It seems, the mainstream media sorcerers have begun to pay attention to what has been published here at Newsspell. Just moments ago, one happened to have noticed an article published very recently by the establishment mouthpieces at the Washington Post entitled “Junk Science used to undermine Ford.”

In this obliquely fashioned hit piece, undoubtedly aimed at independent researchers regarded as ‘conspiracy theorists’, the Post specifically referenced Doctor Ford’s undermining testimonial discrepancy that was pointed out in Newsspell’s previous installment. Unintentionally, in seeking to bolster the entire mainstream narrative concerning the concocted scandal that enveloped Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh AKA McKenzie Astin, the Post has rather served to undermine it.

No doubt, too, this represents an example of reactionary damage control.

Furthermore, it is truly shameful the practice of genuine journalism is now practiced by independent researchers and not, as has been traditionally claimed, by the propaganda shoveling, teleprompter reading hacks employed by the corporately owned, mainstream media, those commonly referred to as “journalists”.

Nevertheless, the theme chosen by those at the Washington Post is quite telling, and their ruling elite masters are running scared. They are worried, that with every passing day, the tear in their veil of digitally generated illusions grows exponentially.

Nevertheless, please allow the author to once again, welcome those who’ve decided to become new followers.

Although Newsspell hasn’t put the mainstream news sorcerers out of business yet, one can still take solace in the fact, hope does spring eternal.

In the previous installment concerning the subject of the legendary Howard Hughes, one proffered the hypothesis Hughes was in fact a mere celluloid image, a mythical character created by the host actor’s rich and prominent family.

The author also hypothesized Hughes’ confirmed host actor, the equally legendary Hollywood film director Orson Welles had most likely hailed from royal genealogy and that, in his seminal film, Citizen Kane, Welles’ left behind the one clue that revealed his true genealogical origins – rosebud.

However, concerning Citizen Kane, there may be other clues Welles left behind as to his true family origins.

But, most shocking of all, folks, Welles portrayed a significant role in the long-running JFK assassination psychological operation hoax.

There’s an old adage that indicates “things often come full circle.”

Such circumstances seem inevitable when it comes to the scripted nature of history.

True to form, and beyond the scope of Howard Hughes’ celebrated and legendary host actor Orson Welles, one shall dare to once again touch upon those transparent falsehoods associated with the JFK assassination, an event thoroughly woven into the epic fabric of mythical American history.

It seems, not only in the case of Welles, but in the individual cases of each of the actors proved to have portrayed significant roles in the prominent historical event of November 22, 1963, all went on and rose to conspicuous prominence within the American entertainment and television industries.

One has also continued to diligently investigate, aided by whatever sources of empirical documentation could be found, the true genealogical origin of Orson Welles.

Though loyal readers and regular visitors may find the published results of that investigation to be have been liberally sprinkled with speculation, one believes to have uncovered enough circumstantial substantiation to have concluded the humble biographical origins of American mythical heroes Orson Welles AKA Howard Hughes so consistently documented by mainstream biographers is indeed, a complete and utter fabrication.

Turns out folks, one believes both mythical characters were portrayed by the identical royal host actor, a royal family member who reportedly died at the age of fourteen.

SAXE-COBURG-GOTHA

The historical annals detailing the alleged history of the British royal family during the early twentieth century tell us that Edward VIII, Prince of Wales and the eldest son of George V, remains the only sitting monarch to have willingly abdicated the throne.

In the true fashion of Harlequin romance novels, mainstream historical scholars adamantly claim the king’s decision to abdicate emanated from Edward’s stubborn, insistent desire, and against the reservations of many in royal circles, to marry someone deemed a commoner.

One supposes this popular biographical sketch of the common woman swept off of her feet and dashed off in a golden coach to a royal prince’s shining palace, to have been the type of fantastically themed Cinderella tale which for decades, remained so greatly profitable for Hollywood studio and television executives.

The object of the king’s ardent desires was Wallis Simpson, a previously divorced American heiress. To this day however, mainstream historical texts insist the British monarch was so smitten, he ultimately decided to forego his royal title.

Those same texts also inform Edward was beleaguered with yet another problem.

It seems, soon after his coronation, Edward rapidly garnered a bad reputation for associating with disreputable characters, such as German Chancellor and head of the German National Socialists, Adolph Hitler. This scandal, combined with the hullaballoo swirling about over Edward’s torrid affair with an illicit mistress, have always served as the settled, mainstream historical account as to why Edward chose to step down from his lofty throne.

Nevertheless, Edward’s perilous sexual escapades, and his unexplained but taboo relationship with the boogeyman of 20th century history, seem to very much resemble concocted cover stories.

By now, we all know the real story behind Adolph Hitler AKA Kermit Roosevelt/Walt Disney/mainstream news anchor legend Walter Cronkite, don’t we folks?

Generally less known or left largely absent from historical texts, is the fact that Edward had a younger, epileptic sibling, Prince John, who allegedly perished at the age of fourteen (77/Lucifer’s lightning from heaven/angelic transformation) from the deteriorative onslaught of autism. Details as to the extent of the Prince’s condition and his life seem incredibly scant. It is said, however, John’s condition so rapidly deteriorated soon after being discovered by royal physicians, that the prince was whisked away and out of the public eye to Sandringham House, where he was cared for around the clock until his death by a dutiful governess, “Lala” Charlotte Bill.

Staying with old King Edward for but a moment, one wonders why, just as an aside, with all of his wealth and influence (he was king of England, after all) Edward hadn’t bothered with making private arrangements with key members of the British press to keep his ongoing affair with Wallis Simpson quiet and endeavored, as so many European nobles and notable British royals had traditionally done before, to carry on his illicit dalliances with Simpson in complete secrecy while still retaining his crown?

The story of the king’s royal brother, though, seems eerily identical to the fake death scenario staged by Quentin Roosevelt who later became the patriarch of the fraudulent Kennedy family (See:American Camelot: the Kennedy’s mythical dynasty (part 1)

Think about it folks – a royal family with the financial resources to maneuver a family member into the Hollywood entertainment industry of which they are major stockholders, a family member who had been identified at an early age as an artistic prodigy, one who would likely never assume the throne, but nevertheless could be trained to help increase the profitability and prestige of the family’s vast financial portfolio.

Could it be, “Orson Welles” was that royal child whose family faked his death, and then after being shuttled off and trained for most of his formative years at the finest performing arts institutions of Europe, later adopted a pseudonym attached to tailor made but phony biographies, becoming not only one of Hollywood’s most legendary film directors, but also the mythical American figure of Howard Hughes who, in turn, went on to act in the role as a public front man for the royal family’s financial and corporate interests?

Though initially, this analysis may seem to be a stretch, could there exist additional, corroborating clues engineered into the plot of Orson Welles’ classic film Citizen Kane, other than just the mysterious significance of “rosebud”?

Could it be, those stories of Welles’ adolescent adventures traversing the British Isles while claiming to have been a penniless adolescent are also cover stories? Despite no prior experience acting in the theater, we are expected to believe that Welles’ somehow managed to fulfill his quixotic notions of starring in a Shakespearean stage production after only his very first audition. When presented with such historical twaddle, one could be very well forgiven for dismissing out of hand such dubious biographical details.

In fact, folks, Welles’ story is tantamount to nothing more than a typical biographical embellishment, and is likely an outright canard.

During the beginning act of Citizen Kane, the viewer is presented with the story of the young Charles Foster Kane, who after having been deliberately abandoned by his parents, is shuttled off to America to become the tragic but larger than life media tycoon.

Could Kane’s cinematic narrative have represented a veiled but modified glimpse into Prince John’s actual biographical sketch as the royal child sent off to a prestigious boarding school of the performing arts at the age of fourteen, in order that he could be well-trained to assume the mythical identities of Howard Hughes and Orson Welles, men whose images would soon grow to represent the twin behemoths of 20th century American pop culture?

Did the narrative of Citizen Kane in fact serve as a fictional disguise, a cinematic bildungsroman of the youthful Prince John who, at the behest of his royal family and under the expedient cover of a fake death story, later went on to assume the identities of Orson Welles and the reclusive billionaire Howard Hughes?

Prince John:

images of a young Orson Welles:

https://goo.gl/images/DVKDQn

https://goo.gl/images/2TtzCH

When closely examining the images displayed above and performing a comparative sight analysis between the physical features of the young Prince and the youthful Welles, loyal readers shall immediately notice similarities in the facial proportions, the pronounced angularities of the ears, as well the slope and shape of the noses.

The following video clip has been provided as a prime exhibit and a key comparison study between the historical account of the life of Prince John, who was shuttled away from his family while still a very young man and cared for by a nanny, and the plight that befalls the young Charles Foster Kane:

Perhaps more intriguing, the actor portraying the mother of  Charles Foster Kane seems to closely resemble Prince John’s aforementioned nanny, and comparatively speaking, the tragic story of the young Prince is often brought forward by esteemed royal scholars as an example of the inhumanity of the royal family.

Charlotte Bill and Prince John:

Undoubtedly however, if one’s hypothesis regarding Welles’ and Hughes’ royal host actor holds true, the tragic story of Prince John indeed represents the seemingly cruel but normal course of commercial business conducted by royal families for centuries. Oftentimes, it has come to public light how members of the current royal family were sent away while still very young and secluded in boarding schools for most of their formative years to be trained in the most proper manner of whatever vocation, profession, or station they would later assume as adult representatives and public ambassadors for the interests of the royal family.

It should also be noted, that throughout the narrative of Welles’ seminal film, the American public becomes familiar with the character of Charles Foster Kane mostly as a celluloid image, presented only through the medium of cinema reels, much like the mythical character of Howard Hughes was presented to the real-life American public before he reportedly shut himself permanently away in a Las Vegas hotel suite.

At the mid-way point of Welles’ seminal film, the character of Kane embarks upon an ill-fated political campaign that is derailed by an illicit love affair with someone considered to have been well below his social and economic station, which is eerily reminiscent of the royal travails that haunted the abdicated King Edward VIII due to his alleged affair with his illicit lover, Wallis Simpson.

Regarding Kane’s fictional pursuit of American political office, Welles’ was often asked by television host Dick Cavett during his many appearances on Cavett’s American network talk show, if he ever harbored the wish to seek out an American presidential nomination, to which Welles, with characteristic wit and dashes of humility often replied, “Well, you know Dick, the idea is attractive, but they’re {chairmen from the American democratic political party} not exactly burning up the wires.”

And then, there is the matter of Welles’ very public dispute with billionaire newspaper magnet William Randolph Hearst, soon after the theatrical release of Kane.

Could it be, both men were not who they claimed to be, and that both Hearst and Welles were related by royal blood, thus proving their drawn out public dispute over Citizen Kane to have been nothing more than a mutually beneficial media ruse?

William Randolph Hearst:

https://goo.gl/images/V7RLDG

William Randolph Hearst and wife:

https://goo.gl/images/c4wXpM

King Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson:

https://goo.gl/images/4iQaF7

https://goo.gl/images/AtKi4D

Look closely at Hearst’s spouse, does she not eerily resemble the abdicated British king’s illicit mistress, Wallis Simpson? Furthermore, if this is so, it appears the character of Hearst may also have been portrayed, at least for a time, by Edward’s father, George.

This conclusion seems consistent with the author’s findings that concerning the long history and traditionally deceptive practices of the actor based reality, these sorts of high-profile public figures, to better conceal the true identity of those undercover, are sometimes portrayed by casts of rotating host actors.

Considering still further, does it not make perfect sense that the royal family, with vast overseas financial interests in North America, would want to ensure the profitable vitality and security of those interests by having them overseen by reliable family members while posed as prominent figures acting under pseudonyms?

This is also consistent with Britain’s 20th century pre and post-war plan to promote British commercial interests in America. In that sense, a deeper analysis of Welles’ film Citizen Kane reveals deeper ironies, in that while the host actor’s royal family was committed to busily promoting their financial and industrial interests abroad, a royal family member’s Hollywood produced film was being hailed by perceptive movie critics, and often by Welles’ himself, as an example of withering social commentary concerning the prevailingly acquisitive and materially oriented Western society.

JIM GARRISON

Anyone who has screened Oliver Stone’s controversial film JFK, may be familiar with the character of New Orleans bred attorney Jim Garrison (son=masonic light of Lucifer shining down from the East). First consideration here, should be that Oliver Stone has been identified as a fictional character portrayed by our old friend and Hollywood mogul Barry Diller AKA Austro-German Prince Edward von Furstenberg (See: “Maverick” John McCain’s all-American deception).

Therefore, any notion as to the historical accuracy of either Stone’s cinematic accounts of the life of Garrison or theories advanced regarding President Kennedy’s alleged assassination at the hands of more than one shooter, must be held to account and thoroughly dismissed as deliberate historical spin and willful propaganda.

Yes folks, the results of ear biometric comparison and analysis definitively conclude that renowned JFK attorney Jim Garrison was portrayed by none other than the legendary Orson Welles.

Jim Garrison:

But Orson Welles was not the only character with a hidden royal identity to have portrayed characters who played out a prominent role in perpetrating the myth of the JFK assassination.

Jean Hill:

Queen Elizabeth II:

https://goo.gl/images/Va73an

When observing the image of alleged JFK assassination witness Jean Hill, take note of her black and white checked coat, which is symbolic of the masonic concept of duality.

Also note, that Hill testifies to have heard 2 shots then “three or four” more (9/6 occult mirror image =33/high-degree Scottish Rite Freemasonry, over which the sitting British monarch presides as head of the Knights of the royal Garter) while having allegedly witnessed the assassination from the grassy knoll of Dealy Plaza.

Keep in mind too, the British royal family has always held major financial interests in the corporate television network CBS and Desilu productions, which in 1962, merely one year before JFK’s staged assassination, aired the Lucy Show, starring this legendary Hollywood comedienne:

Lucille Ball:

https://goo.gl/images/rL6D19

Yes folks, voice comparison and facial recognition analysis conclude that Elizabeth was indeed the host actor of comedienne and television actress, Lucille Ball. The title of the Lucy Show also represents a hidden occult reference to Lucifer, or the sun through which flows the light of the world. The sun represents the International Brotherhood of Freemasons’ secret object of worship and adoration. As loyal readers have learned by now, the Freemasons are merely a global front for the Jesuit order which controls the Vatican.

Yes folks, in the end, all things connect and come full circle, don’t they?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One thought on “Howard Hughes: Man of mystery revealed (Part II)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s