Dan Solomon fails to impress with article on Alex Jones being Bill HicksPosted: November 29, 2014
An article by “Dan Solomon” of Texas Monthly reports on the speculation that Alex Jones is Bill Hicks without delving into any of the facts.
News media publications probably have many authors like “Dan Solomon” who are actually ghost writers, the name being a company “brand” that is owned by the newspaper/magazine to which are ascribed articles written by stay at home “journalists” writing on pay-per-piece basis. Or it could be that the “Dan Solomon” brand is a ghost-writing name farmed out to others through a separate media company entirely – produced in-house and then bid out to various journals. The exact inner workings of these arrangements would be impossible to determine because these things are closely guarded trade secrets.
Nevertheless, whoever the “Dan” person was who authored the article, he/she did a miserable job. Here are some of the things he did not consider or do before writing his article on Alex Jones being Bill Hicks:
1. He didn’t provide a list of the evidence at issue.
2. He didn’t take the photos of their matching teeth to a dentist to obtain a professional opinion on how identical they are.
3. He didn’t take the matching facial dimensions and matching profile shape to a forensic detective for an expert opinion on the likelihood of match.
4. He didn’t consult a plastic surgeon and the feasibility of altering Hicks’ face into Alex’ face.
5. He didn’t report on any inquiries he made into the Texas or FBI witness protection program – even if the reply would have been “no comment.”
6. He didn’t report on the extent of Kevin Booth’s association with Hicks/Jones or call him to get an explanation for why he listed both men as his “producer” for a 2013 film.
7. He didn’t obtain an actual birth certificate for Jones (not just a computer print-out), nor a death certificate for Bill Hicks (which are sealed in Arkansas for 50 years).
8. He didn’t interview anybody present when Hicks died, nor any of Jones childhood friends.
9. He didn’t try to obtain school records for Alex Jones.
10. He didn’t report on the photoshop anomalies put out by Alex Jones of himself as a child with different colour eyes or the fake yearbook photo.
11. He didn’t report on Jones’ constantly changing hair colour, his shaved eyebrows, his changing eye-colours.
12. He didn’t locate any of those suspicious of Alex Jones’ identity and ask them to explain their theories.
13. He didn’t report on Jones’ own admission of having family in the CIA, nor Hicks’ connection to Dr Frank Gannon, the confidant of Richard Nixon.
14. He didn’t analyse the numerous occasions Alex Jones confessed being Bill Hicks – and evaluate their sincerity.
15. He didn’t contact Alex Jones with the accusation and quote what sort of response was given.
16. He didn’t ask Kevin Booth to explain overlapping ownership interests of Bill Hicks/Alex Jones in Sacred Cow Productions, or why he made the strange choice of adopting Jones as Hicks replacement.
17. He didn’t investigate Hicks’ liberal fan-club’s on-going claims that he still “lives” – nor why they would celebrate a “right-winger” like Alex Jones.
18. He didn’t try to obtain copies of the video where Jerome Corsi called Alex Jones “Bill” nor contact Corsi for an explanation.
19. He didn’t anonymously ask around in Hicks’ comic subculture to see what sort of responses he would get.
20. He didn’t comment on the apparent age of Alex Jones who looks 12 or 13 years older than his stated age.
21. He didn’t question whether Jones’ absurd stage persona and gruff voice and stiff mannerism are all an act.
21. He didn’t delve into the TimeWarner connection to Austin Cable Access – investigating the connections Hicks/Jones has to major media.
22. He didn’t question that plausibility of the success obtained by a community college drop out who was nothing but a local cable access gadfly. Who helped him? Who financed him? Who trained him? Who supplied him with connections? Who built his organization?
23. He didn’t report on the oddity of a young man like Hicks dying of an old man’s disease like pancreatic cancer – nor did he ask a cancer expert to comment on the plausibility of Hicks doing stand-up comedy in November 1993 with a full head of hair despite 6 months of chemotherapy.
24. He didn’t inquire into Hicks’ medical care – why doctor “William Donovan” let Hicks die at home instead of getting treatment in a hospital.
25. Didn’t contact reporters who left infowars, people who have been harassed by a paranoid Alex Jones about ‘disclosing secrets’ – and who have spoken of being afraid for their lives because of him.
The so-called journalist “Dan Solomon” did none of the basic investigative work necessary when it came time to write the article about Alex Jones being Bill Hicks. The article he wrote instead was written by a hack who is only good at shovelling out entertaining little diddies of news-media propaganda – it is not the work of a real journalist.
“Dan” was so eager to repeat the masonic “33” in his article that he wrongly reported it as being Hick’s age at death – an error the UK Parliament repeated in their commemorations. The video ‘irrefutable proof’ is also 33 minutes long – showing that everybody in this stunt is doing the Masonic wink-wink to each other about what is really going on. (It’s considered of huge significance to Freemasons that Hiram king of Tyre helped king Solomon build the Temple by providing him with a mischling from the tribe of Dan to be the chief artificer.)
It is rather unsurprising that the name “Dan Solomon” is also farmed out to the Onion on occasion – showing that the Texas Monthly report was part of a coordinated cover-up, a drive-by scorn-throw lamely attempting to bury the inconvenient truth about Alex Jones being Bill Hicks – a fact that is becoming increasingly difficult to hide.