Tuesday, 5 April 2016

Has Chris Spivey gone Totally Mad?

Christ Spivey aka Anna Prentice
The question on everyone's lips is whether or not Chris Spivey has gone totally mad?

Regarded as the Truth Movement's most influential writer, with a readership in its millions, Chris Spivey is well known for writing explosive and original articles blowing the lid on the nation's most evil and despicable people.

Going further down the rabbit's hole than anyone has dared to go before, Spivey's research has brought him to a conclusion which has resulted in an unprecedented level of ridicule and scorn from people who would have otherwise called themselves devoted fans.

Having promised to take down the British Royal family (on the proviso that enough people acted upon it,) Spivey's article about Princess Diana "The Night of the Living Dead," have left more people scratching their heads than marching to Buckingham Palace with their pick-axes.
The Night of the Living Dead

"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts"

From claiming the Prime Minister's wife Sam Cameron, doubled as Elizabeth Owen, a witness to the 7/7 London Bombing, to claiming Lee Rigby didn't actually exist, and was actually a fictional creation based on three individuals, Karl Whittle, Robert Sarjeant and Chris Amos, Spivey goes further than ever before by stating that not only didn't Princess Diana die in the Paris car crash, but in fact she never ever existed and when she was seen in public, was a composition of Jill Dando, Selina Scott and others.

Its hard to keep up with the hundreds of face comparison pictures he publishes, and the statements he's made both past and present:

  • Madeline McCann is Sarah Payne
  • Jade's Goodie's mum – Jackie Budden was Brenda Leyland, the McCann troll who was alleged to have committed suicide.
  • Jimmy Jone's wife Jane Russell is actually Sonia Poulton, a journalist on David Icke's now defunct TPV television station.
  • That all the family photographs of Prince William and Princess Kate, with their son Prince George are photoshopped
  • The only person to survive the Paris car crash (which didn't happen) Trevor Rees Jones is Sion Jenkins – the fella who spent time in prison for killing his foster daughter, Billie Jo Jenkins.
  • Prince Phillip is Jimmy Savile
  • Queen Elizabeth II is Prince Philip

Spivey would have us believe a Harry Potter style Ministry of Magic department is at work in which hundreds of people turn up to an inconspicuous building in London, and get to work following a preordained script written years in advance, sitting down at their desks spending their days writing news articles, manipulating photos and videos before cascading them out to the press to be shown on television and printed in the papers.

Summing up the frustrations of many of his loyal readers, Clem writes:

"Dear Chris
I have loved this site for ages and whilst I am aware you get things wrong from time to time, overall your heart is in the right place. The stuff you put out is very good, you are funny and insightful. Recently though, things have gone badly awry and I do worry about your mental health (this site must take its toll), or worse still that your work has been aquired to help promote an altogether sinister and silly agenda.

Chris, the facial comparison stuff leaves me cold and is at times ridiculous. More importantly it is pointless. It has no meaning. The Queen and Prince Philip do look alike, it is a common in marriage. Yes, you can join the two photos together, but what does that mean? Are you saying the images were doctored to make them look similar in the photos? Or that their images were blended to make one composite face? Or are you saying that the Queen and the Duck are actually one and the same?

Princess Diana was a real person. Yes, she may have disappeared to live another life but to suggest she was only a composite image of Sue Lawley etc is insanity and ultimately no – she is not whats-her-face Rothschild either, no matter how many photos are joined together. Diana was a descendent of the Rothschilds but she was not actually whats-her-face, they look entirely different. You appear to have crossed the border into flat-earth style theory. Are you going to say that Jimmy Hendrix is Morgan Freeman next? Or that Alex Jones is Bill Hicks?

Jimmy Savile is not the Duke of Edinburgh, nor is he Peter Sutcliffe. He was involved with them on deeply sinister levels but he is not them. I agree that photographs have all been tampered with, including ones of the Queen. I think that Prince Charles was only an inch taller than Savile but in photos Savile is always much smaller, why? What techniques did they use to doctor the images before photoshop? Savile was hugely and inexplicably involved with the royal family. Could he have somehow been related to them through blood? Or was he just the procurer and provider for them? Why don’t you do a full analysis of who Savile was and what he was connected to, especially his links to mass murder? Was he connected to The Moors Murderers or Fred West?

Please can you spell out what your theory is? Say it clearly, explain what you mean. Do you actually believe that the Duck and Savile are the same man, or that the images of them have been doctored so they look alike? I really struggle to follow the logic and it is so disappointing to have someone I like and admire going down a misleading path.

You have an amazing attention for detail and are so on the ball, but you need a fresh perspective. When I heard your interview and all your suspicions about the staff in the NHS being part of some plan to inject you with cancer or poison, my heart sank. A cannula is commonly inserted in a patient hours before they plan to use it. Yes, it is uncomfortable and yes it is questionable – but all part of normal practice. Just ask any pregnant woman or MIU patient? Coldness of staff and negligence and cruelty are endemic to the NHS and you only have to be involved with it for a very short period to find that out. Human beings are cruel and abusive in institutional circumstances. There is so much death at the hands of the NHS, so much iatrogenesis (surely that’s worth an article too?). I am sorry you were badly treated but it was just a bit of bad luck your finger got infected, nothing more.

Yes, all of history is made up to facilitate the satanic elite, yes they murder children, yes news stories are made up. Yes, all the photos in the news are photoshopped. But to what purpose? It is just too outlandish to suggest the cast is made up of a tiny group of actors playing multiple Bo Selecta roles. Crisis actors do exist. False flags are part and parcel of this bullshit. But really Chris, stop this nonsense. You are in danger of destroying the valuable contribution you have already made and we all need you fighting fit, mate!!"

While others like Johnny D get straight to the point:

"That's probably one of the most outlandish and ridiculous things I’ve ever read. I think you’re losing your grip Chris."

While yet more and more (once loyal readers like Nonny) believe Spivey has been 'got at' and is actively spreading misinformation on purpose:

"I started to wonder if his account had been hijacked, or in fact , Chris had been forced somehow to write this latest stuff."

Does this spell the end of Chris Spivey or the beginning of a whole new era of fame and fortune?
Only history will tell whether Spivey has hit on the Holy Grail of Conspiracy Theory or whether he's just gone mad, ranting uncontrollably as a madman would scrawl slogans on the padded wall of his asylum cell.

He is right in predicting his Diana article would bring down the British Royal family if believed and championed by enough people. To contend that there is a Ministry of Magic style department at work who manipulate local and world events by utilizing actors playing many parts is believable (to an extent.)

As with everything in life, the proof is in the pudding; and as of yet, Chris Spivey hasn't delivered a delicious enough pudding.

Its common knowledge that he thinks anyone who doesn't read his articles in full and who doesn't understand or believe his evidence at the first sitting, are "cunts", but perhaps this is where Spivey is failing.

As he makes clear in his latest article 'Site Update.'

"Whinging, whiny little voices popping up accusing me of losing the plot for [not] saying that The Duck & Savile are the same person and they then go on to ask a load of infantile questions, thus totally ignoring the fact that I have told you (in big thick letters) that there is a lot more to tell you (and by a lot more, I mean far too much to document in the post) on the subject… You really couldn’t make that shit up.

What is it with yous people? Why come here just to make yourself look fucking stupid? I mean why waste your time and efforts when you can do the exact same thing talking to a mirror – which would save yourself public embarrassment and me having to waste my time pointing out the fact that you are a cunt."

Let's be honest, its hard to read a Spivey article; they are lengthy, rambling and incoherent (But don't let Spivey hear me saying that.)

In essence he's asking his readership to believe the Earth is flat. He's demanding his readership believe something so profound and Earth shattering that it literally breaks a hole in the fabric of Time and Space.

Its no use him getting angry and calling us all cunts for not grasping his theory. Anyone can photoshop half a face with another and call it conclusive proof.

Here's a picture of me and Barry from Eastenders. If anyone accuses me of being the same person as Barry, they would be barking up the wrong tree.

Though to be fair; he does provide multiple examples of evidence which do call into question the official version of events. No one can deny this.

My argument is that for something so fantastic, fantastic proof needs to be presented.

But is it all a fantastic Red Herring?

Richie Allen is the latest Truth Movement celebrity to publicly complain of charlatan's within the movement smearing the truth and spreading falsehoods to fulfill their own agendas and nefarious ends.

Could Spivey be a Double Agent?

You can bet your bottom dollar that Ian R Crane is distancing himself from Spivey's latest theory. While he was the first to come to his rescue during Spivey's harassment trial, Crane has kept loudly quiet about his latest theory.

Likewise with the pin-up girl of the Truth Movement Danielle Le Verite, who wouldn't dare comment on Spivey's latest theory without first consulting her handler Thomas Sheridan.

***Its worthy of note that neither Ian R Crane or Thomas Sheridan even knew who Chris Spivey was until I told them during the AV5 conference in 2014.***

Its odds on favourite that considering Thomas Sheridan's view of anyone who believes the Earth is flat are "stupid cunts", he'll have nothing constructive to say about Spivey's latest theory either.


Keep in mind Spivey has never commented on:
  • The Hampstead Kids
  • The 788-790 Finchley Road fraud
  • Chem-trials
  • Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett's historical research on King Arthur II
  • Aliens

It does make you wonder; what side is he on?

Of-course if Spivey's theory about multiple actors playing many different roles and the fact that not only didn't Princess Diana die in the Paris crash but that she never even existed; is proved to be true, then all would be forgiven and he'll be awarded the Nobel Peace prize.

The issue many have is that his research is turning the Truth Movement into a laughing stock and is making a mockery of the truth as we know it.

After all, if anyone comes searching about the Truth Movement, Spivey's name would be one of the first names which would spring up from Google.

How would anyone react to the proposition that the most famous car crash in history was in fact staged and that one of the most famous woman in history didn't even exist?

Perhaps one of Spivey's many gate-keepers could come to his rescue and present his research is a more pleasing and digestible manner?

Take Fabooka De Stait for example, a writer in his own right and someone who appears regularly on Spivey's site. Perhaps he could present Spivey's research in a new light?

Or how about John Hamer? Another writer who appears regularly of his site? Something needs to happen because as of now, Spivey is loosing his credibility with each new article published.

Which remains me of a Freedom of Information request I lodged with Sussex Police on the 22 March 2015.

Dear Sussex Police,

As part of your investigation into the Shoreham Airshow crash, have you investigated the claims made by Christopher D Spivey, published across three parts on his
www.chrisspivey.org website?

The first part is linked below: 
http://chrisspivey.org/the-shoreham-airshow-crash-part-1/

Yours Sincerely,
Matthew Taylor


I've heard nothing back yet!


No comments:

Post a Comment

Please show your appreciation with a donation.