The Lynn Angell Age Dilemma

Here's an interesting picture of Lynn Angell, purportedly from Argyll Academy and Campbell Hall school's 1981 yearbook. This dates back to the period when Lynn was working full-time in order to support David's screen-writing ambitions, as part of the couple's five-year plan to break into Hollywood.

And here's an enlarged version, minus the text:

Small as it is, I find the picture interesting for three main reasons:

1. The picture has suddenly materialised at this particular time
2. This younger Lynn Angell clearly resembles some of the older versions we've already seen (see below)
3. Lynn's apparent youthfulness raises interesting questions about her actual age and the official timeline

As regards my first point, this image appears on Flickr and the date is given as 26th January 2010. However, I have only recently (i.e. yesterday) stumbled across this image, despite conducting numerous image searches on numerous search engines over a five month period. Has Google taken a full year to index this particular image? Is this plausible?

Second, when we compare this image with some of the other pictures of Lynn Angell we can see a clear resemblance; even the hairstyle is the same, although the style has a suitably wavy 1980s feel to it. In fact, it seems to me that Lynn displays a level of satisfaction with her self-image that, in my view, is uncommon amongst members of the fairer sex, in the sense that she never once changes the basic style, colour or length of her hair. It would be interesting to get some feedback from a female reader on this particular issue. In addition to the below montage, it's also worth comparing this image with some of the images that appear in one of my previous posts.

Finally, how old does Lynn look in this picture? The official biography tells us that Lynn was born 11th August 1949, which would make her 31 going on 32 at the time this picture was taken. Yet my first thought on viewing this image was that it showed Lynn in her early 20s, perhaps even as a high school senior. This matters because the official biography tells us that Lynn was 52 at the time of her alleged death, whereas a sizeable number of third party memorial and tribute sites would have us believe that she was several years younger and state her age as 45. Searching Google using "Lynn Angell, 45" or "Lynn Angel" +45 as the search criteria returns a large number of results, although www.9-11heroes.us is probably the most high profile example.

Why does this matter? Well, according to the official biography Lynn met a 'recently graduated' David Angell on Cape Cod 'one summer', presumably the summer of 1969. The couple courted and married in August 1971. This is all well and good if Lynn was born in 1949, but more than a little problematic if she was born in 1956! Walking through the timeline, we're told that David served in the army from 1969 to 1972 and was stationed at the Pentagon, whereas Lynn was still living in Alabama and did not graduate from Auburn University until 1971, the year of their marriage. Even if Lynn was indeed born in 1949, how on earth did the couple manage to keep their relationship going under these circumstances? Did David fly back and forth between Virginia and Alabama every weekend? Is this plausible?

Interestingly, Lynn Angell does get a mention on Auburn University's website, and the article in question confirms that she graduated in 1971. However, it's important to note that this single reference to Lynn Angell is dated 12th September 2001, with the subject matter being her 'death' as a passenger on flight 11 the day before. So, while most people were still reeling from the events of the day before, a certain David M. Granger of Auburn University was morbidly scouring the newspapers and checking whether any Auburn alumni were among the dead? Again, we're obliged to ask whether this is remotely plausible given the time available to the author, and especially given the confusion and misinformation surrounding the flight 11 passenger manifests?

As per usual, we're left with more questions than answers. Lynn certainly looks a lot younger than David in all the photos in which they appear 'together', although the very evident anomalies in these images raise questions as to whether one or the other (or both) has been 'Photoshopped' into them. Consequently, it's anyone's guess as to whether this 1981 picture represents the real Lynn Angell.

David Angell: The Associated Press Image

This article was originally posted on Let's Roll and can be found @ http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p=192055&postcount=123

Below is an enlarged version of an Associated Press image of David Angell, analysed together with the very similar image that can be found on David Angell's Wikipedia page. Aside from the very obvious fact that these images are almost identical, the following discrepancies can be observed:

1. The bridge of David's nose as it meets the forehead is very peculiar. The perspective here, and around the right eye (left eye as it appears in the image), is similarly odd.
2. David's left eye (right eye as it appears in the image) appears to be surrounded by superfluous, discoloured scar tissue or face putty.
3. The hairline running up the side of his face appears to be ruler-straight.
4. Look just underneath the short and long vertical lines to see clear join marks. The join is most noticeable where it cuts across David's moustache.
5. Notice the teeth and compare them with the Wikipedia image. There are obvious gaps between the teeth in the one image, but not in the other. Similarly, there's a slightly overlapping tooth in the Wikipedia image, but not in the AP image.
6. Someone has been at work with the blur tool in this section, and none too subtly for that matter: they managed to take a small nick out of David's beard (right on the jawline) while doing so. We can also see what appear to be cloning artifacts next to the collar and observe some odd discolouration in this area.

This same image is also being hawked on the NBCU Photobank website. The kind of alterations we see in these images are consistent with my theory that David Angell is in fact still alive, and that these were at one time real images of David Angell, which have been altered in order to minimise the chances of him being recognised in public.

David and Lynn Angell: Their Final Domicile Pt1

This post actually precedes an earlier post on the subject of David and Lynn Angell's last place of residence. The follow-up post can be found @ http://firemansams.blogspot.com/2010/11/david-and-lynn-angell-their-final.html. The original version of this article was posted on Let's Roll and can be found @ http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p=189989&postcount=34

The subject of the Angell's domicile proved central to the subsequent lawsuit brought by David's brother and sister, Kenneth Angell and Claire Miller. A fascinating article on the case can be found by following the below link.

http://www.projo.com/news/content/hi...9.3232eb9.html

Here's a few choice quotes from this article:

"In the Angell case, lawyers had debated whether his “domicile” was in California, Massachusetts or Rhode Island, which has more favorable laws for this type of litigation. Black’s Law Dictionary defines a domicile as “a person’s true, fixed, principal and permanent home."

"Under California and Massachusetts law, “recovery is largely limited to economic loss to dependants” and Angell had no children. Under Rhode Island law, damages would be calculated by projecting Angell’s lifetime earnings, minus lifetime expenses, defense lawyers said."

"The plaintiffs’ lawyers said there was no question that Angell’s domicile was the couple’s “dream house” on Wheaton Street in Providence."

"The couple had sold their long-held summer home on Cape Cod, and their new Cape Cod vacation home was still under construction, the plaintiffs’ lawyers said."

"In 1999, Angell concluded he no longer needed to live in Hollywood to write and produce shows, so he decided to “return home to Providence,” the lawyers wrote. “The Angells were living in the Wheaton Street house prior to September 2001; the closing and construction of the home was complete.” Nearly the entire contents of their California home had been moved to Providence..."

This is absolutely fascinating stuff! The article indicates that the couple owned no habitable property on Cape Cod at the time of their deaths. How, then, can The Angell Foundation claim that the couple hosted a wedding at their home on Cape Cod immediately prior to 9/11? Why do so many 'memorial' sites repeat the same story?

The article tells us that almost all of David and Lynn's possessions had been transferred from their home in California to their new home in Providence. One assumes that Lynn Angell must have left a sizeable collection of clothes behind in California, because Flight 11's passenger manifest tells us that she did NOT check in any baggage on this flight. David supposedly checked in one bag, whereas the NB manifest code appears against Lynn's name.

The Angell Foundation: Income Irregularities

This post is comprised of material originally posted on Let's Roll and is reproduced here for the purpose of keeping my blog up-to-date and active. The originals can be found @ http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p=189785&postcount=20 and http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p=189814&postcount=23.

On the subject of financing, here's some details on The Angell Foundation's assets and income for financial years 2007/8 and 2008/9:

2007/8
Assets $65,963,860
Income $12,225,299
Source: http://www.faqs.org/tax-exempt/CA/Angell-Foundation.html

2008/9
Assets $82,434,193
Income $23,782,211
Source: http://www.implu.com/nonprofit/10789717

This is serious money indeed. The couple's entire estate was valued at $55 million in 2001, yet somehow the Foundation has managed to earn close to half that amount in just one financial year, and well over half in just two financial years!

For those interested, I provide below links to the Foundation's tax returns for the period June 2002 - June 2009.

• 2002/3
• 2003/4
• 2004/5
• 2005/6
• 2006/7
• 2007/8
• 2008/9

To put this in perspective, here's the Foundation's total grantmaking for the years in question:

2008: $2,814,200
2009: $3,560,800

A spreadsheet listing all the Foundation's grants made between 2002 and 2009 is available at http://www.mediafire.com/?h9b99v2v6po7a99 for those interested.

Could the bulk of this extraordinary large income represent Frasier royalties? Is this show bringing in similar amounts for Angell's partners, David Lee and Peter Casey, over six years after production ended and nine years after Angell's last input? Is this even remotely plausible?

The answer to this question appears to be Yes and No. On the one hand, the 'estate of David Angell' initiated (and ultimately lost) a lawsuit against Angell's partners, Peter Casey and David Lee. The suit alleged that Angell was entitled to receive producer fees for the last two seasons of Frasier. The full details are as follows:

Chathamscape, Inc. v. Mudville Productions, Inc. and Donut City Productions, Inc. (Edward A. Klein, Joseph R. Taylor – Liner Yankelevitz Sunshine & Regenstreif). Mr. Neches testified as an expert in an A.A.A. arbitration on behalf of Respondents Mudville and Donut City in this breach of contract matter. Chathamscape was a loan-out corporation owned by David Angell, one of three executive producers of the successful television series Frasier. Based on its interpretation of a partnership agreement among the three parties, the estate of Mr. Angell (who was killed in the 9/11/2001 terrorist attack) claimed Chathamscape was entitled to a one-third share of executive producer fees earned by Respondents (loan-out corporations for two other executive producers of Frasier) for the last two seasons of the show (which aired in 2003 and 2004). Mr. Neches testified regarding his analysis of income tax returns and financial statements of the parties, which showed that Claimant's claim was inconsistent with the manner in which executive producer fees had been distributed among the parties throughout the life of the partnership. Result: the Arbitrator ruled in favor of Respondents."

Source:http://www.thomasneches.com/trial.htm#Grub

Here, Mudville and Donut City are the loan out companies of Peter Casey and David Lee respectively. This case suggests that the Angell estate did not receive any additional revenue over-and-above any royalty fees Angell may have been entitled to. In this context, we should note that that Angell's loan out company, Chathamscape, is listed as active, so I assume that royalty payments are still channeled through this company. You can view the company's details by visiting http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/cbs.aspx and searching for Entity Number C1408982.

On the other hand, we know that Frasier was embroiled in a financial scandal, with NBC claiming that the most successful sit-com ever was $200 million in the red and never made a profit, despite the $1.5 billion in revenues it generated. This resulted in a 2005 lawsuit brought by representatives of David Lee, Peter Casey and David Angell. The outcome of this case is unknown. As the LA Times article on the subject reminds us, Hollywood doesn't like to air it's dirty laundry in public. Accordingly, the case probably ended in an unpublicised out-of-court settlement. This could, then, explain the Foundation's recent income, although in the absence of evidence this remains pure speculation.

Regardless, I for one am in dire need of Perry Oretzky's services as a financial advisor!

David Receives a Doctorate, Revisited

This article was originally posted on Let's Roll and is reproduced here for the purpose of keeping my blog up-to-date and active. The original can be found @ http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p=189475&postcount=13.

I've reviewed the "David receives his honorary doctorate" image and identified other issues with it, consistent with it also being another genuine picture of David Angell that has been altered in order to change his appearance. Just as his Emmy Award picture matches the 1984 Emmy Award video, this image tallies with David's biography and his being awarded an honorary doctorate by his alma mater, Providence College, in 1994.

The fact that the Angell Foundation appears to be altering genuine pictures of David suggests that David Angell is still alive: by placing false pictures of David into the public domain the Foundation is obviously playing its part to ensure that David goes unrecognised under whatever name he now uses. Why else would the Foundation seek to mislead us, given that we know that David Angell was a real person rather than an outright 'vicsim'?

In my view, it seems reasonable to assume that the alterations being made to these images are relatively subtle. In saying this, I'm referring not to the quality of the alterations per se (some are truly awful) but to the new facial characteristics themselves. If these alterations were too drastic they might arouse suspicion among those who knew him in real life. As things stand, one assumes that former friends and colleagues have no reason to scour the internet for pictures of their supposedly deceased friend and colleague; no doubt they have plenty of their own. Still, erring on the side of caution, it would be better to produce images that resemble David - on a bad day - rather than images that look nothing at all like him.

The alternative is that these images have been manipulated to such an extent that they no longer bear any resemblance to the real David Angell. However, this would suggest that a multitude of friends, colleagues, and other Hollywood insiders are fully aware of, and playing along with, the deception. In this context, a cloud of suspicion hangs over Stephen Rollins, for the reasons stated in my previous post, and Ken Levine, who issues an annual tribute to David and Lynn that contains the below image.

Peter Casey and David Lee, who occasionally pop up on Levine's blog, would also have to be added to the list in my opinion. While we're about it, we might as well add the rest of the cast and crew of Cheers, Wings and Frasier to the list, too. Others, such as Colleen Dunn Bates, may be nothing more than hacks willing to invent a story or two in return for an envelope stuffed with cash. However, is this scenario plausible? Surely an operation of this nature would have been organised on a strict need-to-know basis?

Regardless of the scenario, The Angell Foundation's president, Perry Oretzky, would have to be fully aware: as Angell's friend and CPA it seems likely he would have had a role in making financial and other preparations. Even if he didn't, it's literally inconceivable to think that someone who had a personal and working relationship with David Angell could fail to notice the visual discrepancies that appear in his own organisation's brochures and website.

In the final analysis, who knows would depend on the reason for his disappearance, who arranged it and for what purpose. Was this an opportunist act on his part, a calculated decision to take advantage of the Flight 11 scenario and disappear for reasons entirely his own? If so, is this in any way linked to the financial irregularities surrounding Frasier? Or - and this has to be entertained given his active involvement with children's charities - to the child abuse scandal and cover up involving his brother, Kenneth Angell? Regardless, how could he have arranged his disappearance without foreknowledge of Flight 11's involvement in the 9/11 operation? I'm assuming, of course, that he actually had a choice in the matter, which may not be the case.

There's lots of speculation here I know, but all the evidence appears to be pointing in the same direction. The bottom line is that I can think of no other good reason why the Foundation has altered these pictures in this way. Why didn't he elect to undergo plastic surgery and leave the photographic record untouched? Was this deemed too drastic a step, given that his face was relatively unknown prior to 9/11? The irony here is that with the exception of his 1984 and 1999 video appearances, his face only really entered the public domain in the aftermath of 9/11, following the release of these altered pictures to media outlets.

David and Lynn Angell: Their Final Domicile Pt2

As noted in one of my posts on the letsroll forum, the subject of the Angell's domicile at the time of their alleged deaths proved central to a lawsuit brought by David's brother and sister, Kenneth Angell and Claire Miller. A fascinating article on the case can be found by following the below link.

http://www.projo.com/news/content/hijack_lawsuit_settled_11-10-07_M27QBUL_v19.3232eb9.html

Below are some key quotes taken from the above article:

"The plaintiffs’ lawyers said there was no question that Angell’s domicile was the couple’s “dream house” on Wheaton Street in Providence."

"The couple had sold their long-held summer home on Cape Cod, and their new Cape Cod vacation home was still under construction, the plaintiffs’ lawyers said."

"In 1999, Angell concluded he no longer needed to live in Hollywood to write and produce shows, so he decided to “return home to Providence,” the lawyers wrote. “The Angells were living in the Wheaton Street house prior to September 2001; the closing and construction of the home was complete.” Nearly the entire contents of their California home had been moved to Providence..."

There are two main problems with the information provided in the article.

First, the Wheaton Street address cited above appears not to exist. In fact, Wheaton Street itself appears to be nothing more than a single vacant plot of land owned by the City of Providence. How, then, could this apparently non-existent address have been David and Lynn Angell's sole domicile at the time of their alleged deaths?

Second, we know that the couple had in fact sold their home in California during the summer of 2001, which makes the article's reference to their 'home' in California rather mystifying to say the least. Are we to believe that the couple still had possessions stored at a home they sold two months prior to their 'deaths'?

The confusion as regards where exactly the couple were domiciled at the time of their alleged deaths is compounded by IRS documents that can be found on the Barnstaple County Registry of Deeds website. Here we find two IRS Form 792 documents, one for Lynn and one for David. In both cases the "Domicile at time of Death" is cited as 1 Oak Knoll Terrace, Pasadena, California. This is in direct contradiction to the claims made by lawyers in the lawsuit referred to above and is incomprehensible given that we know that the couple had sold this property two months prior to 9/11.

To access these documents go to https://72.8.52.132/ALIS/WW400R.PGM and follow the below instructions:

• Select Click here to Search Public Records
• Select Land Court by Document #
• Enter 907545 for Lynn's Form 792, 907546 for David's
• Click Search
• Click the DOC icon
• Click View in the small panel that appears to the left of the entry

There is, in my view, no good reason for the 'confusion' surrounding the couple's final domicile. Could this represent another attempt to place the couple squarely in the Boston area at the time of 9/11, i.e. an attempt to add credibility to the claim that both were passengers on American Airlines Flight 11, which supposedly departed from Boston's Logan International airport?

David Angell: More Video Footage, More Questions

I've discovered more video footage of David Angell, this time at the 1994 and 1998 Emmy Awards. These videos are much better quality and were recorded in the backstage pressroom. I should point out that David Angell isn't identified by name in either video, although Peter Casey and David Lee are present so I'm assuming that the person I'm identifying as Angell is indeed who I think it is. In both videos he stands immediately behind and to the left of Frasier star Kelsey Grammer.

The URLs for these videos are as follows:

1994: http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/75634819/WireImage-Video

1998: http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/75701100/WireImage-Video

After viewing these videos it's well worth comparing this David Angell with the younger version who appears in the 1984 Emmy Award video. I simply cannot relate the 1984 David Angell with the 1994 David Angell, even when taking the ten year age difference into account. In terms of physical appearance, they appear to me to be two completely different individuals.

Even more peculiar is the apparent difference in mannerisms. The shy and awkward David Angell we see in the 1984 video has a striking and ingratiating smile, which seems completely at odds with the grotesque grins and coquettish giggling of the David Angell we see in the 1994 and 1998 videos. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the person we see in the 1994 and 1998 videos appears somewhat camp and effeminate. Is this what ten years in Hollywood does to a person's physiognomy and character? For the moment, I'm at a loss to explain this.

In relation to the existing images we have of David Angell, I provide below some side-by-side comparisons. In some cases there are similarities, although for the most part I'm struck by the differences, the nose being the main culprit. This is consistent with the clear signs of manipulation that can be seen in the Angell Foundation images. It's also consistent with the idea that these images were once genuine pictures that have had relatively subtle changes made to them, although there are clear exceptions to this, with the Cheers picture being a prime example.

The Angell Foundation: The Images They Really Don't Want You To See

As you know, most of the images analysed on my blog derive from The Angell Foundation's website. These images did not appear on the website per se but existed in the site's underlying directory structure, which the webmaster left unprotected. The Foundation is now aware of this breach. I know this because as of today this part of the site is inaccessible and returns a "403 Forbidden" message.

The URL is: http://www.angellfoundation.org/uploads/image/founders%20photos/

How they discovered the breach is a moot point. It could be that the webmaster spotted traffic coming from this blog and the LetsRoll forum. Equally, if this forum is monitored in any way then 'someone' could have passed word to them. Regardless, I think it goes without saying that the Foundation must now be aware that these images are in the public domain. My guess is that they'd much rather they were not...

Here's the URL for their webhost/design provider: http://www.iwswebsolutions.com/clients-website_design-portfolio-non_profit.html

Notice that Hillsides is also an IWS customer. Hillsides is a home for abused children and Lynn Angell worked there in a voluntary capacity. The couple seem to have donated sizeable sums to this organisation over the years, and The Angell Foundation has carried on this tradition since their alleged deaths.

Is David Angell Alive and Well?

Further to Monday's blog post, I've reviewed the "David receives his honorary doctorate" image and identified other issues with it, consistent with it also being another genuine picture of David Angell that has been altered in order to change his appearance. Just as his Emmy Award picture matches the 1984 Emmy Award video, this image tallies with David's biography and his being awarded an honorary doctorate by his alma mater, Providence College, in 1994.

The fact that the Angell Foundation appears to be altering genuine pictures of David suggests that David Angell is still alive: by placing false pictures of David into the public domain the Foundation is obviously playing its part to ensure that David goes unrecognised under whatever name he now uses. Why else would the Foundation seek to mislead us, given that we know that David Angell was a real person rather than an outright 'vicsim'?

In my view, it seems reasonable to assume that the alterations being made to these images are relatively subtle. In saying this, I'm referring not to the quality of the alterations per se (some are truly awful) but to the new facial characteristics themselves. If these alterations were too drastic they might arouse suspicion among those who knew him in real life. As things stand, one assumes that former friends and colleagues have no reason to scour the internet for pictures of their supposedly deceased friend and colleague; no doubt they have plenty of their own. Still, erring on the side of caution, it would be better to produce images that resemble David - on a bad day - rather than images that look nothing at all like him.

The alternative is that these images have been manipulated to such an extent that they no longer bear any resemblance to the real David Angell. However, this would suggest that a multitude of friends, colleagues, and other Hollywood insiders are fully aware of, and playing along with, the deception. In this context, a cloud of suspicion hangs over Stephen Rollins, for the reasons stated in my previous post, and Ken Levine, who issues an annual tribute to David and Lynn that contains the below image.

Peter Casey and David Lee, who occasionally pop up on Levine's blog, would also have to be added to the list in my opinion. While we're about it, we might as well add the rest of the cast and crew of Cheers, Wings and Frasier to the list, too. Others, such as Colleen Dunn Bates, may be nothing more than hacks willing to invent a story or two in return for an envelope stuffed with cash. However, is this scenario plausible? Surely an operation of this nature would have been organised on a strict need-to-know basis?

Regardless of the scenario, The Angell Foundation's president, Perry Oretzky, would have to be fully aware: as Angell's friend and CPA it seems likely he would have had a role in making financial and other preparations. Even if he didn't, it's literally inconceivable to think that someone who had a working relationship with David Angell could fail to notice the visual discrepancies that appear in his own organisation's brochures and website.

In the final analysis, who knows would depend on the reason for his disappearance, who arranged it and for what purpose. Was this an opportunist act on his part, a calculated decision to take advantage of the Flight 11 scenario and disappear for reasons entirely his own? If so, is this in any way linked to the financial irregularities surrounding Frasier? Or - and this has to be entertained given his active involvement with children's charities - to the child abuse scandal and cover up involving his brother, Kenneth Angell? Regardless, how could he have arranged his disappearance without foreknowledge of Flight 11's involvement in the 9/11 operation? I'm assuming, of course, that he actually had a choice in the matter, which may not be the case.

There's lots of speculation here I know, but all the evidence appears to be pointing in the same direction. The bottom line is that I can think of no other good reason why the Foundation has altered these pictures in this way. Why didn't he elect to undergo plastic surgery and leave the photographic record untouched? Was this deemed too drastic a step, given that his face was relatively unknown prior to 9/11? The irony here is that with the exception of his 1984 and 1999 video appearances, his face only really entered the public domain in the aftermath of 9/11, following the release of these altered pictures to media outlets.

David Angell: Another Impossible 9/11 Phone Call?

I came across this little gem yesterday on the official website of the Stephen Rollins film American Identity. Rollins dedicates his film to David and Lynn Angell and claims to have been very good friends with the couple, so much so that the couple apparently called him on the evening of September 10th 2001 to wish him Happy Birthday. And where, you might ask, was Mr Rollins celebrating his birthday? Well, it just so happens that his 'surprise birthday party' was held in the 'Windows of the World' complex atop the World Trade Center!

This is what the film's website has to say on the matter:

"On September 10th, 2001, while in New York working on a film, "American Identity" writer/producer/director Stephen Rollins was given a surprise birthday dinner by friends at the elegant ‘Windows of the World’ restaurant atop the World Trade Center. Emmy award winner David Angell and his wife Lynn, friends of Stephen’s, called to wish him ‘Happy Birthday’ from Boston, where they were visiting David’s ill mother."

There's a major problem with this story: David couldn't possibly have been visiting his sick mother on this date because his mother, Mae Angell, died thirty-one years earlier in August 1970. Nor could the couple be visiting David's sick father, Henry Angell, who died in August 1973. The only surviving parent at the time was Lynn's mother, who lived in Birmingham, Alabama. This being the case, what is Stephen Rollins playing at here?

I'd be inclined to view Mr Rollins' tale as a pathetic attempt to gain a little extra publicity for his horrid propaganda piece, were it not for the fact that the story itself has so much propaganda value. His account 'adds value' to the official version of events because it places David and Lynn Angell in Boston on 10th September 2001. In so doing it supports the claim that David and Lynn were passengers on American Airlines Flight 11, which allegedly flew out of Boston the very next day. It also tugs at our heart strings by making us dwell on the terrible irony of the couple calling the WTC only a dozen hours before they allegedly met their fate there. To hell with facts, what a tragedy!

In the interests of strict fairness, however, it's possible that Rollins did receive a phone call, but that this was a phone call of the "Hi mum, it's Mark Bingham!" variety. We know that all sorts of people received, or claimed to have received, all sorts of highly implausible calls from loved ones on September 11th. That said, Rollins' case requires us to believe that he simply didn't know that the parents of his good friend David Angell had been dead for twenty years. It's difficult, though not impossible, to believe this. Either way, we're left with just two possible scenarios, although the end result is the same in both cases:

1. That Rollins quite deliberately manufactured this story in order to lend credence to the official 9/11 storyline, both in general terms and in terms of how it applies to Lynn and David Angell
2. That Rollins was duped by a phony phone call and thereby 'primed' by persons unknown in the hope that he would go public with the details and help bolster the official version of events

Your preference for one scenario over the other might be swayed by the following, which is also taken from the American Identities website:

"The next morning, Stephen would stand in amazement near the smoking hole in the building where he just celebrated his birthday hours before, and watch in horror as a second plane struck WTC Tower 2. While working as a volunteer at the rubble that evening, he learned the awful news that his friends the Angell’s were on that flight, American Airlines Flight #11. American Identity is dedicated to the memory of David and Lynn Angell."

Before closing, it's worth noting that Rollins' account adds to the confusion over what exactly David and Lynn were supposedly doing in the Boston area at this time. The Angell Foundation's narrative refers to David and Lynn travelling to Cape Cod to host a family wedding at their home and does not mention a visit to Boston or a sick parent. Moreover, the Foundation's story conflicts with a third party account, which informs us that the couple travelled to Cape Cod in order to watch the final stages of construction of their home. Another third party account tells us that the pair had spent the entire summer holidaying on Cape Cod before hosting the wedding at their home, which may or may not have been under construction at the time...

Will the Real David Angell Please Stand Up?

Is David Angell the 'nom de plume' of James Burrows?

I discovered the below two images on the http:\\web.archive.org website yesterday. Both appear in archived pages of the Writer's Guild of America website and both are from the January 1997 edition of the WGA's Written By magazine. The first is a scan of the magazine's front cover and the second a photo of the Frasier crew. A person purporting to be, and identified as, David Angell appears in both images. His name appears along with his Grub Street partners, David Lee and Peter Casey, on the cover of the magazine. He is also identified as David Angell in the text of the article in which the second image appears. However, the David Angell in these new images is categorically NOT the David Angell presented to us in any of the images seen to date.

This first image is the front cover of the aforementioned WGA magazine. The image wasn't added to the WGA's website but still exists in the site's underlying directory structure. I discovered it by browsing the HTML source to discover the page's images folder. The web archive doesn't allow browsing of this folder but by incrementing the file number sequence (angells1.jpg, angells2.jpg, etc.) I eventually came across it.

Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20030124141348/wga.org/WrittenBy/1001/angells6.jpg

I am reasonably sure that the person identified as David Angell on the magazine's front cover is in fact James Burrows, co-creator of Cheers and director of a large number of Frasier episodes.

The quality of the second image is much poorer, but it's clear that this version of David Angell is bald, whereas the David Angell that appears in all the other images has a relatively healthy head of hair. Burrows himself is bald and has been since at least the early 1980s, although the image quality isn't good enough to positively ID him as playing the role of Angell in this picture. The article identifies the persons that appear in this image as follows:

Front Row: William Lucas Waller, Joe Keenan, Suzanne Martin, Chuck Ranberg, Michael Kaplan, Christopher Lloyd (in chair); Second Row: David Angell (sitting), Peter Casey, F.J. Pratt, Dan Cohen, Rob Greenberg, David Lee

Source: http://web.archive.org/web/19960101000000-20011231235959/http://www.wga.org/journal/1997/0197/frasier.html

Here's an enlargement of the above image:

The most interesting question here is this: why would the Writer's Guild of America, of all organisations, confuse Burrows with Angell and picture Burrows (a director) alongside Peter Casey and David Lee in an article about sitcom writers? Was David Angell the nom de plume of James Burrows, a means for him to separate his life as a director from his screen-writing and production ambitions? If so, why was the nom de plume subsequently gifted with a life history and killed off? Was Angell always an entirely fictional character and a role occasionally 'played' by the very similar looking James Burrows (prior to 9/11 of course) whenever the need arose? If so, and remembering that Angell has writing credits dating back to 1983, then why was the character created in the first place? Who could, or would, go to such lengths in order to 'backstop' a character?

Here's a few additional pictures of James Burrows for comparison purposes. The first shows him on the set of Will and Grace.

And here's a much more recent (2009) picture of him.

Could Burrows be Angell? It's a Chinese Box this one, and as things stand there are still more questions than answers.

Lynn Angell: Yet More Dodgy Images

These images are sourced from the archived 2001 version of Colleen Dunn Bates' tribute to Lynn Angell, which was originally written published in the October 2001 edition of Written By, a Writer's Guild of America monthly publication.

The first image shows David and Lynn Angell together.

There are numerous problems with this image:

1. The lighting on Lynn Angell is completely wrong and Lynn herself resembles a cardboard cut-out that has been copied and pasted into the picture. In fact, she has been copied into the image because we can clearly see that Lynn's Mr Potato Head wig has erased part of David's cheek and distorted the left hand side of his face.
2. Lynn's ear is devoid of detail and appears to be scraped back from the side of her head. In fact, the entire left hand side of her face looks flat and totally artificial, with a distinctly 'polygonal' shape that looks suspiciously like a section from a 'wireframe' face model. The malformed ear is a dead ringer for an identical anomaly seen in the "Lynn and David at Home" photo analysed in my very first post.
3. When comparing the size of Lynn's ear in this picture with the third image in this sequence (the one showing Lynn wearing a tiara) there seems to be a discrepancy. One could argue that ears grow over time (they certainly do) and that this is a much younger Lynn. However, the apparent age of David in this picture suggests otherwise. In fact, David looks visibly older in this picture than he does in any of the other images. Even his hair seems much thinner. If you'll forgive the digression, David's apparent age in the photo really bothers me. Based on the clothing and Lynn's much younger appearance I'd date this photo to the early to mid 1990s. Let's say 1994 for the sake of argument, which would make David 45 years of age at the time this photo was 'taken'. Why, then, does David look like he belongs in the 55-65 age bracket? Does this make sense?
4. Does this Lynn and David look anything at all like the Lynn and David that appear in this image? Lynn in particular seems very much different: the face is much longer and thinner and the nose is completely different.
5. Lynn's teeth are horribly distorted, to the extent that she appears to be growing an extra set of upper incisors, which are now partially covering the existing incisors.
6. There's evidence to suggest that the creator of this image used the blur tool to disguise certain features around Lynn's throat.
7. The strange and vibrantly coloured blotches around Lynn's mouth and nose suggest use of a cloning tool. One could argue that these are JPEG compression artefacts and colour distortion, although it's interesting to note that David's face is largely free of these 'artefacts' at this resolution.
8. David's bare left wrist can be seen draped over Lynn's shoulder to the right of picture. It appears to be covered in tattoos. In the only other image we have of him with bare arms he clearly has no tattoos whatsoever. Are we to believe that David Angell, the mild-mannered devout Catholic, walked into a tattoo studio one day and asked for a full Japanese sleeve?
9. David's head just doesn't sit right. He appears to have no neck and is wearing the kind of oversized collar seen in many other vicsim images. That David's head has been inserted into this image is supported by the fact that the body it rests on appears to be tattooed.

This second image shows Lynn alone. Although this is a small image it's possible to identify a number of problems, one of which mirrors some of the sinister aspects of another image analysed in one of my previous posts.

1. Even at 100% it's obvious that Lynn's head does not belong on this body. Zooming in confirms this: a diagonal join running from the left hand side of the neck across and up to Lynn's chin is clearly visible. Note that this area appears to have undergone considerable work with a blur and cloning tool.
2. Again, even at 100% there seems to be something odd about Lynn's nose, which looks very red. Zoom in and it appears that her nose is covered with blood. I'd be tempted to dismiss this as the product of JPEG compression and 'mosaicing' combining to turn a sunburned nose into a bloody one, were it not for the fact that another image quite clearly shows David cradling his own bloody, severed hand. Accordingly, it seems to me that this is not coincidental; whoever created these images wants us to subconsciously associate David and Lynn Angell with violence.
3. With reference to the above (although the image quality is such that it's difficult to be sure) it seems to me that Lynn is without a full complement of toes. Is the freakishly long index finger of her right hand pointing us to this discrepancy?
4. Lynn appear to be wearing pince nez sunglasses: they are without arms. Again, we've seen this kind of thing before in the "Lynn at Hillsides" image analysed previously. It seems that the creators were satisfied with images that are good enough to withstand a cursory examination and no more.
5. Lynn's right hand and wrist seem very peculiar, like a thin flipper much too small for the arm of her jacket when compared with her left arm. Light is coming from left of picture (from Lynn's right, as confirmed by her shadow and the shadow of the person in the background) so it's difficult to understand why her right hand is in shade given that her right foot, and the right arm of her jacket, is clearly illuminated.

This next image is also very small but again discrepancies can be discerned. This is unsurprising when we consider that this image is only slightly from the version provided by Colleen Dunn Bates' in her 2010 repost of her tribute to Lynn Angell.

1. Note the size and positioning of Lynn's eyes, together with the different amounts, and colour, of 'red eye'. Some specular highlighting can just about be discerned in Lynn's right eye but not in the left, where all detail has been obliterated by the bright red 'red eye'. It's interesting to note how often this kind of tampering with eyes crops up in these images. Sometimes this tampering comes in the form of adding a pair of sunglasses. Why would anyone do this? Well, by analysing specular highlights we can determine the direction of the light source, which can then be compared with the direction of the light source in the image itself. When two individuals are depicted, the specular highlights of both can be compared to see whether they tell the same story. Get the picture?
2. There's evidence of layering in the patterns that appear in Lynn's hair. The pattern in question clearly matches the pattern of the curtains (drapes) in the background. This suggests that the creator adjusted the added layer's transparency level (the added layer being Lynn's Mr Potato Head wig), most probably in an attempt to 'blend' the new layer and make it appear more natural.
3. The generally very poor quality of this image is very odd, given that Colleen Dunn Bates provided a very much better quality image (unfortunately for her!) in her 2010 tribute repost. If Colleen did indeed take these pictures then it seems reasonable to assume that she used the same camera. Why, then, is this image so bad?

In this final image we're shown a much younger and skeletally thin Lynn gazing into the middle distance. Is this the same Lynn Edwards Angell who, according to Colleen Dunn Bates, was "cursed with slow metabolism but blessed with a love of good food and wine"?

1. The composite nature of this image is clearly demonstrated by Lynn's hair, which is visibly misaligned in parts as a result of a crude copy and paste. The hair on the back of Lynn's head has a completely different texture and seems very much lighter in colour, as if backlit by a light source that doesn't exist in the image itself.
2. This younger, slimmer Lynn appears to have the hands of a much older woman.
3. There's an odd looking semi-triangular patch on the monument behind Lynn (just above the other woman's head) that is much lighter in colour than the rest of the monument. Again, it's impossible to identify a light source in the image that could be responsible for this. Moreover, the 'line' followed by this light patch runs parallel with Lynn's nose and actually continues across the left lens of her sunglasses and her left eyebrow, before finally meeting up with the left arm of her sunglasses.

Lynn Angell: The Strange Recurring Anecdote

Article	Remembering a 9/11 Angell
Author	Colleen Dunn Bates
URL	http://www.hometown-pasadena.com/

On a recent ski trip, she told a group of her women friends, myself included, a painful story that she rarely talked about. It was 1964, at the height of the Civil Rights movement, and there was talk of an attempt to integrate the white churches. Fifteen-year-old Lynn Edwards set off for church one Sunday with her parents and her brother Tom, and as they walked up to the church, they watched as a black family, dressed for church, approached the front steps. The black family was met by a phalanx of grim church leaders, who turned them away. Lynn ceased to be a Southerner that day, and 36 years later, when she told us this story, she wept with the same sadness and rage she felt back then [emphasis added].

Article	Angell Foundation Meeting Summary
Author	The Angell Foundation
URL	http://www.angellfoundation.org/

For Lynn, a passion for serving others was also forged in church. As a young girl coming of age in Birmingham, Alabama at the height of the civil rights movement, "She stood on the street outside our church," Lynn’s brother Tom recalls, "watching a black family trying to attend services and being turned away. That seemed incongruous to her and unfair." Recounting this story even decades later, Tom says, "she wept with the same sadness and rage she felt back then [emphasis added]." From these early experiences, both David and Lynn developed deeply principled commitments to social justice.

The first article was written by Colleen Dunn Bates, who provided us with the faked "Lynn Angell in a tiara" image analysed in an earlier post. She claims to have written this article on the 20th September 2001 for the Writer's Guild of America website. The original article no longer exists on this site, although it can be found in the archives of http://www.web.archive.org in the December issue of the Guild's on-line publication. This is curious indeed, because The Angell Foundation simply didn't exist in its current form back in 2001 and I find it highly unlikely that two separate sources (one a friend, the other Lynn's brother) managed to produce two identical anecdotes (word for word in one key area) in complete isolation.

In saying this, I'm certainly not implying that Colleen's article is original and authentic and that The Angell Foundation simply borrowed from it. In fact, it seems to me that Colleen was, and still is, working from a 'script'. I can say this with some certainty, for the simple reason that her 'original' article provides three additional pictures of Lynn Angell, all of which are just as fake as the image that appears alongside the article's 2010 reissue on the http://www.hometown-pasadena.com/ website. Accordingly, there's absolutely no reason to regard the story itself as any more authentic than the images. The fact that this anecdote subsequently appeared on The Angell Foundation's website supports my contention that the parties involved are working to a script that backstops the 'lives' of David and Lynn Angell. Who wrote the script, and for what purpose, is moot at this stage.

If anybody comes across any additional examples of this anecdote then please email me and I'll add it to the list with an appropriate credit: firemansam@operamail.com

David Angell: Deconstructing the Official Biography

Introduction

One of the most striking aspects of the David and Lynn Angell story is the near identical biographies and anecdotes that appear on various websites. Considering that David was not just any old 'victim' of 9/11 but a multiple Emmy Award winning writer and producer (or so we're led to believe) one would assume that all sorts of personal friends and industry insiders could provide, and have provided, all sorts of biographical titbits, amusing anecdotes and insights into the mind of this alleged comedy genius. Unfortunately, this seems not to be the case; what we're provided with instead is the same terse biographical narrative repeated over and over again ad nauseum.

It's tempting to assume that this replication is simply the result of websites and news outlets repeating official family press releases, but this too appears not to be the case: obituaries and memorials written by supposedly close friends fare no better. To take just one example, writer/producer/commentator Ken Levine's memorial blog entries simply regurgitate the biographical information available on David's wikipedia page, before moving swiftly on to tell us how kind, unassuming and generally wonderful David was, and offer a rather implausible account of how a mumbling, semi-coherent David was given his first writing assignment on Cheers.

In light of the above, it's extremely difficult to compile a coherent biography and time-line for David L. Angell. This post is an attempt to construct just such a time-line and assess the consistency, accuracy and believability of the 'official' biography.

1946 - 1969

We know nothing whatsoever about David's childhood except that he was born April 10th 1946 to Henry and Mae Angell (nee Cooney) and was the youngest of three children. His elder siblings are identified as Claire Angell (now Claire Angell Miller) and Kenneth Angell. Most sources state that he attended Providence College and joined the army upon graduating in 1969 with a BA in English Literature. Even at this early stage, it's telling to note that third party sources provide more detailed and nuanced information about David than does The Angell Foundation. For example, tv.com informs us that David considered following his brother's footsteps and joining the priesthood, before eventually choosing to attend Providence College. It seems strange that this titbit of information doesn't appear on the Foundation's website, especially when we consider that 'spirituality' is one of the Foundation's key funding areas.

In contrast to the above, a lengthier biography that appears in an Angell Foundation meeting summary states that David worked, and met his future wife, on Cape Cod before joining the army. Oddly, the Foundation does not provide a date for the first meeting of this perfect couple: the narrative states that David met Lynn "[w]hile working on Cape Cod one summer...". Similarly, the Foundation's website states that it was a "recently graduated" David who worked on Cape Cod. Is this lack of precision credible? One assumes that such information would be common knowledge given that some of David and Lynn's relatives supposedly sit on the Foundation's Advisory Committee, and the Foundation's president, Perry S. Oretzky, claims to have been David's friend and business advisor for sixteen years.

1970 - 1972

Sources that refer to their marriage all give the same date: 14th August 1971. Presumably, their supposed first meeting did not occur in the summer of 1971: this would create serious problems in the time-line, which tells us that their marriage occurred during David's three-year stint in the army, which ended in 1972. This leaves us with 1969 and 1970, although even 1970 is out of the question given the three year timespan and date David left his Pentagon job. This makes the Foundation's lack of precision even more puzzling. At the risk of re-stating the case, why would an organisation that boasts of such close ties to David and Lynn, in the form of Claire Miller (his sister) and Thomas Edwards (her brother), have such difficulty pinpointing the year in which their relationship began? Does this sound credible? Or does it sound very much like a cover story, one whose ability to withstand closer inspection is predicated on muddying the waters?

Moving on, The Angell Foundation's website informs us that their marriage took place in Birmingham, Alabama and that "by all accounts" David and Lynn "adored one another". It seems unusual to me that the writer would make a point of making this point; one tends to take this for granted when talking about newly wedded couples. The reference to "by all accounts" is doubly odd because it's exactly the sort of thing that might be said if one wished to imply that things were not quite as they seemed. It's also a catch-all qualifier, the equivalent of saying "I don't know, I'm only repeating what so-and-so said" when asked an awkward question.

The website then tells us that the couple "soon returned to David’s home town of Providence", leaving us to speculate as to how conservative or liberal the writer's definition of "soon" might be. Either way, there are some problems here: we're told that David worked at the Pentagon until 1972 and we know that the Pentagon is a very considerable distance from Providence and an even more considerable distance from Birmingham, Alabama. How, then, did he hold down his job? Was he stationed in West Virginia? Did he shuttle back and forth between Rhode Island and/or Alabama?

It's also interesting to note that the Foundation does not make clear the reason behind David's decision to join the army. The Vietnam war was at its height in 1969, so we might assume that he was drafted. However, The Angell Foundation gives the distinct impression that this was a voluntary act on his part: the narrative clearly states that David joined the army, not that he was drafted into the army. This seems like an extremely odd career choice given David's background, doubly so given that his wife's biography suggests that she held anti-establishment views.

Oddly enough, not one source can shed any light on David's actual role within the armed forces: he doesn't appear to have joined the army in any particular capacity. A third party source simply states that David's role at the Pentagon was a "clerical assignment". To put this in context, numerous sources identify the roles he performed in subsequent employments between 1973 – 1978 (see below), whereas sources that refer to his army career state that he just 'joined the army' and 'worked at the Pentagon'. Doing what, exactly? Was he writing war-time propaganda pieces for Uncle Sam?

1973 - 1978

Moving on, the next five or so years are extremely hazy. The Angell Foundation reports that the couple moved to Providence and that David worked for an insurance company, writing insurance policy guides. Other sources state that he worked as a methods analyst for an engineering firm before taking the insurance job. This too would see like a very odd role given David's background. What experience had David gained between 1969 and 1972 that enabled this English Literature graduate to work in such a role? More to the point, why do third party sources appear to know more about David's life during this period than The Angell Foundation itself? One source, tv.com even provides us with the name of the television program that supposedly stimulated David's desire to become a scriptwriter!

Another subject on which The Angell Foundation is strangely silent is the matter of when exactly David and Lynn relocated to Los Angeles. According to the IMDb database the couple relocated to LA in 1977, although this seems a little problematic. The Angell Foundation tells us that the couple agreed to indulge David's script-writing ambitions for no more than five years, which would set a deadline of 1982 based on a relocation date of 1977. However, we're informed that David's first real break came the year after, in 1983, when he joined Cheers as a staff writer. This would put the relocation date somewhere in 1978. If so, why does The Angell Foundation not say so? Why does The Foundation provide so little information, and why is the information it does provide so vague? Given that the Foundation claims to represent its founders' values and life experiences, why does it not provide a more comprehensive and intelligible biography?

1978 - 1983

Almost every biographical source refers to David working "every temporary job known to mankind" during this period, although none can actually provide an example of one of these temporary jobs. As a relatively young man (David would have been in his early 30s) with an undergraduate degree under his belt, it's difficult to understand why he worked 'every temporary job known to man' rather than secure a permanent, low responsibility 9-to-5 position that would bring home the bacon whilst still leaving him free to pursue his ambitions without the distractions or demands of a career. Are we really to believe that this Bachelor of Arts washed dishes and hauled trash for five years? Could he not have secured a more relevant job, as a proof-reader for example?

This part of his biography makes little sense, except when viewed from a scriptwriter's perspective. In other words, it adds the all important 'hard luck' aspect required to make David's life a textbook version of the American Dream: hard work and trials and tribulations, then a lucky break and fame and fortune. The 'lucky break' supposedly came at a party, where David met a talent agent who agreed to submit one of his scripts. And when did this happen? Just as David and Lynn were packing their bags and preparing to return to the East Coast after David's fruitless five-year attempt to break into Hollywood! It's a good story, isn't it? A little too good to be true, don't you think?

1984 - 1999

David's career, first as a staff writer and supervising producer on Cheers, then as producer, co-creator and occasional scriptwriter of Wings and Frasier, is well documented throughout this period. Undoubtedly, someone calling himself David Angell is credited with writing sixteen episodes of Cheers, five episodes of Wings, and co-writing four episodes of Frasier, in addition to being listed as co-creator and producer of the latter two shows. However, it's perfectly possible that this David Angell is nothing more than somebody's nom de plume, which was subsequently 'backstopped' with a life history as artificial as the photographs analysed in my first and second posts.

Why would anybody want to do this? My guess is that the real perpetrators needed to 'personalise' the events of 9/11. David Angell was an ideal candidate because Cheers, Wings and Frasier were watched, loved and known by millions the world over. His 'death' provided 'ordinary' people with a link to the events of 9/11, a link that simply would not exist had the list of dead comprised clock-punchers alone. Vitally, David's was a 'safe' death, inasmuch as his face (I use the term in the loosest possible sense) became known only after his 'death'. It would have been impossible to pull off the same stunt with a high-profile celebrity without killing off a real person. More generally, killing off a contrived pseudo-celebrity or two lent credence to the "no one is safe, it can happen to anyone, anywhere" atmosphere of media-fuelled fear and loathing that swept through America in the aftermath of 9/11. This greased the rails of the perpetrators' domestic and foreign policy agendas.

In addition to the above three shows, some sources give Angell production credits on Encore!Encore!, a late 90s sitcom that ran for just eleven episodes before being canned due to poor ratings. However, IMDb does not link him to this show, although David Lee and Peter Casey are given director and producer credits. IMDb does credit him, alongide Casey and Lee, as a producer on The Pursuit of Happiness, a mid-90s sitcom that appears to have run for just seven episodes. Not that it matters in any case: as things stand the faked images point to Angell and his wife being nothing more than a bunch of pixels, rather than real, flesh-and-blood human beings.

It's worth noting that someone claiming to be David Angell appears with Peter Casey and David Lee in a 1999 documentary titled The Frasier Story. Oddly, the interview with these three was filmed with a 'fish eye' lens, which badly distorts the interviewees' features. Even so, it can be discerned that this David Angell is quite bony and angular, and as such it's difficult to reconcile him with the much 'fleshier' and and 'cherubic' versions presented to us in the faked photographs. In some cases, (e.g. when compared with the David on the set of Cheers picture) it's completely impossible to reconcile the two: they are very obviously two completely different individuals. An analysis of this documentary will follow shortly. In the meantime, I've added a number of stills from the video to the end of this post, for you to compare with the images that appear in my first two posts.

Outside his showbiz career, David Angell is portrayed as a devout Catholic and philanthropist who donated sizeable sums of time and money as his fortune grew. Recipients supposedly included his alma mater, Providence College, along with children's charities, such as the Hillsides children's home his wife supposedly worked for in a voluntary capacity. In this context, David is portrayed as the antithesis of the Hollywood stereotype: caring, humble, and unselfishly generous as opposed to cynical, ego-maniacal and greedy. Here, David's success is touted as proof that nice guys don't always finish last. Unfortunately, the script-writers and eulogisers seem unable to resist the temptation to go over the top: one source states that David and Lynne had a "marriage made in heaven" and another that David and Lynn were the sort of couple "you wanted to be". Again, isn't this just a little bit too good to be true?

2000 - 2001

It should be noted that there's some confusion surrounding the reason for David and Lynn travelling to Cape Cod and thus for their alleged presence as passengers on American Airlines Flight 11. According to The Angell Foundation, David and Lynn had just hosted a family wedding at their home on Cape Cod and were flying back to LA to attend the Grammy Awards. Other sources state that the couple had spent the entire summer holidaying at their home on Cape Cod. A number of sources claim that the couple had travelled to the Cape in order to observe the final stages of construction of their new home there. Did the Angell's host a family wedding at a house that was still a construction site? Where exactly has this conflicting information come from? Does it exist for any other purpose than to provide alternate versions of a deniable 'truth' that can be wheeled out in the event that one particular version is discredited as demonstrably false?

Conclusion

Although there's a very high level of consistency amongst sources, in terms of the basic so-called "facts" that everywhere are repeated almost verbatim, the David Angell biography is full of holes, loose ends and conflicting information. Many of these facts are verifiable, in the sense that they point to sources that can be queried and asked to provide information. However, how we would verify the validity of the information they may or may not choose to provide is a moot point given that documents and database entries can easily be forged. Much additional work needs to be done in this area and it remains to be seen how forthcoming some of these sources will be in their responses.

Video Images

Compare these video stills with the images that appear in my first two posts. Ignoring the fact that the public domain images are crude forgeries, is this the same man?

David L. Angell: Images The Angell Foundation Doesn't Want You To See

Introduction

To the very best of my knowledge the following set of pictures of David L. Angell, supposed writer/producer of Cheers and Frasier and alleged passenger on American Airlines Flight 11, have never been released to the public or posted elsewhere - with one exception (see below). To date, the only images of David and Lynn available in the public domain are the identical ‘stock photos’ found on Wikipedia and various 9/11 memorial sites. Consequently, I firmly believe that these new images are important new evidence, evidence which supports the contention that, like other alleged ‘victims’ of 9/11, David L. Angell and his wife, Lynn E. Angell, never existed in the sense that you and I exist. In other words, that David and Lynn Angell are fabrications or ‘vicsims’.

I originally posted these images on the September Clues "Reality Shack" forum on October 7 2010. Within minutes of posting I received a reply from forum administrator simonshack, demanding that I provide the source of the images. Being unwilling to post the source publicly, I sent this information to simonshack in the form of a private message. Thirty minutes later I discovered that my post AND my account had been deleted. No explanation was offered and two subsequent requests for an explanation, in the form of emails to the forum’s second administrator, hoi.polloi, went unanswered.

I will leave you, the reader, to draw your own conclusions as to the reason why simonshack and hoi.polloi do not want members of their Reality Shack forum to see these important images.

The Source

In light of the above I now consider the source of these images to be compromised and thus likely to be 'locked out' at any time. Accordingly, I'm happy to make the source publicly available. The source is in fact The Angell Foundation, a charitable trust that controls the Angell's alleged $55 million estate and represents (or misrepresents, according to your point of view) them in this life. When viewing these images it's worth remembering that David's sister, Claire, and Lynn's brother, Thomas, are listed as members of the Foundation's Advisory Committee. It seems reasonable to assume that Claire and Thomas must have access to a whole host of quality images of David and Lynn, a point that makes the extremely dubious nature of these images (particularly the very obviously 'Photoshopped' image that appears on the Foundation's official brochure) even more salient, not to mention damning.

The images can be found on The Angell Foundation's website. Note that these images do not appear on the website per se but can be found in the folders that form the website's underlying directory tree, along with other files and documents clearly not intended for public consumption.

Source: http://www.angellfoundation.org/uploads/image/founders%20photos/

The Images

Below are the original images, together with explanatory notes and enlargements highlighting the many peculiarities. Some of these images are very large, so I recommend that you save them to your PC and view them in the image editor of your choice.

David L. Angell with Kenneth A. Angell

This image of David with his brother, the bishop, is just terrible. Forget Photoshop, this looks like Amiga Deluxe Paint II territory. The face is visibly misaligned in parts and there's something very peculiar happening with David's glasses, in terms of sizing, the way they sit and the way the arms of his glasses appear to be 'drawn on'.

David Receives An Emmy

This picture of David receiving an Emmy Award is no better. Scroll all the way to the right, zoom in, then scroll down. Note that two sections of this image are slightly misaligned. Scroll to the right again and notice that these two misalignments just happen to coincide with where David face appears in the image. Note the strange cast and texture of David's face in comparison with the forehead and the misaligned strands of hair. Notice also that David's arm is raised in triumph yet his face is a devoid of any emotion whatsoever. His face looks like an artificially smooth expressionless mask because it IS quite literally an artificially smooth expressionless mask.

Lynn Angell at Hillsides

This picture of Lynn Angel reading to children at Hillsides is also very peculiar. Lynn is missing one half of her glasses. Where have we seen this before? What is Lynn sitting on in this picture? Also, notice that on the right hand side the balloon collage reaches all the way to the floor, whereas to the left (on the floor between Lynn and the book cart) we see a strange object with distinctly odd lighting. To my eye, this object looks like it belongs in a picture taken outdoors.

David Angell on "Cheers" Set

The full size picture of David on the Cheers set is just hilarious. Notice the crazy teeth, distorted jaw line, the very visible masking over his nose, the right ear that appears to be on a journey all of it's own, and the strange rectangular outline on the jacket of the woman just behind.

David and Lynn At Home

Similarly hilarious is the picture of David and Lynn 'at home'. Ignoring the obvious cardboard cutout appearances, it looks as if Lynn has just picked up David's severed left arm and is trying to hold it in place. David's watch strap looks a bit too tight as well: it appears to disappear into his wrist. Notice that Lynne's right ear is completely featureless and appears to be 'scraped back' from her face at a very odd angle. Notice also the disproportionate amount of red-eye: just a hint for David, whereas Lynne looks like The Terminator. One final point: is Lynn the only woman in the world who never alters her hairstyle?

Angell Foundation Brochure Image

This image appears in the official Angell Foundation brochure. It's supposed to be an identical, albeit highly saturated, version of an image that appears on the Angell Foundation's website. Notice that the backgrounds are different and that the eyes are very, very odd indeed.

David on "Frasier" Set

Here's David with some of the Frasier crew. Note that David is the only person in shade and observe the odd 'reflections' (or are we supposed to be 'looking through' the lens to the trees in the background?) and disjointed tinting in the right hand lens of his glasses, the way the upper part of his right eye socket (as seen in silhouette through the same lens) seems to curve away from his forehead, and the rather odd left ear.