Thread by @MrGoldstein7

🧵👇Christopher Reeve

I have shied away from this one for years, since it is admittedly a touchy subject. I didn't want to publish anything until I no longer had a reasonable doubt it was faked, and for a long time I didn't look closely at the event because I didn't want to discover the truth.

But given what we now know, it is worth returning to. We now know these old families are corrupt beyond all imagining, and that absolutely nothing is beneath them. They lie all the time about everything, including things far more important than this.

The last three years have been a wake-up call in that regard, or should have been. Not to put too fine a point on it, our default assumption should now be that any event heavily promoted by these people is fake. Our trust in them should be zero.

To be honest, I have been sitting on the definitive clue for over a decade. What is that? It is that as someone who was allegedly paralyzed from the neck down, Reeve should have wasted or atrophied considerably. His thighs and shoulders should be small and withered.

If you don't use muscles, they shrink, as you should know if you have ever had a serious injury and had to spend a lot of time in bed. And yet if we look closely at him sitting in that chair, we see his body, including his legs, is still large and muscular.

His hands, which he should not have used in years, still look large and strong. There is no logical way to explain that, other than this was another gig for him.

I also remind you of this 2000 Super Bowl commercial for Nuveen Investments, where Reeve walks. Amazing CGI? Or something else?

Nuveen backed the Marshall Plan, then was sold in 1974 to Travellers, which in turn was sold to Primerica. It was run by Joe Plumeri, who also ran Citigroup at the same time. He was also working for KKR at Willis at the time of that commercial.

He is also CFR and on many other boards. Of course Nuveen is and was heavily invested in stem cell research, which is also pushed by KKR, CFR, and all other arms of the Octopus.

Before we get to the why, as in why the event was staged and why he would agree to it, let's look at the secondary clue that salted it for me.

Most people don't know his wife Dana Reeve allegedly came down with lung cancer just ten months after his death. Chris died at age 52 (on October 10, ace and eights, Chai); and Dana was only 44 when she allegedly died.

She was not a smoker and it goes without saying she had not worked in any coal or asbestos mines. So her death is just as fishy as his, acting as a big red flag. If she was just an actress playing his wife in this tragedy, then of course she would need an out afterwards.

She wouldn't want to keep playing that part the rest of her life. She had already played it on and off for almost ten years, but I assume she wanted to move on. Her death so soon after his was just too pat, too convenient.

Dana came out of the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts in London, so parts like this were hardly out of her line. Meaning, she was also of the families. Her maiden name is Morosini, a noble family name same as Morrison. The Morrisons are related to the Queen.

Her mother is a Simpson. The Simpsons are also related to the Queen. Her son Will is now at ABCNews. According to Instantcheckmate, her little sister is Adrienne Morosini-Heilman, with a son named Erik.

That is Adrienne with her husband Dana. So, the name Heilman is more indication these people are Jewish. But that is the only pic I could find of Adrienne. It is conveniently too small to analyze. Could we have another sister switch here, with Dana hiding as her sister Adrienne?

I have no proof, but it is possible. Another possible clue: what is that guy's name in that picture there? Dana. In that article where I found the picture, Dana Heilman is the owner of the Roobar Restaurant in Hyannis and Chatham, Cap Cod.

But according to a quick search online, these restaurants were owned at the time by Scott Souza and Justin Hamilton. They are now defunct. So again, a lot of confusion here.

Although he is scrubbed almost everywhere, including Geni, I eventually found an obituary for Dana Morosini's father Charles Morosini.
legacy.com/us/obituaries/…

Turns out he was also military, having been a Lt. Commander in the Navy. He was stationed on an icebreaker at the North Pole, which may be a further red flag.

Charles' obituary confirms the existence of these Heilmans, but that doesn't prove Adrienne isn't the same as her sister Dana. There is also a third older sister Deborah, and she is listed as being 63, making her two years older than Dana.

Strangely, she is listed with three different middle initials: T, A, and O. She is linked to a Charles Huschle, age 60, and has DC on her locations list. It appears Deborah is Principal Pathologist at AstraZeneca and teaches at the Boston University School of Medicine.

The Morosinis are Arpads, linked to the Kings of Hungary since the 13th century. In the 1500s they were closely related to the de' Medicis. Cosimo de' Medicis' wife was Bianca Capello, whose mother was Pelegrina Morosini.

https://twitter.com/MrGoldstein7/status/1352908364947320832?s=20&t=y-hAzQVDtAqhfIOe613QKQ

That's a bit weird. Why? His coloration is strange compared to hers, I think the photo is tampered with to make him look worse. The reason I pulled it up is that her tits are not only in his face, they are really in ours, aren't they? How about wearing some clothes, lady?

But she loved to flash her tits, especially after 40. I mean, I like tits as much as the next guy, but I am not a huge fan of older women flopping around like this in public. It is the opposite of sexy, frankly.

Somehow this just confirms to me this whole thing is not what we were sold. For Dana it looked like some sort of excuse to show way too much cleavage, selling her wares in the greater world. The Hollywood usual.

Christopher Reeve isn't listed in the peerage, but he is closely related to them and we know that from his middle name d'Olier. The d'Oliers are peers closely related to the Campbells, Murrays (same as Stanleys), Rutherfords, Lees, Shaws, Wallaces, Douglases, Hamiltons, Jacobs,

...Chetwynd-Talbots, Scotts, Elwes, Knollys, St. Aubyns, Kirchoffers, Fitzgeralds, Flemings, Herveys, Townshends, Sitwells, Goolds, and of course Reeves. The Sitwells link us to Hitler.

Christopher's grandfather Lt. Col. Frank d'Olier was one of the founders of the American Legion. After the war he joined Prudential insurance as vice president. Not a bad entry level job, eh? It's because his wife was the boss's daughter. He was later president.

He organized the US Strategic Bombing Survey, though we aren't told why an insurance man was chosen for that. He was one of the creators of the Department of Defense. He was also a commander of the French Legion of Honor.

Reeve's other grandfather was also a head of Prudential, and had also been a colonel. Chris' father taught Russian literature at Columbia and later Wesleyan. His mother was Barbara Pitney Lamb, bringing two more big names into the mix.

Her father was Horace Rand Lamb, son of Burt Israel Lamb, and yes the Lambs and Rands were Jewish. They were also Ripleys. Her grandfather was Supreme Court justice Mahlon Pitney. Through the Halsteads they were also Cranes, linking us to the Chases.

The Pitneys were old old money from New Jersey, think Pitney-Bowes. Bowes links us to the Queen, who is a Bowes.

Horace Rand Lamb's mother was Harriet David, and through her we can link to the royal Stuarts. At Geneanet, through the Woolseys and Bloomers, we hit the Hortons and Budds, taking us to a third cousin of Tim Dowling.

Which means that Christopher Reeve and his wife Dana Morosini were cousins, just what we have come to expect. Not only that, they were cousins from royal lines across Europe, tying us to England, Hungary, Italy, etc.

So I guess Christopher didn't come out of nowhere. You are beginning to see who he really was and where he came from. You can see why he would be chosen as the face of a big project.
Here's something not a lot of people know:

How's that for a coincidence? That has been sold as some sort of cosmic irony, but now you see it is easier to explain with the truth: it wasn't just a coincidence. One part was in preparation for the other.

Even the title Above Suspicion may be a mindgame, since we are supposed to hold Reeve above suspicion. Also curious that this HBO movie is not available. I wonder why? But I heard that Reeve's character gets up out of his wheelchair and walks off at the end. Maybe that's why.

Reeve also made a remake of Rear Window in 1998 after his accident, which seems like an all-round bad idea. Not only because it is suicide to try to remake a classic like that, but because he would be sure to give himself away.

We are told he reached a milestone during filming, being able to speak for the first time without being plugged into his ventilator. Hmmm, that's convenient, isn't it?

And it sounds like a cover story. He didn't need the ventilator for this acting part, but kept it on for show. And continued to use it in real life afterwards, also for show. In his bios, we are told,

How stupid do they think we are? Unbelievably stupid. How does a paralyzed person exercise five hours a day? What did these “specialized exercise machines” do? Just move him around, I guess. But does having machines move you around “stimulate your muscles”? How, exactly?

The wheelchair also moved him around: did it also stimulate muscle growth by some sort of new magic? I'll tell you a little secret: you can't prevent muscle atrophy by just moving a paralyzed person around. The muscle actually has to work itself. If it doesn't, it gets smaller.

Reeve should have gotten noticeably smaller, but he didn't. His legs stayed large, which is impossible.

Plus, the movie is easy to find online, and they blew it by letting us see his body unclothed. They even let us see this alleged machine therapy, making one arm and hand flap around as an answer to why he didn't get skinny.

I guess they need to also explain why, while the machine was on that arm, making it flap around, his other hand was also moving.

Also notice this bit of dialog at minute 12:45. Reeve meets his old partners and says “I look like hell”. One of them says, “Remarkably fit, considering.” Yeah.

Also a clue is that Reeve was alleged to have been cremated, destroying any possibility of a later disinterment, autopsy, or other investigation.

It also always seemed ironic that Superman would end up this way. It has been commented on thousands of times. But it isn't irony. They chose him for that reason. It makes the fake so much more poignant, you see. It doubles the tug on your heartstrings.

These people may be monsters, but they know what they are doing when it comes to jerking you around.

We will hit more evidence in a moment, but let's look at why. It may help you understand how they did this once you understand why.

Like the Michael J. Fox "illness" with Parkinson's, it was used to promote embryonic stem cell research, cloning, and other morally questionable or repugnant medical procedures. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryonic…

In that sense it ties into the current crime against humanity, including both the mRNA fake “vaccines” and the biolabs in Ukraine.

Also remember that we just found that Christopher's sister-in-law Deborah Morosini is a Principal Pathologist at AstraZeneca, possibly linking us closely to Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Do you really think that is a coincidence?

He was that close to one of the most evil companies in the world, and just happened to be pushing their research.

If you haven't studied embryonic stem cell research, you really should. And if you already know something about it, or think you do, you should revisit the topic now in 2022, and stir in all you should have learned about the medical research industry in the past two years.

In short, these people are immoral criminals, absolute ghouls, and they must be stopped. They have long been doing hellish experiments on both animals and humans, often without consent or without full disclosure. They are mass murderers.

That is the gigantic cui bono here, and you shouldn't need anything else, so let's ask why Chris would agree to do this. You may think he had a great career ahead of him in 1995, but the truth is just the opposite.

Although quite handsome in his 20s, in his 40s he was aging very poorly and strangely. If you don't believe me, go watch some of his last movies, like Remains of the Day, or especially Village of the Damned.

Village of the Damned is horrible, but Remains of the Day is quite watchable, since it is led by Anthony Hopkins and Emma Thompson.

Anyway, they now admit Reeve had been having trouble with alopecia and baldness since his early days, and he wore a wig in the last two Superman movies. He also couldn't leave his nose alone, and it got narrower and narrower.

He apparently continued to have plastic surgery on it even after the fake accident, since by the time of his death it was a strange sliver, just one more surgery away from matching Michael Jackson.

Village of the Damned–also Mark Hamill's low point, before The Rise of Skywalker—was a huge and famous flop, and Reeve's already poor reputation in Hollywood took another dive after that. His career had been on life support for years and after that film it was effectively dead.

And I suppose you remember the film Deathtrap, from 1982, where Reeve played a gay young man who faked his death. He was exceedingly convincing playing gay, far more convincing than playing straight in Superman. He wasn't that good of an actor.

In fact he wasn't good at all, always being chosen for his looks. He generated far more heat on the screen fake-kissing Michael Caine than he ever did with Margot Kidder.

I just rewatched Deathtrap, and except for the ending it is very watchable and well-written. Reeve does a passable job, but what really jumped out at me is how unattractive his mouth was, especially close up. Very thin lips and lizardy smile.

You will say he played it up, since you are not supposed to like him there, but there is only so much you can do with your mouth. It is either attractive or not. The way they solved it in the Superman movies was by avoiding close-ups. He also doesn't have much dialog.

I think he had far more dialog in Deathtrap than he had in Superman, despite being the lead.

This would mean that all of Chris' speeches about wanting to make love to his wife again were scripted. They always seemed forced to me, and honestly a bit icky. A sort of “too much information”.

The way she hovered over him never rang true to me either. She seemed disinclined to touch him, like one of Elon Musk's fake wives or girlfriends. We see lots of that in Hollywood, and you can learn to spot it if you care to.

One clue that I have often noticed is when people like that hug, their hands are closed or clenched when touching the back, instead of flat and caressing. It is in the hands during embraces.

OK, let's fill this in with some further evidence. Dana Morosini was connected to no other men before she married Reeve at age 31. That's pretty odd, since she was a very attractive actress, coming out of daytime soaps.

When Dana died, her son Will was in school in Bedford, NY, being 14. Which means he was probably at Rippowam Cisqua School. Yep, found him on their alumni page. rcsny.org/alumni-profile…

But the weird thing is we are told that when his mother died, he didn't move in with relatives, instead “moving in next door with neighbors” so he could continue going to Rippowam. Does that make any sense to you, or does it sound more like a cover story?

Also note the owl there. I suggest that the reason he didn't have to move in with relatives is that he was still living with his mother. Or, maybe his dad was living next door.

The Christopher Reeve Foundation, which pushes embryonic stem cell research to this day with funding from the usual suspects, has Reeve's children on its board, but it is actually run by Peter Wilderotter, previously of Planned Parenthood, the NAACP, and New York Public Radio.

That's curious in itself, because NYPR was divested from New York in 1995, the same year of the Reeve event. It was sold to hidden private investors, though it was never put on the open market. They have never explained how that worked.

They admit that whoever bought it got it for far under market value, which of course points us at the usual suspects. My assumption is that it became yet another CIA front, like everything else.

Somehow, despite losing the support of the City and State, it has grown rapidly since then, moving into posh new expanded offices on Varick Street. We are supposed to believe that was all done with fund drives, I guess, but it doesn't scan.

Their expansion in 2008 cost upwards of $58 million. Immediately they began gobbling up other stations, including WQXR and WXNY. Classical music was dropped for 24/7 propaganda, which again sounds like Intel.

In 2011 NYPR also gobbled up New Jersey Public Radio, doing the same thing. By 2015 they were declaring revenue of $68 million, though we aren't told where all that funding comes from. In 1995, as a truly public radio station, they had a budget of $8 million.

In 2019 that had increased to $100 million. Except that even then they admit they only take in $52 million a year in fundraising. Where does the other $48 million come from? Black budget “public” radio, funded by the spooks and the billionaires behind them.

NYPR was CEO'ed by Laura Walker during those years. During that time she was also on the board of Tribune Media, a huge conglomerate, telling us who really owned New York and New Jersey “Public” Radio.

In 2019 Tribune Media merged with Nexstar in the largest merger in media history, giving it 216 stations in 118 markets. Walker is now President of Bennington College, proving her spook status.

Bennington is one of the ten spookiest small colleges in the country. If you don't believe me, go there and walk around. It feels like an extension of Langley—which it is.

Curiously, Nexstar also came out of nowhere in 1996. We are told it was funded by ABRY partners and headed by Perry Sook.

ABRY, a private equity firm, came out of Bain Capital and was led by Andrew Banks and Royce Yudkoff. As you will remember,

Bain is another company founded by Mitt Romney, which is also gobbling up large parts of the world for its hidden investors. So, another front for the billionaires, as usual.
rollingstone.com/politics/polit…

As of this year, Nexstar has bought up around 40% of broadcast media, though we aren't told why the government would allow such a thing. The Justice Department just keeps greenlighting all these mergers in every field, though it doesn't benefit anyone but the very rich.

So anyway, I hope you are beginning to see how all these things are connected. The Christopher Reeve Foundation isn't just accidentally run by the same people that run all these other things.

And his event didn't just happen to arrive in 1995, at the same time all this other stuff was erupting across the financial and medical landscapes.

I remind you this happened in Clinton's first term, which had begun in 1993. It was this push that ended up requiring the mothballing of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 as well as much other pro-rich legislation.

Just proving that once again we have two parties of the rich and no parties of the poor or middle class. 99% of the people in the country have zero representation in Washington.

I don't want to conclude without revisiting the whole embryonic stem cell research question. This is the far bigger lie hidden beneath the Reeve event lie that I was talking about above. We will start with the terminology, which is always their first lie.

They call it an embryo, but they could just as well call it a fetus or a baby. Is there any real difference between a zygote, an embryo, or a fetus? No, it's all the same person, isn't it, just at different ages. It is alive at all stages, and no one disputes that.

So why three names for the same person? The same thing? Because it allows them to insert uncertainty into this argument to suit themselves. It allows them to pretend they aren't killing a human being if they do it early enough.

They created a huge amount of emotion around this Reeve event trying to convince you they could save Superman if you just allowed them to kill human embryos.

But is that really something you think humans should be doing? Taking one life to save another? How's that not playing God? It is absolutely playing God, and nothing good can come of it. Nothing good has come from it, only rising levels of horror.

In fact, it is far more horrific than the original question of abortion, which was about a mother ending the life of her unborn child.

If you squint long enough, you can almost see a gray area there, since the mother is the one who brought the child into existence (in a way) and who would have to care for it.

But then doctors got involved, and the argument they had a right to kill the child was far harder to make.

By the time you get to researchers growing embryos to use in tissue repair, you have crossed over any possible gray line, and are in the arena of outright monstrosity. I can't believe anyone thinks this is defensible.

Nor is the human element what bothers me here. I feel the same way about using animals like this. Living creatures should simply not be used for such purposes, especially ones we know are highly sentient.

You will say I must be a vegetarian, but that does not follow. You will say I seem to have a problem killing one animal to save another, which is what the food chain is. But the difference is we know the food chain is moral. It is a part of Nature, so it can't be immoral.

Is a cat killing a mouse immoral? No, and we know that for certain. If there is a God, he has obviously not disallowed it. The world is built on it. But does God or Nature look kindly on us torturing animals for our medical benefit?

There are many reasons to doubt it. No wise person through the ages, from civilized people to tribal people, has recommended it. They have surrounded the killing of animals with taboo and reverence and prayer. Plus, normal people are revolted by it, which is sign enough for me.

Humans are allowed to prosper, but not at the cost of misery or extinction to other species. That should go without saying, and almost no one really thinks we have the right to brutally subjugate the entire world and its creatures.

Another place these modern arguments fail is in the claim we need to do this, to ease the suffering of injured people. But that is to assume life isn't cyclical, and won't return on its own. That isn't my assumption, because all evidence is that life is cyclical.

In other words, we don't need to fix all broken bodies, since that isn't how life works. Broken bodies die and then come back as whole bodies, through regeneration. That is what death and birth are about, remember?

I don't need to keep fixing this body, since someday I will die and come back in a new body. So I don't need stem cells or AI or nanobots, I just need to quit fearing death. I need to look forward to my next cycle.

Only people who don't understand life and death, and who are in constant fear of death, need to pursue these ghastly schemes of recombination.

I now think the whole abortion question was hijacked to promote these horrific schemes, since they need to convince you abortion is OK as the first step to this Frankenstein future.

But I don't think abortion is as necessary as they have told you it is, not even as a part of population control. Just search on the question, “How many babies fail to get adopted in the US?” The answer is. . . zero.

There are far more people waiting to adopt infants than there are available infants, which obviously ties into the abortion question. So if we stopped all abortions, could the waiting families cover all adoptions of unwanted infants?

Since there are an estimated 700,000 abortions per year in the US, it seems doubtful. With almost 4 million births every year, it would immediately add about 18% to the birth rate, which seems like the last thing we need regardless.

However, that is assuming what we are told by the government is true, which as I have shown you is not ever a good assumption.

That graph tells us that availability of abortion has not followed population growth in the US anyway. You would expect a big fall in the 70s and 80s, after Roe v. Wade in 1973, but that isn't what we see.
ibrc.indiana.edu/ibr/2001/sprin…

We see a modest decline followed by a return to 1960s level growth in the 1990s. A far larger decline is seen in the 1930s, and that had nothing to do with abortion. It had to do with an extended depression.

This graph shows a much stronger link to finance than to abortion, as we see from the growth in the 1950s. So we may assume growth has fallen in the 2020s, and in fact we know it is so.

The birthrate plummeted 5% in 2020 and another 2% in the first half of 2021. No one has claimed that is due to a huge uptick in abortions.

So again, the argument that we need to abort all these unwanted children to keep populations down doesn't really fly.

It would make more sense to teach girls about their ovulation cycles and the rhythm method, but that is conspicuously not done, even in this culture that has no problem telling them they may be men, or may not exist at all.

In fact, the rhythm method is strongly discouraged. Just a do a search on it, where the first things that come up at Google are these: Not effective, disadvantages, failure, only for crazy Catholics.

Why would they do this, if population control was the real goal? Because population control is not the real goal, and when it is they prefer to promote abortion and contraceptives, which are either profit-making, as with the pill, or pleasure killing, like condoms.

Condoms help them split the sexes, by destroying the primary bond at the skin level, and abortion helps them promote human interventionalism on a mass scale, normalizing the murder of embryos and fetuses to advance horrific research.

My point is there are a lot of things we could be doing that we aren't. They try to convince us things have to be the way they are, but they really don't.

Things are the way they are because they benefit the superwealthy, but they do not benefit us at all. And they do not benefit Nature, either.

The first order of business should be stopping the medical industry and biolabs before they kill us all, either accidentally or on purpose. Or before Nature decides she has had enough of the ghouls and wipes us all out as a nuisance.

They want you to think AI or climate change is the biggest danger, but both pale in comparison to this one. Life is adaptive and I have no fear we will wipe out all of it. But we may succeed in wiping ourselves out. Or what may be worse: turning ourselves into hellish chimeras.