This comment has been removed by the author.
Thanks, Ole, for your intelligent and caring work.Some corrections:Lennon's death:THE NAME of Perdomo did not come out until over 6 years later, in a magazine article for People.There was obscuring of which doorman was the one who stood there, because mentions of the inner doorman's name lasted for some years, conflated with the outer doorman.Now, we are not able to be FORMALLY confident that it WAS THE SAME PERDOMO as Op 40, but in following the conspiracy idea (theory), it would be.Nothing came out in a trial.http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/Usenet/Perdomo.htmNote that Google may try to tell you there's a danger in visiting the site! And it does not show up in a search of "jfkmontreal.com Perdomo" --- but anyway, there it is.Here is the most relevant passage. It is long.(Part 1)Jose Perdomo was the doorman when Lennon was killed. This has been revealed in multiple sources; however, my research indicates that Perdomo's name was not publicly disclosed until over six years after Lennon's murder. (NOTE: If someone knows of an article or book about the murder, published prior to 1987, which mentions Jose Perdomo by name, please feel free to contact me with that information.) Surprisingly, the first stories in the New York Times (Dec. 9 & 10, 1980) failed to mention Perdomo by name, although they mentioned the "doorman" several times. On June 22, 1981, People Magazine published an article about Chapman, written by Jim Gaines. Again, the article mentioned the doorman but failed to identify Perdomo by name. In 1983, a member of the Beatles's management team, Peter Brown, published a book—co-written by Steven Gaines—entitled, The Love You Make: An Insider's Story of The Beatles. Not only did Brown and Gaines fail to identify Perdomo by name, they actually referred to the doorman by the wrong name: Jay Hastings. Hastings was a real person who worked at the Dakota and was on duty when Lennon was killed, but Hastings was not the doorman. Hastings was the desk clerk in the lobby which is different from the doorman. As far as I know, Hastings did not witness the shooting because he was in the lobby at his desk when the shooting occurred, and Lennon was shot outside, but ran inside the lobby and collapsed. Here is Peter Brown's and Steven Gaines' description of the shooting:When John and Yoko left for the Record Plant at five pm John’s limousine was at the curb, instead of inside the entrance gates of the Dakota, and as he strode to his car, Chapman thrust a copy of the new album, Double Fantasy, into his hands. John obligingly stopped and signed the cover for him, "John Lennon, 1980." Another fan ran up and snapped a picture. Mark Chapman was ecstatic as John and Yoko got into the limousine and rode off. "Did I have my hat on or off?"Chapman asked excitedly. "I wanted to have it off. Boy, they’ll never believe this back in Hawaii." John and Yoko returned to the Dakota at 10:50 pm in the limousine,John was carrying the "Walking on Thin Ice" tapes. The tall security gates were still open, but again the limousine pulled to the curb, and John had to walk from the sidewalk. Yoko preceded him into the entranceway. Just as they passed into the dark recesses of the archway, John heard a voice call to him, "Mr. Lennon?"
(Part 2 -- continued from mid-quotation inside the quotation from the page)John turned, myopically peering into the darkness. Five feet away, Mark Chapman was already in combat stance. Before John could speak, Chapman fired five shots into him.Yoko heard the shots and spun around. At first she didn’t realize John had been hit, because he kept walking toward her. Then he fell to his knees and she saw blood. "I’m shot!" John cried to her as he went down on his face on the floor of the security office.The Dakota doorman, a burly, bearded, twenty-seven-year-old named Jay Hastings, dashed around from behind the desk to where John lay, blood pouring from his mouth, gaping wounds in his chest. Yoko cradled John's head while Hastings stripped off his blue uniform jacket and placed it over him. John was only semi-conscious, and when he tried to talk, he gurgled and vomited fleshy matter.While the police were called, Hastings ran outside to search for the gunman, but he didn’t have far to look. Chapman was calmly standing in front of the Dakota, reading from his copy of Catcher in the Rye. He had dropped the gun after the shooting. "Do you know what you just did?" Hastings asked him. "I just shot John Lennon," Chapman said quietly.(Peter Brown & Steven Gaines, The Love You Make: An Insider's Story of The Beatles, 1983, ISBN 0-07-008159-X, McGraw-Hill, pp. 435-436)Again, Brown and Gaines not only failed to identify Jose Perdomo as the doorman, they erroneously identified lobby desk clerk Jay Hastings as the doorman.On February 23, 1987, People Magazine published another article about Chapman entitled, "The Man Who Shot Lennon," by Jim Gaines. Once again, the article mentioned the doorman but failed to identify Perdomo by name. It wasn't until March 2, 1987 that Gaines finally revealed the doorman's name as Jose Perdomo in an article for People entitled, "In the Shadows a Killer Waited." Gaines further described Perdomo as an "anti-Castro Cuban" who discussed with Chapman the Bay of Pigs Invasion and JFK's assassination before the shooting occurred. Here is an excerpt:When [photographer Paul] Goresh left, Chapman had only the Dakota’s night doorman, Jose Perdomo, to keep him company. Jose was an anti-Castro Cuban, and they talked that night of the Bay of Pigs and the assassination of John F. Kennedy.(James R. Gaines, People Magazine, March 2, 1987, "In the Shadows a Killer Waited," around p 64; article begins on p 50)In 1989, two years after Gaines revealed Jose Perdomo's name to the public, Fenton Bresler published his renowned book entitled, Who Killed John Lennon?, which suggested Chapman was basically a nice guy, but the CIA had turned him into a programmed killer (aka, Manchurian Candidate) through the use of mind control. As far as I can determine, Bresler was the first person to mention Perdomo's name repeatedly in any book about Lennon's murder.In 1992, Ray Coleman published a second edition of a biography entitled, Lennon: The Definitive Biography, which merely mentioned the doorman by his first name, Jose. (Ref. p 679)Based on my research, the public first learned Jose Perdomo's identity from Jim Gaines' article, "In the Shadows a Killer Waited," published on March 2, 1987, in People Magazine. In other words, the public had been unaware of the identity of the mysterious doorman at the Dakota for six years and nearly three months after Lennon's murder. Whether it was done intentionally or not, Jim Gaines' article forced other writers and publishers to come clean and reveal the name of doorman Jose Perdomo to the public, something that was clearly a guarded secret.
What are you? A moron? How much more of your drivelare you going to plaster on Professor Fetzer's blog?Have you no shame, Kuehn?You're not getting a podcast from Professor Fetzer!! Go away!!
What drivel? Perdomo was the doorman. Ole also covers this, but gets the history of his name's revelation wrong. Get real.
I should also add, Mike, that this material which is so long (above) is, as I said, a direct copy from the page where the research on Perdomo was first compiled. Total Info (Jim Fetzer's producer here) was part of helping that research; the researcher he worked with (a somewhat fanatic about certain interpretations of who the perps were) has a site whose link I give above the long quotation.Ole used this researcher's work, but got the number of years wrong for how Perdomo's name came out to the public. I simply copy for him and you the relevant section from the page, so that you don't have to go to the page itself.Toodles, Mike Brenner who is so dismissive right now.
As to Paul(ie) McCartney vs Sir Paul (Faul) McCartney:Absolutely different fellows. Note the largely eulogistic MMT film, where real Paul is in Wizard tower scenes so that part must have been filmed earlier. (And MMT started filming on 1-yr anniv 1967 after likely death date Sept 11 1966, per UK dating system matched to date clue on Sgt P album -- instead of USA dating system, which gives the impossibly late date of Nov 9 -- and on the Sept 11 2-yr anniv John Lennon recorded Glass Onion, filled with references and an appeal to "listen to me" about clues, though yes, he wore the Walrus mask, but the idea is that the Walrus image is Paul, for several reasons, incl. "Walrus gumboots" -- missing or dissheveled Beatle boots on Paul in a crash)Could well be an assassination -- actually, Ole. For several reasons.No, the Beatles were not manufactured, though; they were infiltrated subtly through Faul and emotionally manipulated where they could be, by drugs and probably suggestions of totally free-thinking religious concepts (rather appealing) and for the positive ideals. Leary suggested drop out; Lennon lived drugging but tried not to drop out until personally overwhelmed in the 70s.They have to have known some things about pushing social control -- and it would have been that it was positive stuff, not negative, and they would have had to be partly ignorant of what some wished.The idea of Adorno and MI6/Tavistock made them is a claim from one fellow, Coleman, whose comments are a deflection and impossible (that a doofus classical musician mousey man named Adorno wrote the stuff).See my blog (unfortunately unwieldy right now, but it's all in there somewhere -- just a bit mixed up right now, from re-edits). The 13 false ears on Paul (for whatever reason), the 4 forensically provable clues which show that the Beatles were involved in "clue-making" (for whatever reason), John's own drawing of Paul dead (for whatever reason), the face, the ears, the date, the alternate arguments, the objections, the timeline -- as best it can be known.Remember, though, the blog is badly written in parts (really, badly organized, spliced right now), sorry.And also remember: this cover-up is one of the events we have LESS information on. Like Sandy Hook, there is a hole in the heart of this conspiracy; we do not have much info on who and why it was done, directly, or how it played out after, and those are different than the Sandy Hook holes, but they are holes.http://youcanknowsometimes.blogspot.ca/2013/12/off-topic-new-paul-is-dead-clue-from-j.htmlNo, the other Beatles were NOT replaced, contra to some people thinking they were: it is fine to postulate, but the others are the same bone structure and mannerisms (though older), and John got anorexic towards the end, but Paul as an historical figure is played by a radically different fellow through the whole period after (probably) Sept 11 1966.A 5th Beatle. And though some say he's worse, some say he's better.
Has a scientific analysis been done on the voice(s) of Paul before and after? For your case to hold up you would need some demonstration that these voice(s) that sound identical are actually different people.I shall continue to believe that the Beatles faked Paul's death as a publicity stunt, at least for now. I was alive at the time and remember it well. Lots of new clips, television items and so on speculating that Paul was dead because he had not been seen in a while, along with the subliminal messages that were discovered, and so on.Then Paul appeared again, and the assumed hoax was over.If Paul really did die, it is amazing that such a look-alike was found, that he played left-handed bass the same way, that his voice appeared identical to the human ear, that his wife went along with the ruse... and so on.I guess all of this is possible, maybe you are right. But it seems to me that a more simple and logical explanation is what everyone believed at the time once Paul appeared again. it was a publicity stunt.Again, however, produce an analysis of the voice from the earlier recordings and the voice from the later recordings and clearly demonstrate that while they sound the same to the human ear, they are actually different people, and them maybe you will have a good case for your speculations.
I think you need to study the early years of the Beatles more closely Clare. They were controlled from the moment Brian Epstein got his hands on them. The insertion of Ringo into the band to replace Pete Best is significant too.I don't believe the Paul Is Dead theory, not at all. I think I need to address it properly in depth which will take some time.
Ian, he died. As to Epstein, he was hardly a major controller from the start (just because he was Jewish is not an argument, contrary to some comments below), but as he got more in with powerful people, and with his sexual needs requiring cover up, and his stealing from the Beatles would become known in 1967 as the contract came up, there were several groups which might have wanted him gone. With PID in swing by then, it may also have been a motive in killing him. He seems to have been murdered when he himself also sank into depression and drugs.
Stooey44:U can look up answers to some of yr PID qs, or go to my prev. podcast, or wait for the next, for a different approach to covering the case for (and against) Paul's putative death.However, 4 some of your qs:1. Voice analyses have been done, twice. They were done on songs. As I recently found out from a voice recording forensics analyst, there is no protocol (for court) to use singing voices. But anyway, both findings were that the voices were different (for what that's worth). To get a formal voice cleanup, comparison, affidavit, etc. is about $15-25 K, supposedly, and it would be done on spoken voice.2. I find the voices noticeably different, but Paulie (original), used a husky voice at times, and yes, another man from England using a husky voice could give some impression of that. They have different places where they break their voices -- Paulie when the song is emotional and he reaches for it, Sir Paul by pulling back on emotions (choking his voice) in certain places (he's not as emotional in the direct way). Also there was known some voice morphing in early songs, which was admitted to. Other songs have been sped up on recent remixes, possibly to make the voices sound similar&obscure the issue (because of more Internet buzz -- call it crazy or not, it's right abt this).3. Almost any musician can learn left-handed instruments if they have to. A guy downtown here had only a left-handed instrument when he started and learned that way. The Beatles did not play at all on film for 1.5 years (with a tiny exception where we do not hear Sir Paul but he does play bass left-handed, for a few seconds in India, and there, the Beatles since then have released flipped versions of the film and the photos, so that it's a right-handed guitar playing, to make the point, let us say).4. He really does not do things the way Paul did, except what someone can mimic, and then not that well, I mean, I don't mean to insult him (he tries) but he poses himself awkwardly, to act boppy, when really it is not his own nature.(cont'd ...)
(cont'd) ...5. The publicity stunt idea or that people just believed it, do not actually naturally fit the evidence, prima facie, even if he did not die. The clues (so-called, let's say temporarily) are grisly, sad, natural for artists mentioning a death they need to get out of their system, with only a few clever ones sprinkled in. The natural-type ones only seem weird because they did not tell (if, let us say, if he died).And there are 4 so-called clues (they are clues, but I will be tentative for you) which are definitely Beatles plants, 3 very early, which would be expected: early on, they probably were less metaphorical. The definite Beatles clues are 3 from 1967 (two optical impossibilities from any camera, 1 text reference to the idea directly). One other clue is another optical impossibility from any camera (from much later, in 1995). But anyway, the Beatles did set some of the clues, by this argument. And the others, with some likely misattributions, number in the hundreds, mostly are fairly easy to notice (if one is willing at all), and are very sad and grisly.John Lennon also drew Paul dead privately (that is, there is no other natural explanation for the content of the drawing), even if Paul did not die. The drawing is poignant (careful treatment in detailing, touching subject content). It was privately done long before it was given privately (probably hoping someone would figure it out someday). It includes gumboots, i.e., Beatle boots, dissheveled (probably from the car crash, if that is how he died, if he did die), a young man with shovel in limp hand and grave below him, broken head two ways and swollen, dislocated eyes. He is being comforted by a faithful dog.6. Anyway, the argument directly from the face or voice is the only proof beyond the general argument proof from clues and historical non-alibis (all things for PID are not ruled out, and some things are actually supportable by the history, though not absolutely: for example, the fact they did not play on film for 1.5 years and the fact that we have 13 false ears on Sir Paul from 1967 onward).
Thank you for your response Clare.The possibility exists that the death of Paul was faked, therefore, any and all evidence that could have been faked offers at best limited corroboration to your position.I think you need to focus on evidence that could not have been faked. The scientific voice analysis, for example.Is there anything else that could not have been faked, or created disingenuously?What conclusive evidence do you have that the first Paul is dead? Maybe he just retired and was replaced.Do you believe that the first Paul was murdered? Or do you believe he died in some other manner and that the Beatles had a replacement and decided to go along with the ruse?I have all of the Beatles material, the new re-masters, and a good sound system. I listen to the music regularly. I will continue to do so with the specific intent of trying to determine if a second Paul may be present in the later recordings. Where does the first Paul stop and the second Paul begin in your opinion? Original to Revolver, replacement starting with Sargent Pepper?The way the Beatles recorded is interesting. Some of the time it is a harmony with Paul on the high end and John on the low end. But more often than not it is either Paul twice, or John twice when you hear two voices. The addition of George in places makes things more complicated. His voice fits somewhere in the middle between the other two. And often if you think to yourself, is that John or Paul, it is actually George.When I was a child, back in the mid-60s, the Beatles came to town. Their motorcade route was announced, they were to travel from the airport, then called Malton, down highway 27, now 427, and then to the Gardiner Expressway and downtown. I lived at the time within 100 yards of highway 27, and so a bunch of us went over at the appointed time and waited. We also sang she loves you about a million times. Finally the motorcade came by, a bunch of black limos with tinted windows. I was right up close and was able to peer in at silhouettes, come of which must have been the Beatles. It brings tears to my eyes writing about it now. :)
Kuehn,Your conjecture, guesswork and personal opinions are not evidence and prove ZILCH.
I listened carefully to Michelle, Yesterday, Hey Jude and Let it Be. It is the same voice, the same person singing. There can be no doubt about this.
Stooey44: no Hey Jude clearly strains where Paulie wouldn't, Let it Be is a similar sound with the slightly more bass-voice undertones of Faul, without the real softness of tone.There is doubt about this.Learn the faces.As to Mike Brenner:You happen to be wrong, but they do prove at LEAST a strong maybe; forensic photo analysis properly understood proves the rest formally, if you don't see it. It is actually obvious in most photos, but there are some situations where the impression is a little closer, until Sir Paul turns more or less and it's ruined.But if you don't see the dark-haired-other-man illusion (and he is not actually quite as dark haired naturally), then you have to learn about proportions full-frontal and what exactly is wrong.You don't actually have to see it to know.
As Don Fox has said to me:"I thought the PID thing was a bunch of BS until I saw the Italian forensic team. Faul has a different jaw, teeth, nose and ears than James Paul McCartney who was born in 1942. They are clearly different people. (Tina Foster has a good post on this: http://plasticmacca.blogspot.ca/2010/01/forensic-science-proves-paul-was.html ) Once you start looking at Faul and comparing him to Paul you’ll notice that they move different on stage and Faul is just a bigger guy than Paul was. I was watching some live Beatles from1965 on YouTube and listening to Paul play bass – what a difference between Paul and Faul! Paul sounded almost like a jazz player live whereas Faul just kind of plods along playing generic bass lines. He sounds like a guy that had to learn how to play left handed."I can see why Don says that about the bass playing, and also the preference for certain sounds. But he's good, Sir Paul, and I enjoy Wings and think it is very interesting what we got as a total Beatle repertoire because they continued with a replacement and, sadly, without telling formally, they were under pressure and grief and secrecy which made some things weirder than they might have been even with drugs around.
Don Fox has commented extensively on PID before and has his own blogpage about it at http://donaldfox.wordpress.com/2012/12/18/pidcast-with-clare-kuehnCurrently, however, he has the old link up with my blogpage on the subject; the new, correct link is http://youcanknowsometimes.blogspot.ca/2013/12/off-topic-new-paul-is-dead-clue-from-j.html
Stooy44 (and sorry for the misspellings in my other posts!):I just noticed some of your questions above in this thread.1. You are lucky to have seen the Beatles (sort of). It was in Toronto, my city, as I can tell from your description of the highways. COOL! :) Long before I was born, sadly.2. The question of how much was faked is a good question, but in fact most of the material fits reasonable levels of faking: a doctored late face to make it seem more babyish, a doctored earlier face stretched to make it seem a bit longer, someone else's ear on a recent closeup photo (the straight line of Photoshopping at the cheek and the slightly different lighting condition are visible). That sort of thing. -- For voices, we don't know exactly which songs were doctored to sound a bit more Paul-like in some cases, or even where they may have used an underlying real Paul from some unreleased track. We can say that "Let it Be" and "Lady Madonna" and "Blackbird" are typical, unadultered Sir Paul, for though there is a soft bass-tone in them, they have the clipped form of his speech. -- Voice recordings of spoken word which have been around a long time are generally not doctored, but when you get seriously into this stuff, it is true that -- without radical doubt taking over, just careful doubt, remembering always to say that probably the minimum is usually done -- true that some recordings have been sped up, and some images altered in re-release, EVEN NOW. For example with the visual: the CD release of Sgt Pepper front cover of the album has SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT LETTERING style across the drumskin, so the clue doesn't work now. Also, early Sgt P has a green eye on Sir Paul, but now it is a brown eye and face is a bit rounded.That sort of thing.3. The types of faking and the feel of most of the so-called clues are reasonable for a real situation, not a hoax. In other words, they fake what would be the kinds of things people would notice now; the so-called clues are mostly poignant normal references to a friend and death, with a bit of cleverness, whereas only some are really clever.
(cont'd for Stooy44:)4. What do I think happened, as in, natural accident or murder? There is no formal way of knowing. Let me say that right now. Much is not known in this case, and without more information available to sift through, will be unknowable, unlike with 9/11 or JFK, where much was available through commissions and so on.On the other hand,I tend to think he was murdered (by car). I tend to think this because most instances of the so-called clues involve cars (in very constant ways) and the general scene around the Beatles included what I call, in aggregate, cultic-intel-crime. This means loose religious ideas (New Age), Satanism (positive view from and negative view from Crowley, etc.), pedophiles, money rackets, intel schemes for propaganda and emotional control of the masses (experimenting with public psychology) for political and Dr Strangelove-like social control. And the date, Sept 11, a cultic date number possibly. It comes from the clue and two anniversary dates thereafter (the PID-riddled semi-eulogy film Mag Myst Tour started filming 1 yr after, and John Lennon recorded Glass Onion on Sept 11 2 years after 1966, complete with overt mention of clue references and pleading to listen to him). So I tend to think it was murder.And I think it was for:a) infiltration, influence for idea-spreading (trying to get them somewhat more into the New Age stuff)b) compromise if necessary, a kind of blackmail or threat if they saw things, knew thingsc) instability in this band of brothers, so that their previously friendly coherence could not resist what was coming in the intel/creep plans for the 60s co-opting of anti-war, etc.d) Paul was becoming fast friends with Mark Lane, and overtly against the official story of JFK's death.
Informative but I disagree that real Paul is in any part of MMT. It's the same imposter all the way thru IMO.
As to Palme and Marley,I am very glad you covered them in some depth.BEST WISHES!Clare
Angling for another PID podcast on Professor Fetzer's blog, Clare?No doubt Professor Fetzer can see right through you, Clare. Go pitch your bullshit elsewhere, Clare.
As Andy Tyme points out to you but which you don't recognize, "Attacking Clare for her valiant and VERY nuanced PID research is simply juvenile and outright nasty.The photo-and-sound public record of the "early" and "later" Paul McCartney is chock full of bizarre and mysterious inconsistencies.You have every right to contest her carefully worked-out conclusions, but to deny that the inconsistencies exist is to imply that you're either a troll or a VERY inobservant cretin."And Jim had already wanted to have PID on again, so yes, there will be another show, Mike. Listen or don't, but the general work stands -- and that is true even if he did not die, let us say for your sake. (It is really "if he had not died", because he did die, but anyway, even if he did not die, let us say.)
Attacking Clare for her valiant and VERY nuanced PID research is simply juvenile and outright nasty.The photo-and-sound public record of the "early" and "later" Paul McCartney is chock full of bizarre and mysterious inconsistencies.You have every right to contest her carefully worked-out conclusions, but to deny that the inconsistencies exist is to imply that you're either a troll or a VERY inobservant cretin.
"Carefully worked out conclusions" using a load of old videos/films/photographs?? A load of voodoo claptrap!! Anyone who takes Clare Kuehn and her assorted PID-dle seriously really has to be one sad sick cretin and sad sick cretins attract sad sick cretins. I feel sure you will agree, Andy. Let's just hope Professor Fetzer doesn't give Kuehn and her PID hooey the platform of his blog. Something that Kuehn wants and has been ingratiating herself with Professor Fetzer to that end, namely Kuehn wants Professor Fetzer to invite her back for yet another PID podcastof her insane Paul-Is-Dead nonsense, hogwash and bullshit.Just say no, Professor Fetzer!!
Too bad, Mike Brenner, that you don't see Paul died. In order to personally see it, if you don't immediately -- and even if you did, always use caution with impressions either way, so compare back again with what one is supposed to see, i.e., that he is the same -- but anyway, if you don't see it, TRY to, then see if the changes in impression bear out when comparing back again.Or read carefully the Wired Italia 2009 article --- carefully, so as to actually understand which proportions change and why they cannot change so much, in opposite ways, in the same person.
Thanks, Andy Tyme, for at least recognizing the very careful arguments. I worked hard to see it, not see it, and compare which impression works for real. As well as to sift through the possible motivations, psychology, history, clues (the formally provable and the other ones), for whether this would be possible. It was possible; that it was done is a separate question, but it was.Once started, it was not backed down on. An unusual solution for an unusual set of people (uniquely talented level of musicians in their prime, combined with power nexuses around them). Once started, the rest snowballed, is what has to have happened.RIP to Paul, John, George, Mal, Eppie and others, possibly even Roby Yonge who witnessed the difference in 1967, was shocked but unable to formally conclude it until later.
Cut your insane crap now, Kuehnand leave Paul McCartney in peace.
" I am glad you covered them in some depth."Do not confuse DEPTH with TRUTH.Shit can be miles deep. The TRUTH is razor thin.
Paul McCartney is in more peace if people wake up to the fact he is dead.The arguments are razor thin and cut like metal and glass through a head in a car crash. Egg man with joo-joo eyeballs indeed, and Walrus gumboots -- also in John's drawing of the dead young man.Insane crap is ignoring argument, as you do.You debate nothing here, just assert that Paul lived; he did not.RIP indeed.
Clare, in my opinion you should not waste your time on those who will not debate you respectfully.As I have said, it is possible that your position on Paul McCartney is correct. But I am not personally convinced that this is anything more than a hoax that the Beatles perpetrated at the time. Any evidence such as films and photographs could have been faked as part of the hoax. Any drawing, lyrics and so on could have been created disingenuously as part of the hoax. As I said, the voice sounds like the same person to me. It looks like the same person to me, and he plays bass like the same person, and his now late wife would have had to go along with the hoax, as probably would have many others, and so on....The more reasonable and logical explanation for all of the photos, films, lyrics, drawings and so on is that they were part of a hoax.I strongly suggest that you try to get some legitimate, scientific voice analysis done. Not only on the singing voice(s), but on the speaking voice(s) that can be found on any number of interviews that are available.
Hi there, Stooey44.I am fully aware that one can choose to see all the anomalies and so-called clues as non-clues, i.e., done for some other reason, such as a hoax.1. This ignores the poignancy and constancy of the material. It is gory and mournful most of the time.2. There have been forensic analyses done -- of the face. Learn those, if you do not see or hear the differences.3. Forensic voice analysis on the voices is 15-25 K. You wanna pay for it?
It is interesting that from about the time of the alleged death of Paul, real or not, the Beatles never played another live concert, with the exception of their appearance on the roof of their studio. And at this time Paul had a full beard and sang in unusual voices. You have not convinced me that Paul McCartney died, though I admit that he may have (the voice(s) sound the same to me, this is the problem with believing that Paul died) but you have certainly demonstrated to me that at the very least the hoax was far more elaborate and extensive than I ever realized.
Good, Stooey44. That is a start. Of course, to get beyond that to the idea that he actually died, etc., one has to be open to looking for differences in voice (or face, which also has formal proofs available), and then asking if those are the kinds of differences which an impersonator would do or just natural changes.There are similarities; one would expect that.I grant you fully that until one internally sees/hears the difference, the knowing is hampered. But it is possible to know without seeing the trick.Best wishes.
Clare, music is something you listen to, not something you look at. If the voice is the same then the person is the same. This cannot be faked. Have you considered the possibility that the Beatles used their look-alike for photos and films to promote the hoax, but used the real Paul for the recordings? This would be consistent with the concert on the roof where Paul wore a beard (as a disguise) and sang in odd voices. In this scenario the double would never have had to play bass left-handed, nor would he have had to sing. As I asked earlier, do you have any real proof that the original Paul did die? Maybe he lived and the double was used to perpetrate the hoax for a period of time, again, with the real Paul doing the recording but nothing much else.Be careful not to draw conclusions not contained in the evidence.As I continue to listen I will continue to try to determine if I hear a different Paul in the later recordings.Best wishes to you too.
Music is something to listen to, but listening is a kind of looking, and vice versa -- in other words we "image" or "rework and get a mental map" of what we hear, and we have to be careful when we think we have listened "carefully", not to simply go on an overall impression.In other words, like Paul after 1966 is consistent; there is some possibility that early switchover songs sometimes contained a bit of both voices, or morphing contributed to some similarity. And anyway, they have some natural similarity.IN ORDER TO NOTICE FACIAL AND VOCAL DIFFERENCES:posit that he is different, get used to hearing/seeing that he is (as if he were, even if he is not). That ISOLATES ANY possible DIFFERENCES FOR YOU TO NOTICE. It does not mean he is different necessarily.Then actively compare the differences, the things which stand out as maybe totally different.This should help. He really was replaced, but if he hadn't been -- as, for example, the other Beatles were not replaced but some take impressions of them in different poses and later and voice aging and different moods and think they were replaced because they stay with the impression of difference and do not carefully come back to the assumption they are the same, which one must do to compare -- so again, if he hadn't been replaced, then the comparisons you do in the final analysis after "seeing and hearing him as a different person" will not add into a different person.When one makes the effort to see the same person as a different person, one can be shocked at how our brain will confirm that. So, do it, and pretend. Be shocked, suddenly see/hear them as different. Then go back to your old impression. Which one was better?That is how to do it. Be convinced one way, then the other, then compare.We ALSO HAVE A FORMAL STUDY, HOWEVER, FOR THE FACES, WHICH IS FULLY EXPLAINED. IT IS A POSSIBLE PROOF, FORMALLY, EVEN IF IT IS A WRONG PROOF IN THE END; IT IS THE TYPE OF THING WHICH CAN BE FORMALLY CONTESTED, IS WHAT I MEAN.He did learn left-handed bass (it is referred to often, by the way, in the material called "clues", which you assume too strongly is a hoax).Positing living together and moving to the Cayman Islands or some similar kinds of thinking is fine, up to a point, but it completely belies:the griefthe gorethe constant referencesthe consistent look and general sound differences in the new bandmate
Also, Stooy44,you personally do not hear difference in the voices. Many do; certain inflections and methods of attack for notes, emotional pulling-back (choking the voice), and so on, which do not match when (under what circumstances) Paul did the same types of things.So,I admit that "any hypothesis will do" at first, but your justification is very personal (that you do not "hear" a difference, and have not actually listened for exactly how to feel a different person, just in case), yet.Also, as I just said in a post, your position belies that prima facie, the clues fit poignancy, gore, grief far better than a hoax might normally.And if your hypothesis were true, the Paul image is never used again after 1966, so what is he doing, living in a cave with all the sadness about him hoaxed? What kind of idea is that?Do I have formal proof of the DEATH? No. Technically speaking, no-one has that. It is replacement which we have proof for.Voice proofs are hearable, but for a formal test of that, we have to pay $15-25 K, or get a kind voice forensics person to do the work on patterns of sound AND inaudible (inaudible, okay?) harmonics in the voices.Two facial experts did the work in their field for free, because they thought it was so crazy they'd like to disprove it. We got lucky, there.But it is hearable, seeable. If you want to. And yet, one can want to change perceptions and be wrong, as I said (not all the Beatles were replaced; impressions can be wrong either way!), so once you hear/see differences DELIBERATELY, then go back and compare what would be the case if it were not a replacement.Go back and forth several times. Really act as if he's different. Feel it. Try it. Feel weird and crazy but do it.Then go back.And actually, in this case, you'd be right with the replacement; for the rest of them, you'd be wrong. But the method to see/hear it for sure is to do what I'm suggesting. Try it on for size, so to speak.
All right Clare, I will conduct the thought experiment as I listen to the music, and see what my ears tell me. But you will never convince me to accept any of the other alleged evidence. It might all be faked, the voice(s) cannot be.I was born and raised in Etobicoke, at first not far from where 427 and 401 now intersect, just to the southwest. Later in Markland Wood, where Bloor Street passes over the Etobicoke Creek into Mississauga.I did see the Monkees in Maple Leaf Gardens, but could barely hear them due to all of the screaming.And I have a now departed uncle who spent his life in the Toronto Police Force, most of it as a detective. One of his assignments was to go to the Airport with some a couple other detectives and wait for a well-known rock star to appear. When the musician showed up they asked him to rub his hands through his hair, and several reefers fell out onto the floor. My uncle then slapped the cuffs on Jimi Hendrix.
Correction: young Paul is shown once in footage after 1966:in Mag Myst Tour film, in the 2 brief wizard tower scenes, as his final performance, so to speak. He must have -- unless you're right and he's been living under a rock -- been filmed before the end 1966 for some skit or planned wizard film, which was converted to what we have as the partly eulogistic MMT in 1967, including Paul in his happy wizard role with the button red nose and winning sudden smile and liveliness.RIP to John, George, Paul -- and Mal Evans, who probably died related to this issue.
Clare, you look remarkably similar to Ginevra de Benci. I wonder if you really are a replacement of the original? :)
That is a deflection silliness -- sorry to be blunt. Ha ha to satisfy you.How about this consideration, from Don Fox just now by e-mail regarding "not hearing the difference" and Paul sipping Mai Tais somewhere:"I’ve heard that double crap before as well [that Paul is still with us and overlapping with Faul's work actively] – a bunch of BS. I can immediately tell the difference between Paul and Faul singing (and playing). It’s really not that close. I don’t know why so many musicians can’t seem to figure it out. I’m not that good and I don’t have any trouble. Paul was a FAR more advanced bass player than Faul is. Paul was a MUCH better singer. I’ve heard that [some people think that] Faul was a piano player/singer before he became Faul. That makes sense.Compare the real Paul McCartney playing Can’t Buy Me Love at Shea in 65 to Faul playing it in Moscow. The real Paul just dominates that Hofner bass. He’s holding down the bottom end with Ringo and playing a toe tapping melody on top. It almost sounds like he’s in a jazz club somewhere if you just listen to the bass line. He sounds really snappy using captain caveman equipment. Faul plays the song OK but nothing special. Not much personality to that bass line. To me it’s the difference between a superstar and a lounge lizard. The real Paul McCartney was a stadium act. Faul is a cover band guy."I agree, though he is clever and contributed and I like some stuff Wings did.
Oh, and since Ginevra was intelligent and lovely, I'll take it as a compliment anyway. :)
It was certainly not meant as an insult, rather as a compliment and as humour.I will listen carefully to the voice and the bass playing. But with respect to the bass playing, being good takes practice, and if Paul got lazy his playing could have slipped. The only conclusive argument can be the voice(s).Thanks for taking the time to debate!
I'm very sceptical about the Paul is Dead thesis. However, there are several key facts surrounding the Beatles that should be mentioned. Firstly, Ringo Starr, he was brought in to replace Pete Best. Best was a supremely talented drummer, I know, I've seen him play more than once. Ringo was an okay drummer but nothing like as talented as Best. Epstein forced the Beatles to accept Ringo as a replacement. Ringo insists he isn't Jewish, but there is evidence he is. Epstein was a Jew, and he was also a homosexual with pederastic and pedophiliac tendencies. Epstein was closely tied into the highest levels of society and mixed with other notorious pedophiles such as Lord Boothby, Jimmy Savile, Jonathan King etc. DJ Alan Freeman, another homosexual owned a record shop in London with a flat above. He held many parties there which were attended by the likes of Lord Boothby, Jeremy Thorpe (leader of the Liberal Party), Savile, King,Gary Glitter and others who have subsequently been exposed as homosexuals and pedophiles. The Kray Twins also attended and are said to have supplied young men and boys from East End children's homes for abuse at these parties. So The Beatles' manager is one figure that should be studied to gain an understanding of the forces that were a play in controlling the band. Secondly, the symbolism employed in the artwork of the Beatles' recordings needs to be studied, it is chockful of disturbing imagery, much of it with a satanic link.If you look at what happened to the original generation of Rock n Rollers, they were all either killed or destroyed by Scandal. Buddy Holly, The Big Bopper, Eddy Cochrane, Ritchie Valens, Johnny Horton and a few others were killed, Chuck Berry and Jerry Lee Lewis were disgraced by scandals, Elvis was bundled off into the army. In short, the FBI took out the original generation of Rock n Rollers. What replaced it were the bands from England - The Beatles at the forefront. This second generation of Rock n Roll would lead to the degradation of society that became known as The Swingin Sixties.
Ian,Pete Best was removed from the Beatles line up because he didn't fit in with George, Paul and John. Pete was a better drummer than Ringo - no doubt about it. John didn't like Pete who was just too surly, moody and let's face it - far too sexy for the boy-next-door-squeaky-clean image that Epstein was trying to project at the time. Pete had to go and make way for Ringo who was rough and ready and, of course, a real comedian whose humour was bounced off the other three Beatles. John, in particular, felt threatened by Pete's smouldering good looks.On a personal note, I once found a copy of Pete's book -can't remember the name inan old second hand bookshop, actually it wasn't even a bookshop - it was a converted barn in the middle of nowhere. I won't tell you where exactly because you wouldn't believe it. The book was signed by Pete Best himself. I also found a copy of Yoko Ono's poetry book also signed by Yoko. I bought both books for pennies AND like the idiot I am I sold them for pennies too. I know. They were probably worth 1000s. God knows what they'd be worth now. I gave them away!! How they ended up where I found them originally is a total mystery to me.
Hi MikeThat's very interesting info, cheers. The 'official' story that Ringo was hired because he was a bit older, a bit of a tough guy and owned a Ford Zodiac (or was it a Zephyr) big enough to cart the band to gigs in always struck me as a bit of a yarn being spun.I used to be very good friends with an elderly gentleman from Liverpool who actually owned a share in the Cavern Club in the 60s and knew all about the Beatles and the seamier side of Liverpool in the 60s. Sadly he passed away so I can't ask him about it now. I didn't chat to him much on that subject, which I now regret.Shame about those books, I am prepared to believe the wierdest things can turn up in the wierdest places, it happens from time to time.
As much as I love the Beatles music, there is some dark stuff in the background with Epstein, the "club" he was part of, his untimely death. Also the death of Stuart Sutcliffe was the first tragedy in the Beatles unless you count the early deaths of Paul and Johns mothers.I think its possible Paul was killed and replaced but there is not enough evidence to convince me.
I agree with you, there isn't enough evidence to convince me either. Epstein is a figure who, if you research, leads to a very dark and seamy underbelly of the upper echelons of British society.The Jimmy Savile case is just the tip of the iceberg,if you start to probe deeper, you quickly realise that there are a great many ties to the supposed great and good of British Society. For instance, former Prime Minister and lifelong batchelor Edward Heath made frequent visits to several children's gomes including Kincorra in N. Ireland and one I forget the name of now in N Wales that have both been the subject of many scandalous accusations of organised child abuse. But most tellingly, we know that Heath used to visit the La Haute De La Garenne children's home in the Channel Islands every summer to take 'lucky' boys out sailing on his yacht and Savile would often accompany them. It turns y stomach to even think of what likely transpired on that yacht with those young boys. La Haute Garenne was the scene of a really gruesome case several years ago where several bodies of children were discovered in the grounds.Then there is the case of the original Radio 1 DJs, they were all highly influential on society in the late 196s and early 70s, especially young people, and it has transpired in the last year or two that just about all of them were child abusers and in several cases, pedophiles.It's all deeply disturbing and I am a little scared to even delve into it because it's such a sensitive area that has been so covered up and involves so many from the highest echelons that I could be risking my own personal safety. I strongly suspect many have been murdered to keep these secrets and the disgusting depraved characters involved would surely not worry themselves for an iota to increase that bodycount.
To see it, with Paul, if you don't immediately (and even there one must be careful, so as to make sure one is accurate), read and study carefully the Wired Italia 2009 article.As to Epstein, his death is HIGHLY suspicious, but motive if murdered, not merely covered up due to possible sex act gone wrong, is unclear. There are several motives possible.The best treatment of Eppie's death, up to suggesting motives (which is not done), is in Goldman's much-maligned book. His book is actually excellent, and really the only attack possible from a non-resistant position (one which is fair to possibilities, not to idealization of Lennon's character), is to suggest the thousands of interviews he conducted were mere anecdotes from people who exaggerated and/or lied. However, with so many contributing bits (some long parts) of a position about Lennon, Goldman's work overall thus becomes more likely fairly accurate.Anyway, there is an excellent section on Eppie. And his death.
Ian,The unsolved murder of Jill Dando is another one of those mysteries.It is alleged that Jill who used to front BBC's Crime Watch TV show was doing some private research on sex rings in London and had uncovered some very unsavoury details regarding well known celebrities, politicians and royalty.
Ian,Take Michael Barrymore, for example. Like him or loath him it is clear that he was stitched upby individuals in very high places. Why you may ask. It all begins to make sense when you realize that Barrymore and Princess Diana were close friends and that Diana visited and talked with Barrymore regularly. Did Diana tell Barrymore something during their long conversations or did Diana entrust Barrymore with certain documents at some stage? What did Barrymore know about Diana that called for him to be publicly humilated, destroyed and silenced? It amazes me how Barrymore is still alive. Perhaps Barrymore is being kept alive by the "goods"he has stashed away in some bank vault somewhere - and only to be revealed if anything "untoward" should happen to "our Michael"?
Hi MikeYes, that is a theory I have heard before and I think, has some basis in fact. Certainly Dando's murder was not the work of a madman stalker as we were told with the obvious implication being that she became privy to information of a highly sensitive nature and further implying tat she was of a good character that would feel she should act on that information.People within the BBC have always been careful about what they said about Jimmy Savile, but it is plain that the 'rumours' were widespread and a culture of silence prevailed. Johnny Rotten actually mentioned Savile and made a very obtuse comment in a 1977 or 78 (I forget) interview you can find on Youtube which clearly shows that he was known about but no-one dared to speak out. The fact that silence was maintained indicates strongly that Savile was closely connected to very powerful people, and of course, we know he was closely tied to the Royals, Edward Heath and Margaret Thatcher.There is a huge amount of dirt on the Royals, but it's an area of study that, while I find it fascinating and would dearly love to expose, as I'm very against the entire concept of a royal family, I won't go near, for obvious reasons. Lord Louis 'Dickie' Mountbatten is a figure that is oft talked about. Given his lack of competence as a military man during ww2 (shooting a US admiral in the leg during a Pycrete demonstration for example) and his ruthless, near criminal behaviour surrounding the Dieppe Raid and later his complete mishandling of Indian partition, I could easily believe the unsavoury rumours about him have substance. His death adds a further layer of mystery as the conviction of the IRA man supposedly responsible was clearly false and therefore someone else, not the IRA was responsible, which raises the spectre of the Kincorra boys home and an area I'm reluctant to tread.
Great info about Barrymore Mike, I wasn't aware of his link to Diana, in fact, I knew nothing apart from the barest details about the Barrymore case. What you say is very believable though.
Ian,Read Barrymore's autobiography "Awight Now!" in which he writes about Princess Diana.
http://www.lightonconspiracies.com/radio.htmlFor more information on the Olaf Palme assassination, go to Dammegard's website above. There are more interviews like the one below. Very enlightening for those of us with Swedish heritage.Light On Conspiracies with Ole Dammegard - award winning author, musician, artist, painter, raja yoga teacher, investigator Henrik Palmgren, founder of Red Ice Creations: Writer, former-journalist, artist and musician Ole Dammegård joins us to discuss his book 'Coup d’etat in Slow motion,' a book that turned out to be a very important but dangerous task for him. In his book, Ole uncovers the real facts behind the assassination of the Swedish Prime minister Olof Palme, which has interesting similarities with the JFK assassination. He’ll discuss an international conspiracy of what is still claimed to be the deed of madman but has turned out to have its roots within the international military complex and world finances at the very highest level, all sanctioned locally from behind impenetrable veils. We’ll talk about the life of Olof Palme the unofficial and the official story. In the second hour we continue with the sketchy, delayed events following the aftermath of the assassination, including the investigation, witness accounts and inconsistencies. Ole’s research led him into a world of international assassinations, arms smuggling, acts of terrorism, weird suicides, pedophiles and freemasonic rituals. He’ll discuss a picture of Sweden rarely seen before.' http://www.lightonconspiracies.com/radio.html
Bush-Clinton Body Count from Iran Contra,Ole talks about the Lewinsky affair happened to take the light off of the Iran-Contra scandal. However, I thought that happened under Reagan and was investigated by the Congress in the 1980's. I see now that it carried over into the Clinton era. (Interesting that Ole said the last honest election in the US was JFK and that all presidents since then have been puppets. JFK may have started out as a puppet, but he defied the puppet masters following the Cuban missile crisis deciding to make changes toward peace, detente with Russia, ending the war in Vietnam, friendly relations with Cuba and no "Pax Americana" among other things such as ending the CIA's power to make policy, challenging the banking establishment, etc.)http://www.stewwebb.com/2013/10/23/bush-clinton-body-count-from-iran-contra/John F. Kennedy Jr.Potential Candidate for Senator from New York.died: 7/16/99Vincent FosterWhite House Counseldied: 7/21/93Found dead in Ft. Marcy Park in Washington, DC, of a supposed suicide by gunshot. A suicide note was supposedly found a few days later, torn into several pieces, in his briefcase, after his office had been entered by white house staff and materials removed.The gun which he supposedly used to kill himself was reported to be still in his hand, but the person who first found the body reports that there was no gun at that time. Many irregularities surround the death and the investigation of it.Foster was also from Hope, Ark., like Clinton, and also worked for the Rose Law firm. Foster had intimate knowledge of the Clintons’ personal finances. Foster was involved in an investigation of their finances, and reportedly made a phone call to Hillary Clinton, in Los Angeles, just hours before his death.Recently, the signed report of M.E. Dr. Donald Haut was uncovered at the National Archives, proving that Foster had a previously unreported gunshot wound to his neck.Finally, an FBI memo has surfaced dated the day after the date of the official autopsy, in which the autopsies informs the FBI that there was NO exit wound.The “suicide” note, (leaked despite official efforts to keep it from view) has since been revealed to be a forgery.
JFK Jr. had to be eliminated.There was no way the same people that murdered his father were going to allow him to run for President and win which he most certainly would have. Those who killed JFK were always terrified by the idea that John Jr. would become President some day and blow the lid off the conspiracy that killed his father.
'have no fear for atomic energy...' because it is a hoax. you are discounting the fakery aspects/possibilities again, which is foolish. the oslo/utoya affair was a complete hoax as was the assassination of the replacement john lennon. the real lennon (and the fake) are most probably alive to this day.bush jnr. was needed for the 9/11 stunt. the Lewinski affair was orchestrated to undermine the democrats as much as possible in the eyes of the public (it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is!), so boosting the republican's chances of voting success. we all know what they had to do eventually to steal the elections but without the Lewinski BS it would have been an impossible task.and was that whole drama o.j. simpsons finest acting role? the glove that didn't fit was hilarious scripting, no?fakery fakery everywhereand we lap it up.fakery/simulation seems to be common thread running through 'their' reign, Ole.(and there was no beheading in Woolwich, Joshua. of that you can rest assured.)
Ian,There is one original Radio 1 DJ who is now dead and whose name I will not dare mention for legal reasons. This particular DJ is on record as having boasted casually that in his time at Radio 1 no one ever worried about checking the IDs of the victims of sexual abuse and assault to see what age they were.That's the kind of flippancy this particular DJ showed when asked about his time at Radio 1. As I said this Radio 1 is dead. He was close to Savile and at Radio 1 with at the same time. I think you may have an idea who I am referring to. If you reply - DO NOT mention any names for legal reasons.
You're right Mike, the attitudes were very different back than and victims were very unlikely to be believed. I have a pretty good idea who you're talking about, but I am reticent to talk about this subject in too greater detail, not only for legal reasons but because it can be hazardous to both one's health and liberty.What I will mention is that there is probably a long standing 'tradition' for want of a better word, of promoting homosexuals and particularly, homosexuals with paedo tendencies to the highest offices. The simple reason being that these people are them easily maleable and controlled by unseen hands.A secondary reason being that they were of a moral character that made them ideal to send off around the Empire committing heinous crimes. Kitchener is one case where there seems little doubt, Baden-Powell is another where the accusations seems to have foundation. Charles Gordon is another who was surely gay and liked young boys but whose deep religious convictions prevented his acting on his urges and instead, he founded the foundling hospital.Control of figures in power via blackmail is a long-standing practice an it makes perfect sense that you would place in those positions of power men who could easily be blackmailed due to a liking for young boys.However, it is an area where research is very difficult as you are dealing in speculation and gossip, not least because previous generations of researchers shied away from the subject, leaving us little concrete to go on.
Ian,Reference Edward Heath: Was it ever actually established as fact that he was homosexual? I seem to remember a news item a few years back which confirmed that Edward Heath was indeed homosexual.
Hi MikeI don't think anything concrete has ever (or will ever) be revealed about Heath, but I think there is enough smoke for us to be pretty sure there was some fire. The information about La Haute Garenne and the yacht trips with Savile, if true, is, for me, proof.I have often wondered about Margaret Thatcher and Heath. There was some kind of pact between them from the 50s onwards, Thatcher supported Heath to the hilt until the point in the late 70s where she replaced him. I suspect Thatcher knew all about Heath's predilections and it is quite possible that she used that leverage to move him aside when the time was right, allowing herself to replace him at the head of the Conservative Party.Heath was not the only one who was gossipped about, William Whitelaw springs to mind, and now that we have the disgusting revelations about Cyril Smith, you have to wonder just how much truth there is in the supposition that men with 'dirt' on them such as homosexuality and paedo tendencies are deliberately chosen and promoted as it then makes them easily puppetted by unseen hands.
Ian, There was a great BBC TVshow on Margaret Thatcher. Can't recall who played Thatcher.Thatcher was portrayed as a real "flighty bird". Was it David Walliams who did a great Heath?Heath came across a real cold fish as far as Thatcher was concerned. Heath couldn't stick Margaret even in the early days. His hatred for her knew no bounds and when she displaced him, he never forgot or forgave her. Even in Heath's final days his bile and venom against Thatcherhad still not diminished nor would it ever. He went to his grave cursing and damning her. "Hell hath no fury like a Teddy ruined".
I haven't seen that and I don't know enough about the precise relationship between Thatcher and Heath to comment further. I might study the subject and get back to you though.
Bravo Joshua! Another interesting interview, and Ole is always interesting to listen to. While I greatly respect his work AND his intent, I have to disagree with his comments regarding forgiveness.You will neither satisfy nor change the sociopath, something which I consider to be non-human. Their behavior can range from stepping on whomever they please while climbing the corporate ladder, to turning people against one another, or lying to destroy someone’s reputation, to torture and murder. Celebrated figures are Lyndon Johnson, Henry Kissinger, and George Bush senior and junior. But they also live among us as coworkers, teachers, classmates, and possibly relatives.Staged events often have both sociopaths and patsies. Figures vary on how many sociopaths there are out there. I’ve heard the figure 5%. I think it’s higher.What one sees is the deliberate creation of insanity. At an individual level this can be seen as the separation of the individual from their true self. Factors which contribute to this personality can be an overbearing person in the sociopath’s upbringing, those who are groomed to be assassins through torture and means of mind control, as well as brain architecture. Without getting too verbose on the intention of insanity, I’m implying a deliberate dysfunctionality of society however it’s brought about. The sociopath can be found in the ranks of the CIA, the FBI, and the NSA, among other government capacities.To understand how this element of society can gain a foothold, we must first understand the astuteness of the powerbroker--the cabal, the Illuminati, the Jesuits, or whatever. They are social engineers that persuade the fabric of society to believe the illusion of war, of the MIC, of usury, and even of a need for government—ever growing invasive government. Within this atmosphere, they create a sense of enabling. That is, an environment for wrongdoing with society in compliance. They take from the individual or group the power to reckon and realize their ability and sovereignty and put in place the myopia of the material drive toward instant gratification (high salaries, perks, etc) and thereby induce a false sense of individual empowerment. All the while, they are draining the host through invasiveness, technology turned against humanity, etc. They are also masters at fracturing (dissipating if you will) the sense of focus. From mindless TV to propaganda “news,” to oftentimes insignificant milestones known as certification, to the Common Core and breakdown of the educational system, one can see the handiwork of the sociopath. Let’s not even get into the financial system and the unfed Reserve. The hallmark of the sociopath is to take—to take a reputation while gaining one for themselves, albeit often by deceit and all the while, taking the energy of others through anxiety, frustration, diversion, and fear, as well as useful energy that’s been put into inventions/ideas which in turn are not used for the benefit of us all.I have known sociopaths since my teens and can confirm the findings of those who have done extensive research on them. The “understanding” of them, as well as the details of which we ponder over after the events they create, is an important part of the awareness picture. They are not going away anytime soon, but many will at their hands. I’m not religious at all, but a passage from youth comes to mind: God hates three things: The lying mouth, the proud look, and hands that shed innocent blood. I hope I’ve made it clear that a sociopath can fit the bill for all of these, and they could be as close as one of your neighbors.There are some excellent videos done on the sociopathic mind like this one:Jay Weidner & Thomas Sheridan - The Vinny Eastwood Show - Psychopath Roundtable http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sR_1qBeNnt0 (They interchange the use of sociopath and psychopath here. There are differences though. The sociopath is more subtle and cunning).I hope that you, Joshua, or Dr. Fetzer, will interview one of these gentlemen in the future.
Trolls and shills revel and wallow in attempting to discredit their opponents' claims with crude insults and detail-devoid rhetoric. And that does appear to be the case in lots of the comment threads on this forum, with excessively unproductive attacks on both the massive-fakery proponents and on the nukes-did-it adherents. Yet both propositions COULD be correct -- without necessarily contradicting or precluding the other. (They could both be false too, but the evidence for their mutual accuracy continues to mount, albeit amidst a regrettably high quotient of silly squabbling and personal attack.) Are the Sunstinian/Mossad shills at work here? Or is this messy/ugly cyber-fight just the result of way too many deficiencies in the categories of maturity, historical perspective, humility and civility -- exemplified in the behaviour of way too many participants?
The latter, except the idea of "too many". It is the skills of discernment and the tendency of fanatic adherence back and forth.Even though there was a lot of manipulation of imagery, and some faking, Andy, there was a lot of stuff which is better explained as f-ups, not planted, seeded, but embarrassing f-ups in the layering.
absolute bullshit again clare! were many of the disastrous victim photo fuck-ups fuck-ups too? don't you think they could have at least gotten the skyline colours and backdrops consistent in the many (faked) videos released? don't you think they could have had different times other than 9 and 11 seconds ascribed to the twin tower collapses or avoided completely having the term 'ground zero' associated with the site? don't you think they could have designed more realistic cgi animations to describe the crash physics of aluminium plane meets steel buildings or had the planes cartooned in to come in looking like American airline planes and at at least possible speeds? I could go on and on but 'fuck ups' just don't cut the muster (mustard). we are dealing with men (and women) at the top of their game when we consider those involved in and behind the years in the planning 9/11 operation. you can be certain that nothing that came our way was by accident or left to chance. nothing. 9/11 may just not at all be what you (and many others) have come to think it is, is all (assuming you are genuine truthseekers, of course). I have written before on this blog what I believe 9/11 to have been really about, and I am now more convinced than ever that I am right.and andy, you know they began building a new building 7 on may 7 2002 (opened may 23 2006) at a cost of $700 million, and everything is going swimmingly now apparently. (no body parts falling off left, right and centre as far as I can tell.)an interesting read on building 7 here btw. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Centerdo you think building 7 (saloman building) might also have been gutted in preparation for demolition? I do. it pretty much says so in the about link, no? who needs nukes, eh?
Does everyone know that the Chief New York Medical Examiner - CHARLES HIRSCH - and his enigmatic assistant "Ellen Borakove" - are the very same individuals who:A: Refused to release John Lennon's autopsyhttp://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2382465#p2382465B: Claimed that "most of the 9/11 victims were "VAPORIZED"?http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2099540#p2099540 Well, now you know.regardsSimon Shack
I think I understand now why you stay in your mum's villa and don't accept invitations such as the one extended to you to the Vancouver Hearings.You're scared that a relative of a victim will punch you in your smug face for the deeply disgusting Vicsims BS you have perpetrated.Admit it Simon, you're trying to push the idea that no-one died because you're shilling for the perpetrators and trying to diminish the horrific nature of their crime.You're pushing this 'no nukes' and no victims' BS because you don't want people to know that 9/11 was a mass murder event where WMDs were used to kill large numbers of innocent people.You'd love people to believe that no-one died when two empty towers were demolished by dynamite behind a military grade smoke screen because that's a crime that pales in comparison to mass murder with WMDs.That makes you a truly disgusting person deserving of nothing but contempt.Or maybe you are prepared to prove me wrong by attending an event where there will be many relatives of victims present and firemen and responders who are dying of cancers and stand up and present your theories to them.Of course, we know that's not going to happen because those people wouldn't stand for your BS and you're smart enough to know that so you stick to shilling on the internet from the safety of your mum's villa.
(Right-click on guest name to download mp3)
SUBSCRIBE to the iTunes feed
STREAM premieres on Revere Radio
5pm CST (2300 GMT) M-W-F: