777/joker code). Also, the name Hindenburg sums to 6 (33/high-degree Scottish Rite Freemasonry) in English Ordinal Full Reduction.
As for the editing mistakes observed in the Hindenburg footage, these were common errors, often made during the early era of film editing before the advent of computer software and the development of more sophisticated analog editing consoles, and such editing mistakes could still be observed from examples of network television decades later.
However, on this occasion, the ruling elite family (the elite family related to Hughes’ host actor, Orson Welles, and the hidden owners of TWA) that likely financed this piece of propaganda, no doubt relied on the emotional impact of the announcer’s modulated audio accompanied by the visceral demonstration of the ill-fated Zeppelin, which like the scene in Hell’s Angels, suggested widespread death and destruction.
And, that is all any psychological operation or propaganda has to do to be ultimately successful – merely suggest or imply.
During the era of the late 1930’s, air travel was not only too expensive for the average consumer, but dangerous because most of the commercial transports utilized at that time had only the capability of flying at sub-stratospheric altitude levels. With the purchase of TWA, capital gains skimmed from tax dollars the public had been told were primarily allotted for the war effort were secretly utilized to develop commercial aircraft that could fly above the weather, thus making mass continental and transcontinental flight routes not only possible, but most importantly, profitable going forward into the mid-twentieth century and beyond.
Given these facts, is it at all coincidental, that Howard Hughes, despite allegedly having a host of test flight pilots in his employ at Hughes Aircraft, was noted for circling the globe during a historic transcontinental flight just before Hughes Aircraft’s takeover of TWA?
Well, loyal readers know the answer, don’t you? When it comes to historical analysis, there are indeed, no coincidences.
The creation of such a widely reported event represents a prime exhibition of the ruling elite’s grand method of myth making and the creation of heroic, historical figures during the modern era. Later of course, as front man for the ruling elite family embezzled millions of tax dollars from the American public, Hughes was summoned before the television cameras to take the heat for allegations of financial malfeasance, to star in yet another grand government charade designed to shape positive public perceptions towards the organized crime syndicate disguised as a corporate government.
Of course, these sorts of charades are still ongoing today, most recently with the Kavanaugh sexual abuse hearings and before that, with the K Street scandal of the 1990’s involving another fake character, Jack (777/joker code) Abramoff.
But, who was this prominent family for whom Hughes was performing a very public role?
Delving back into the chronological details of Orson Welles celebrated biography may hold valuable clues. But first, the following results of this numerological evaluation prove telltale, demonstrating the moniker of Orson Welles was a pseudonym:
English Ordinal Full Reduction: 59=14/77/double charges of Lucifer’s lightning from heaven/angelic transformation.
English Ordinal Sum: 157=13/summit of the masonic pyramid
What may this indicate, folks?
It indicates, that Welles genuine, hidden family was very prominent, influential, and very powerful indeed – powerful enough to wrest financial control of the Hollywood studio that produced what critics have hailed as the greatest film ever made, and influential enough to fake the Hindenburg disaster in order to benefit their investment in TWA, thus ensuring the future success and profitability of TWA and commercial air travel.
Another key clue that may help to establish the aristocratic and perhaps even royal identity of Welles’ genuine family, comes from an often misinterpreted symbolic element from the movie Citizen Kane (Kane/Tubal Kane/777), Rosebud:
Traditionally, the red rose is symbolic of the House of Lancaster, a royal line that fought for the right of British royal succession during the 15th century’s War of the Roses. Though mainstream historical scholars claim the entire male line of both rivals to the throne during this period was eliminated, details of the war are sketchy and inconsistent at best, and it is more than likely both families intermarried to create the succeeding House of Tudor.
However, one’s loyal readers have rapidly learned, such historical misdirection is quite commonplace, and that most of what appears in historical texts does not accurately reflect an objective analysis nor an accurate chronology of historical events.
Rather, historical texts distributed by mainstream publishing houses contain a creative narrative that is tantamount to propaganda and its interconnected web of woven lies.
WAR OF THE WORLD’S
Welles’ Halloween broadcast reportedly sent shock waves through the American public, and to those millions who reportedly happened to have been attentively listening to the RKO radio broadcast on the night of October 30, 1938 (33/high-degree Scottish Rite Freemasonry).
In truth, Welles’ production, a theatrical reenactment of H.G. Wells serialized science fiction classic, War of the Worlds, was a psychological operation created by Tavistock Institute of Human Relations and funded by our old friends, the prominent family of American merchant bankers, the Rockefellers. Far from a mere Halloween prank, Welles’ entire production represented predictive programming for the event that would occur three years (33 again, folks) later, the very event occurred at Pearl Harbor that elite puppet Franklin Roosevelt would utilize to coax the overwhelming support of the American public to enter the second world war.
After all, one imagines the twisted reasoning most likely utilized by those elite conspirators, if a significant portion of the American public could be made to believe Martians had landed on a New Jersey farm, they could be made to believe Japanese forces had dared to attack a military installation on the American continent.
Coming up soon in Part II, one shall examine further, not only the possible extent of Welles’ royal genealogical roots, but endeavor to reveal the name of yet another character for whom the man directed Citizen Kane served as host actor, a renowned character associated with the JFK assassination.
Stay tuned, folks!