Excellent audio!! I thought the presentation was very organized and clearly presented.And for those new to PID (as I am), here's some information I found helpful in getting oriented to the topic:“Nothing is Real”: The Curious Case of the Man Some Call Faul McCartney — with Tina Foster ~ The Plane Truthhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khdN9f81CmgThere’s another excellent audio with Tina Foster and Andrew Johnson posted here:http://plasticmacca.blogspot.com/2012_01_01_archive.html (Though it’s a highly informative audio, I should warn people that this Andrew Johnson character is one of those Judy Wood cultists, so he make a little dig on Jim at some point. But it’s still worth a listen IMO)Tina Foster has a youtube playlist here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khdN9f81Cmg&list=FL_IfYzp-38VQ3KQ7pKORX7wI thought these two were interesting:The FAUL GUYhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdLF1w8NB-kA set up affairhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBBGpTe_7JA (Faul McCartney: “When I joined the Beatles, they were already a set up affair.”)Also, Tina mentions that Paul was in touch with Mark Lane and expressed doubt in the official narrative about the JFK assassination http://plasticmacca.blogspot.com/2013/11/jpm-hoped-to-expose-jfk-assassination.htmlAnd here’s another interesting video: TheWingedBeatle – 2012 Extended Version – Widescreen Full Movie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8W9_qN64S4s
As Amanda is also aware, and as I have posted elsewhere:Tina is wonderful for having done so much compilation and run a forum.However, Tina has the idea that Paul died before 1966 and that John was replaced, largely because of impressions from snapshots and some likely fake or partly fake on-line typewritten claims for different dates -- no documents or audio supporting them. (For Paul, there is one particular snapshot, with Paul grimacing and lit from the top by the sun, in Aug 1966, which Don Fox also got confused by, and the fact that for Tina, when John lost much weight, he "looks" different.)The snapshot of Paul has him grimacing widely, pulling his chin muscles down (which elongates a chin), is lit from above (thus making his nose look longer and pointier from the shadow below it), and his eyes are a bit obscured, all of which making some impression of Faul, but it's not Faul, when one considers all these things removed.The "Winged Beatle" (TWB) is the key reference movie. But one must use it as a study guide, not merely watch passively. The Rotten Apple series contains much, as well, which was put together over the few years before TWB.The "Faul Guy" video is good; it is a compilation of some of Tina's better work and some items from The Winged Beatle.
As Amanda is aware also:There are TWO other Real Deal shows I did with Jim Fetzer on this topic:One from Jan 2012, which also goes more into the general intel-cultic criminality scene (including USA) which surrounds the film and music industry (public arts):radiofetzer.blogspot.ca/2012/01/clare-kuehn.htmlOne from Jan 2014, with more details on the case than this show with Nick, and the one which inspired Nick to do this Feb 2014 show with Jim and ask me onto it:http://radiofetzer.blogspot.ca/2014/01/clare-kuehn.htmlAnd there is a discussion at Don Fox's blog with me:http://donaldfox.wordpress.com/2012/12/18/pidcast-with-clare-kuehnMy blog is at http://youcanknowsometimes.blogspot.com -- For the PID page, which sometimes gets reposted, so I am not putting an exact link, click on Dec 2013 to your right.And Nick's blog page on this PID topic is at http://terroronthetube.co.uk/2014/02/12/a-very-english-911-mystery
Sorry: I meant Tina thinks Paul was replaced before Sept 1966, in August, and that there was preplanning showing in clues for some time before. I think that is very unlikely (for any clues, at least as if known to the Beatles themselves). Others on her forum think he could have been replaced even before August. Often these types of people think there were multiple doubles functioning as Paul and even other Beatles.This is, in my opinion, generally speaking as uncareful as any idiosyncratic stuff which comes up in a forum (sometimes here, too), but there is also much to thank forums for, since people do (as here, too), raise good points or ferret out possibilities.Once one has noticed a significant difference in Paul and Sir Paul, then other questions get raised. Some do not lead anywhere (in my assessment), but they do get traction due to impressions from different snapshot photos, rather than truly careful assessment forensically, combined with significant constant difference for Paul.
There is no way Nicks middle of the road interpretation can be true. There is but one conspiracy since there is only room for one network with the capacity to carry these outrages off.
But one conspiracy? One network?In few cases is this true. In the Paul death scenario, we have several likely (and possibly overlapping) groups: Mind Control/Propaganda doctors in intelligence, Cultic groups (of several types), general intelligence circle assassins.And afterward? The same types of groups are likely involved in keeping each other informed of developments and further killings related to the events of Sept 11 1966, such as Epstein, Mal Evans, John Lennon (as part of the motive to kill him, not the whole motive).In John's and Mal's cases, the CIA was involved as well -- well, for Mal it was LAPD, but likely through FBI and CIA corrupt elements who were probably supporting Higby, as his boss suggested in different ways, while Higby took over the control of certain things under his boss too easily and seemingly with outside support.
Right. What I mean is one set of controllers that sit above every organization that you mentioned.
If you mean Zionistic bankers and so on, or if you mean Jesuitical secret society insiders, or if you mean Masonic Illuminist internal takeover artists, or whatever, then you are being uncareful. The idea that all people who want something done are honourarily part of one thing is ludicrous; even if any of those above-mentioned groups were involved, it would have been for the same reasons the others were I already mentioned.
No way is it ludicrous. In fact it's ludicrous that all this carry on could happen if there wasn't a full-blown monopoly at the top. I don't know if the Mac Daddy is s Zionist banker or if the zionists bankers are second tier. I cannot offer up the numero uno's name or address. But it can be inferred that there is unity of confrom at the top. Simply because of the impossibility of what we see without this sort of control.
Well, Graemebird, that sort of conspiracy control of "a top" is likely only in some cases and in others it's more likely that things are run by certain folks, so that the main ones all know, approve, etc. 9/11 2001 would be one of those.
Everyone is wondering how Paul McCartney2 could be even better musically then Paul1. The answer is that P2 was part of P1,s shadow songwriting team from the start. P1.s productivity wasn't impressive. It was in fact utterly impossible.
I don't think he's better. He's more formal, more aware of format and orchestra, and so on. He did some "rockin' tunes" with Wings. Very catchy. And he has a very feeling song in "Blackbird", very clever pastiche in "Honey Pie" (requiring copying older styles brilliantly), "Rocky Raccoon", and sings very well on "Fool on the Hill".But a lot of the material is strained singing and simple or repetitive content: "Why Don't We Do It in the Road"/ "Helter Skelter" or simplistic "Let it Be" / "Hey Jude" (simplistic lyrics -- la la la rising to crescendo again and again), etc., or violent, such as, again, "Helter Skelter" and "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" (the latter of which is not very creative musically).Paul himself was more of a player-musician, a feeler of the song and tune, a songbird in rock, and so on. He was naturally musical and was a natural performing friendly man, in a very direct way -- hard to put into words how that works.
Right. But it's more as if they lost one member of the songwriting team. It doesn't stack up as a simple replacement.
Graemebird: "more"? Lennon might have written some things with help, but Sir Paul is more likely, maybe. However, it is also quite possible that Sir Paul, who is consistent musically, was the author of the songs attributed to him.Some songs (maybe parts of Penny Lane, for example?) might have come from or been adjusted from the hundreds and hundreds of unpublished songs which George Martin said exist.
Who the hell is this Amanda stooge?and where did she come from?Amanda is Clare Kuehn's alter ego, her feed - in short an alias!!Who do you think you're kidding with this charade, Clare?
Don't be ridiculous. I always put caveats with Tina's material. -- Amanda posted before on the other thread at the end, and has contacted me on my blogsite as well.
@Frank, No, I'm not Clare's alter ego. You can ask Jim. @Clare- On Tina's work, I don't think she suggests Paul died before 1966. What she suggests is that he died in August 1966 after the Seattle show. That's one issue I disagree with her on, but I still greatly appreciate her work.
Right. I corrected my typing there, in a further comment. I appreciate her work, too. She really helped me, overall, too.
any chance of some dna work? would be pretty simple in many of these cases, esp Hook .... where is Paul 1 supposed to be buried? do some sleuthing there, would be curious.
Strawberry fields cemetery. That is why it's "strawberry fields forever." No DNA test could add or subtract from this story when you think about it.
As I covered in the shows before this one, the DNA would only be valid if chain of custody could be ascertained. There is no way they would go for it.There was the DNA provided for Bettina's Germany paternity case, as Nick and Jim raised, and as was mentioned in the BillyShears.com books, but there was no control on his beyond that it is his; no known relatives of Sir Paul were tested, nor was any question raised in court as to who he is, though Bettina said she would -- but she is now silent (paid off and loyal to the Beatles' general perceived legacy enough to stay silent now?).So all that that DNA proved was that Bettina is not Sir Paul's child, unless Bettina is Paul's child, and that has not been proven, though she has a good case and is likely to be.If someone could get any McCartneys to be tested with her and she turned out to be Paul's child, or if they would test Sir Paul and Paul or a relative under controlled conditions, then sure. But none of this is likely to happen.Anyway, Sir Paul is not Paul, as we know from how different he looks and in many situations sounds, but unfortunately, some people a) don't see or hear the differences, b) some don't respect the 3 self-evident proofs already available:1. The teeth due to different palate sizes2. The mouth widths at rest3. The outer ear cartilage shapes.For comparison of outer ear cartilage with demonstration lines to help notice the different shapes, see:http:// 4 . bp . blogspot. com / -C8EbKUErAOE/UYlz7n8vhjI / AAAAAAAAAP0 / Jfef1kpPKk0 / s1600/Comparing+their+ears+1. jpgFor more information on teeth, see: http:// plasticmacca. blogspot. com / 2010/01 / forensic-science-proves-paul-was. html (and yes, the doctor in the article is a real doctor, who worked also on the Mussolini case, as evidenced here, including with a photo of her: http:// www. ilduce. net / specialemorteduce. htm )For mouths at rest see: http://i366. photobucket.com / albums / oo110 / faulconandsnowjob / freak_out_faul_mccartney. jpgi366. photobucket. com / albums / oo110 / faulconandsnowjob / paul_hand_faul. jpgdigilander. libero. it / p_truth / the_truth / faul_paul_eye_distance_comparison. jpg
The burial site is likely on the hill (fool on the hill connection) which is the highest in the main Liverpool area, which has a gravity-based water tower (water is pumped up, but would flow down naturally).That hill has, also at the top, the cemetery at St Peter church, where Eleanor Rigby is buried.Partway down the hill is Strawberry Field orphanage owned by the Salvation Army (now being sold). In the private back lot, it is possible Paul could have been buried.Merseyside.com tourist site lists Strawberry Field as Strawberry Fields (as per John's song title) but also calls it a CEMETERY on their homepage. A clue that Paul died, or a clue that he's buried there? Or is there some other Strawberry Field nickname cemetery in the area?The name is not searchable as cemetery, on the Website. It would fit, though, or St Peter cemetery, since both are Beatles pilgrimage sites for other reasons, and would be a fitting place for him.
Thank you, Clare, Nick, Jim for this show, presentation. Very interesting, very well done. Very much needed. So interesting. Again, thanks.
Oh my God this is dumb. Paul did not die. Get a life. The same dude on every recording. I'm a Beatle freak and it's freaking obvious. What a waste of amazing potential air time. Good grief.
You may be correct. And, for all I know, you are correct. But, if The Beatles is not a collection of interchangeable actors, somebody is definitely fucking with our heads.I don't know how person would go about solving this for certain. In the United States, it's perfectly legal to call yourself whatever you like... no paperwork required. So, if there are two Ringos, several McCartneys, several Lennons and a couple of Georges, where's the crime? All I know is that from looking at photographs, John, Paul, George and Ringo APPEAR to be played by a whole cast of different actors. Seethefab4dozen.blogspot.com
Paul died and was replaced, stevie.t -- and there are a host of solid circumstantial arguments, plus some self-evident physical (forensic) ones. The replacement implies death, to any reasonable person, since motivation to replace must have been high and breakdown near, for them to attempt such a thing. (Generalized statements from people such as pshea about how "easy" it all is, do not cut it. Manipulation is tough work.)Allison's statements on how the Beatles were a "cast" of characters holds no water at all, when it is actually looked into (which most people won't, but I have). The material at thefab4dozen.blogspot.com is almost as uncareful as Ed Chiarini (a.k.a. Dallas Goldbug)'s idiosyncratic interpretations of faces and ears.For example, at thefab4dozen at the end, Ringo's very distinctive mid-ear cartilage (which bends significantly) is evident in BOTH photos the authors of the blog wish to state are so different.And to anyone with a sense of how people change, but how they don't (a true replacement), and how snapshots give impressions, versus how they don't (a true replacement), only Paul was replaced.And he was.
Allison: did it ever occur to you that maybe some of the "all the Beatles were replaced" stuff -- which is really badly done, I'm sorry to say -- is out there to confuse you with snapshots over and over, so you forget common sense about what creates snapshot differences, and gets you embroiled in NOT facing that Paul was replaced?As in, a dumb limited hangout to distract?Not to say that also, more people ARE falling for this sort of thing that you did, since they wake up to Paul (even as a maybe, if they don't know how to tell for sure), and then can get overeager, or even confused later.Paulie's gone. It's sad, but he is. There is control involved. But he's gone.
I agree stevie.t, there is only one Paul on the Beatles recordings. Case closed.
Ah, but Stooy44, you do not agree with stevie.t:he thinks there was no replacement. You do. You just don't listen for the most egregious types of differences in the recordings; remember, a trick will have a few more egregious things (though maybe hard to tell even so), will have some semi-similar things, and some posed or natural exact copying.
Attempt not to be an idiot Stevie.
It's stupid bullsh*t like this that makes me question the 'conspiracy' theory of everything. Please don't dilute all the hard grounded work here with this hogwash. Even if it's true.. WHO THE F_CK CARES!
Do you mean pshea's silliness about all the Beatles replaced, or the fact Paul was replaced, is what you don't care about?pshea below is right about one thing outright: it matters that our impressions and art scenes are being managed, and people killed as well.However, pshea is wrong about the ways the management goes on -- it's not "fakery" of people so much as overall manipulativeness which gives a fake impression of the reality of "genuine" stories for our artists' motivations and their deaths sometimes.
Again stevie.t, I agree with you (though I think you should be more polite).Tell someone that 911 was an inside job and they just might respond by saying, "...I suppose you think that Paul McCartney died and was replaced too?"Much of the fabricated so-called evidence on You-propaganda-Tube that did not exist before the internet age was created and put there for this very purpose.I do not believe Clare to be a shill, or an op, I think she is a sincere person who has fallen for it. I think she is unwittingly playing into the hands of the bad buys by pushing the Paul is Dead theory, thereby tarnishing the legitimate Truth Movement by association.And as you say, even if it is true, who cares? Clare should drop all of this, even if it is true, simply to avoid the tarnishing of legitimate conspiracy theories, since this tarnishing is one of the results of her pushing the Paul is Dead theory.
When you say, Stooy44, that I have "fallen for something", remember that everyone else will think you mean that there was no replacement.You do hold that there was a replacement; it is that you cannot hear a difference (i.e., you think you do not hear physically any difference, but it's perceptual, just as visuals are when there's a trick).As to "legitimate" theories:1. You do hold it is a true thing, just not musically. Someone such as stevie.t holds it is not at all true.2. There is no tarnishing in discussing anything, especially since it is true (which you basically hold also, though you keep misinterpreting what others mean by the word "hoax", for they mean totally a hoax and you do not). But even if it were not true at all, discussion is important.Does Jim tarnish his show by discussing the NASA Moon Landing Apollo hoax (that one being a hoax for photos and physical indications they did not go as claimed)?Does Jim tarnish his show by having people on who make claims about aliens? (He did, you might recall.)Well, one could say he is tarnishing his political work. I can see the point that makes. But ... control of our art scene in any way, and murder, are part of the topics quite legitimate to this show.And anyway, he's a Beatle fan, as am I, and Paul died. Rather important to cultural history to get that straight.And again: stop saying it is a hoax when you don't mean by that what others mean.Please.
I, for one, care stevie. this is just one example, but a pivotal one, of how our reality and perceptions of reality have been fucked with our entire lives. understanding and accepting the fact of this fakery can allow us to review other 'episodes' with fakery firmly in mind.other faked deaths in this most contrived of industries include elvis (now jon cotner), jim Morrison, john lennon (the replacement), curt kubain, jeff buckley, amy whinehouse, whitney hueston, Michael Jackson and many, many more.they were all at it. paul McCartney was replaced and lived on. bob Dylan was also switched out/replaced on more than one occasion.it's one big magical mystery tour. why don't you hop on the bus, gus?the beatles were a tavistock creation, and many of the movers and shakers within the industry had direct ties to the military.social engineering baby, at it's boogie-woogie best.
Impressions are being managed, but in different ways.The Beatles were a genuine band; any attempts to infiltrate or use them was something which probably began with the PR, unknown to them and mixed with regular PR; it would have accelerated by circles of friends and drugs and so on around and after Paul died. Let's not get uncareful about who they were at root, which was not "a creation" by others that way.Other people have been killed in the industry, often for multiple reasons (Beatles Paul and John, and Jackson), sometimes for unknown reasons (Hendrix by red wine forced down him, but he was probably hounded by Hoover's FBI for being black and influential, and he was an ex-paratrooper, so who knows if something there went wrong, or if it was cultic elements around him too), or personal reasons or mistake (Joplin, unknown but maybe a particular boyfriend connected to FBI having the heroin switched to pure, Cobain unknown reason but likely not suicide), sometimes for money and switching of power (the name and control of the Stones, for example, seems to have gotten Brian Jones killed by Thorogood), Buckley (industry insiders), cultic and/or insider fears of being revealed (Winehouse likely, since she was commenting on the "Triangle/Pyramid" power group near the time of her death, a kind of "Illuminati", even if that is a misnomer maybe), Huston (as likely insider cultist or Hollywood corrupt criminals in general), and so on, and Morrison was involved in many things, including harrassment by the FBI and marrying a Wiccan who seems to have been a sinister type, and who knows what else swirled around that, so cultic elements could be in play there, too.Let's be careful.Is it social engineering while they're alive in different ways? Yes, sometimes. Certainly money, power, suggestions of what to act like or do videos of.Is it different but often linked reasons for murder? Yes.Elvis is not John Cotner. However, there is a possible case for Elvis' survival; it is not certain, as I have gone over, because the scar on the body in the autopsy does match Elvis'; but it seems there was a witness who said he was found on his bed and then changed his story to the bathroom, Elvis was getting involved with anti-drug spies for Nixon etc., his name is misspelled on the grave, there is an insurance policy, it seems, which was not paid up and would have been illegal to withdraw, while all other ones were withdrawn before he died, and so on.Stop using the term FAKERY for all this deception. It is entirely misleading. Lies, corruption, false history (coverup), yes. But not fake events at root. Just fake presentations of what is real.There is NO replacement of John Lennon. That much is so damned obvious it's ridiculous to talk about. Impressions of his later nervous, more suppressed sometimes, and thinner self, in snapshots, is NOT a case for replacement. Dylan, neither. He is probably aware of some of this stuff, but not switched.Paul was replaced. That much is certain in fact, but must be argued to people and what we are discussing. It was a simple problem (for the Beatles circle), but was likely engineered to be a problem at all, by murder by someone else.Your comments are 1/2 right in the fact that there is weird stuff going on, but in the 1/2 they get wrong, i.e., what the cases involve specifically by implication, you are not being careful at all about WHAT impressions you mean: of the deaths, of the art or in the art, and how this occurs.When art is manipulated, most of the time the artists themselves are, too, and are not "in on it", i.e., not deliberately being "spies".But some are. Uri Geller talks of his role. Elvis asked to be part of a program for Nixon. Sir Paul is likely connected as a "spy" (manipulator) as well as wanting his career, and some of the Laurel Canyon crowd, as Dave McGowan points out, have family and/or personal connections to real manipulation as intended, particularly Zappa.
PID is still a long way from being believable. So many holes, so many parts that don't fit.No-one has yet answered how the supposed replacement could learn to play bass left-handed in McCartney's extremely distinctive style. That is a very big hole in the theory because it would be nigh-on impossible to teach someone to do that if they weren't already left-handed and somewhat skilled in playing.Has anyone bothered to interview any of the very many people in Liverpool who knew McCartney prior to 66? I have an elderly friend who was a part-owner of the Cavern Club in the 60s and knew the Beatles, Cilla Black and the other stars of that scene. I asked him what he thought and he laughed at the notion Paul had been replaced.Still a very large number of holes to be plugged before PID can move from the realm of fakery idiots like pshea to that of rational researchers.
Sir Paul doesn't play that much like Paulie, not in style of playing, but in holding the instrument, yes, he got good at that.Maybe he was ambidextrous enough for some things, but he plays piano and conducts and is not on film playing bass left handed for the first year or more, except in a few studio stills.He prefers his right hand, whatever the case.As to the people in Liverpool: SIR PAUL DOES NOT HANG THERE IN THE FIRST YEARS. After that, impressions do what impressions do: what they've done to you and many others.Industry people DO talk of Paul's replacement in different ways; Ozzy Osbourne said completely off the record and caught off guard, to a friend of mine that "Of COURSE Paul's dead", and Emilio Lari, the photographer from Help! the movie with the Beatles has come out in pre The Winged Beatle movie series called "Rotten Apple", talking extensively of how he heard Paul died in late 1966 in London and how it's "obvious" the current Paul is not the one he photographed.And self-evident photo evidence, such as teeth, mouth at rest, outer ear cartilage shape show this without your having to "see it" yourself as a whole face difference.But let's say just for you, "IF it's true":you can fool some of the people ... not all ...and some are in on the cover-up and won't tell you.
Clare, for you to claim Paul 2 doesn't play EXACTLY the same as Paul 1 displays a total lack of knowledge, the two, if they are two, play exactly the same.The Italian photo study you put so much store in is flawed, it didn't use original photos, it didn't use enough photos, the credentials of the two researchers are dubious, so on it's own, that study is of marginal validity.As for Ozzy Osbourne, he was a kid in Birmingham in 1966, so if there was a replacement Paul, Ozzy never met the original. Further, for the years 1969-1986, nothing Ozzy says can be taken as true because the guy was completely off his face, he freely admits he can't remember a quarter of what happened in that timeframe.Instead of pushing the same flawed arguments you need to do more research because as it stands, PID still isn't more than a shaky hypothesis.
Of course Ozzy's statement cannot be taken as gospel, but it's there as an indication that people might well know and not out themselves for knowing -- just as in the JFK case, we know lots knew and only a few statements here and there show it.Lari was close to the original. He heard of it early (a statement of the early rumour, which is rare confirmation), and he is convinced and has a good eye.The Italian study compared the right things in the photos and yes, they did do other work but they had to formally choose authenticated photos.The mouth widths at rest, the ears, the teeth are not even things which need a lot of proportional facial analysis anyway.PID is a solid case. And no, they do NOT play exactly the same; or rather, many people hear them as quite different and I have outlined the kinds of differences to listen for.Remember, Ian, if you can, please:ONLY THE MOST EGREGIOUS DIFFERENCES IN A TRICK WILL STAND OUT; overall somewhat similar things will trick you, even if they are slightly different; and a few things will be the same, because of natural or posed similarity.
Clare, I enjoyed our previous debate on this subject, and there is not much left for us to discuss that would not be a repetition of what we have already talked about.But one thing I did suggest last time, to which you did not respond, was this.You point out a number of lyrics that seem to give us clues that Paul died. And, to be sure, these lyrics can be interpreted this way. It is my opinion, as you are aware, that the lyrics you mention were designed as part of the hoax. You believe these lyrics to have been sincere.But there are certainly other lyrics that seem to suggest that the Paul is Dead theory was indeed a hoax that the Beatles were perpetrating, and that these certain lyrics were designed as clues to tell us that all of this was a hoax.I mentioned one last time, it was this. From the time of the alleged death of Paul the Beatles did not play another live show, with the sole exception of their appearance on the roof of their studio. And what did Paul sing?"Get back to where you once belonged."Might this be a clue telling us that Paul's death was a hoax? Or will you simply dismiss this particular lyric as coincidental?Here is another example, taken from Magical Mystery Tour, and Strawberry Fields Forever, where much of the subliminal messages are to be found:"Strawberry fields, nothing is real..." Hmmm, nothing is real, as in maybe the death of Paul is not real?The song continues, "...nothing to get hung about..." In other words, nothing to worry about. Hmmm, in other words, don't worry, Paul did not really die?If I were to think about this some more, I am sure I could come up with other examples. I am sure you could too, from your side of this debate. And no doubt we might be able to come up with certain lyrics that could be interpreted in either direction."I tell you 'bout the fool on the hill, I tell you man he's LIVING there still..."
Come on. Is John going to say, "The fool on the hill, I tell you man he's DEAD there still"? No.Metaphor is used in art. He's RESIDING there -- dead.As to interpreting lyrics to get any meaning at all: yes, some people do. That is not what I have done, nor some others.In context of Paul's death (or putative death, let's say):"You were in a car-crash and you lost your hair""Here come ol' flat-top ... he got joo-joo eyeballs ... Walrus gumboot ... monkey finger ... spinal cracker ... feel his disease ... bag [body bag] production""Turn me on dead man""Is he dead? Sit you down, Father, rest you" (used from King Lear)"Paul is bloody""P is for good-bye" (Yellow Submarine movie, with plenty else: 2 Pauls, one in black and white, in the submarine; No. 49 Here lie buried -- on gravestone, and 4-9 are the numbers of letters in Paul's name)"1 ONE IX ^ HE DIE" (Gravestone drumskin)"Joe Ephgrave" (Epitaph-Grave: as fake author of drumskin design)"OPD" (altered OPP patch)"Another clue for you all: the Walrus was Paul"and on it goes.These sorts of things are consistent.They are not spurious findings of anything one wants to see. They are thematic and consistent.The Fool on the Hill image cartoon in the Magical Mystery Tour booklet has a head crack and a body under the hill for a hand (4 fingers done as a dead white body).I go into some of this stuff in the blog.Things such as "Get back" are songs. Lots of things in the Beatles are songs. Simple. However, if one were to "play around" with the death -- not for mere fun, but cleverly, sadly, what would one find? Exactly what one does find.As to Paul's not really dying:This is ludicrous, prima facie. It would take a serious tragedy to incite such a major change; it would not be done, let's say except in a smug Sandy Hook political ploy, for anything less than a serious problem they faced.Epstein and the other Beatles would have to be knocked off their rocker in confusion to allow this.Sitting back and acting as if, as you are, a hands-off, silly idea would be done (a mere hoax) is already stretching the kind of people we are dealing with: John could play and even be nasty, but focussing on a horrible death for his friend is not his character, for one thing.But to go further and suggest that after some smarmy joke and a real Paul's replacement, he is living and doing fine elsewhere but did the music, requires even further silliness.Please get a grip.If Paul was replaced, it was in expedience for a horrible situation. It could have been pushed and suggested by others, but would take a lot to get the others to think this was okay or would work. It's a major sacrifice to live on the same as before, for one's own benefit -- if one has a decent side -- keeping the "gig" going publicly, if there is a tragedy.If Paul were somewhere else, happy, the palpable discontinuity of emotion in the band at that point (early 1967), with the awkwardness in their photos and manners, would not be seen. They are really not as smiley, and not just pulling fake long faces. It's fairly constant.What is "not real" about Strawberry Field(s)? Well, it's one of the two likely spots on a hill where Paul is likely buried, and the feeling of telling people but not telling people is there. As well, and most surely, the song is about dissociation -- from childhood, from happiness, from people. As such, it is an inner memoir, not only a Paul is Dead clue song.
I will remind you (and those who don't know you, should "listen to me" here about this about you):you should not keep using the term "hoax" since you DO believe there was a replacement.Others who use the term hoax mean there was NO replacement.You simply assert you don't think your ear and mind are hearing a difference in the music.You think the situation is quite REAL; just not a death.Stop using the term "hoax" for that, unless you state every time what you mean.Almost NO-ONE else out there would use the term hoax as you do. Almost no-one does use it that way. You throw a confusion ball into the ring every time you state it's a hoax and then go on to talk about the faces as different. Other people will think you think it is a hoax, in toto. As you do at least see, it is not a hoax, pure and simple.The question you have is about death or not. And as I explained before in other places, and above (just now), since you seem to lose a kind of common sense about what would bring about any switch at all, the only thing which could drive this would be death, and it would have been heart-wrenching and guilt-ridden for the others.No silliness of joke and fatigue playing, or on the other hand "Tavistock PR engineering" (as some say) would bring this about without a real tragedy.In fact, Paul (and John) were too basically honest, direct, sweet in a basic nature, to go along with such a ploy at the level we have it. A quick joke? Maybe. A funny one-off? Maybe. But even then, playing with each other's death really? No.
"..one of the two LIKELY spots on a hill where Paul is LIKELY buried.."Two "LIKELYS" and utter bullshit, Clare. When the question as to where your imaginary dead Paul was buried was asked in your first podcast, you were unable to give an answer and indeed you ignored the question (check it out, people). Now Clare you write that your imaginary dead Paul is buried in one of two LIKELY spots.Three straight questions, Clare:1/ Is your imaginary dead Paul buried on consecrated ground?2/ Is there a memorial of any kindon this so-called LIKELY burial site? By memorial, I mean a gravestone or any other indication that is in keeping with Christian tradition to indicate who is buried there?3/ Since you did not answer the question (when asked) as to where your imaginary dead Paul was buried in your first podcast, can you tell us the FULL details of your source(s) for this "new information" on where your imaginary dead Paul is buried?Or is your PID bullshit nothing more than one big LIKELY story?Three straight answers, please, Clare and none of your Paul-Is-Dead LIKELY story, please.
Dear Frank:Ian won't like what I'm about to do, but I am going to remind you how to argue.However, contrary to what Ian thinks, I am going to do so politely, in the sense that I will assume you have merely forgotten how different aspects of a case may be unknown or in tentative stages, while others may be conclusive and others may be in higher likelihood of hypothesis solution.Now, given that fact, which I am sure you do try to keep aware of for 9/11, JFK, etc.,let us say that if Paul died,we might know the general case was not impossible (considering the timeline gaps, the psychological stress, the general intel which could -- not necessarily did, but could -- surround a famous group) ...we might know of thematic and forensically definite references to such an idea (and indeed, I covered some of these possible "clues" -- I say possible just to act unsure for the moment, as if we were stepping back for a discussion, as Ian would like) ...and we might have direct proofs of personal forensics (or in the case of the USGS study and similar things for 9/11, such as how planes could or could not enter a building such as the Pentagon), we could have direct indications of some other physics question) ...and we could have good guesses, such as about Paul's burial location if he were dead.As such, I already answered you.1. We have no formal indication of the burial, as would be expected without some direct leak. We do have references to a hill (in cartoon with death hand under the hill and in song references). I have mentioned that the major hill in the Beatles' lives, especially John's and to some degree Paul's, was the hill whereupon St Peter's church (with Eleanor Rigby's grave is), and Strawberry Field orphanage, after which John named a song and said he's "told" us about it. If he means he's buried there, it could be consecrated, and the church graveyard is, of course, consecrated.2. We have no idea, nor would we, in a coverup, where the gravestone is, unless they told us. Likely there would be a memorial, yes? If there were a grave, all that you ask would be done. And ... there has to be a grave since he was replaced (photo forensic considerations and the general case support each other), and aside from Stooy44's assumption that Paul could leave and this be done in some totally standoffish way without a death, we can say he's dead, not merely replaced.3. I have gone over the sources for the good guess of the hill. I show (as others have, for years) the cartoon of the Fool with his head cracked by a letter extending through it, and the white left hand's having four fingers done in lengths like a dead body, under the hill in black. I also cover the fact that the hill has a water tower which is done to release by gravity the water for most of old Liverpool, which means it's a prominent hill.I considered for you already, above, as well that the Beatles "pilgrims" are in a way doing honour, if one of these is the location. It would be fitting to bury him in St Peter's churchyard under a pseudonym or in Strawberry Field, under cover of some privacy.A further reference, maybe (and yes, in a cover-up one would expect a few maybes, as Jim points out constantly: a good piece of evidence in a series of them), is that Strawberry Field is listed as Strawberry Fields CEMETERY at merseyside.com tourist site. Scroll up; I talk about it above.
And Frank, cordially let me tell you:I hate repeating myself. Do the work with less viciousness -- as you hope people will do for 9/11 -- and you will learn more the first time, of course.Straight answers for you, Frank; done many times over. Guesses which are within reason, for a case, are fine -- along the way, i.e., even if the case is not closed on the main issue (in this case it would be replacement and death, though replacement is closed, and you don't know it), or even at the end of the decision, i.e., if something about the main case is shut, there can still be loose ends, good guesses, etc., about other aspects.In a cover-up, we must expect such things, yes? As long as the basic case holds together, and some things are strong or definite, we have a likely scenario, and the loose ends are not mere notional guesses; but if something else turned up, they could always be found to be wrong without affecting the main case.That IS a straight answer in an argument, Frank. You know this, I am sure, if you remember from other cases about which you are less hostile.
Clare, your "straight answers""??:1/ We have no formal indication...2/ We have no idea...3/ I have gone over the "sources" for a good "GUESS" of the hill.....the "CARTOON" of the FOOL with his head cracked by a letter extending through it...You call these "straight answers" to my straight questions, Clare?!! You CANNOT be serious!! I suggest YOU learn how to argue and ANSWER my straight questions with STRAIGHT answers. This is hilarious!!!I also suggest YOUR head is CRACKEDwith bullshit extruding from it, Clare.Good Grief!! You are now using CARTOONS(!!??!!) as "sources"(??)!!!LMUHO (Laughing My Uncracked Head Off)
Frank, as I posted below to you about this issue as well:as Jim would say, for the cartoon drawing, you are taking one piece of evidence out of context, ad hoc.Also, again, you are responding to the fact that burial is something we have to reason through, with some possible items of proof (pieces of evidence for a certain line of reasoning), without having a certain hold yet -- maybe ever, due to cover-up -- on what evidence and reasoning is in fact true about the burial location.Want to do a seance? :-/-------Against your ad hoc reasoning about the drawing cartoon of the Fool on the Hill:The cartoon image is part of a booklet. The booklet is part of an artistic compilation. The artistic compilation is part of an album. The album is part of a movie and album theme. The theme is part of a specific year with other themes. The burial idea is referred to in several ways in different places. The year is in an historical position with other years. And the forensics prove the replacement anyway. And the burial location can be reasonably assumed from some lines of argument, to have been therefore related to a hill and the hill which most "crops out" in the history (yes that's a joke on an outcropping, like a hill), is the one with the church of St Peter and the private land of Strawberry Field orphanage.So:If asking about burials, the cartoon has a place as evidence.You are far too knee-jerk to bother to laugh at or with. Your attitude, even if this were NOT true, would never help you find if it were true or not.Next time you see someone treating 9/11 the way you are treating this, think twice.Of course not all claims and cases turn out to be true. This one happens to, or I would not be arguing it. I only take on strong cases, as you will have noticed from my other work, talking of the Altgens, 9/11, Sandy Hook, Boston bombing, Columbine, etc., and you will find me very reasonable there.So let's handle the mouths, the teeth, the ears ...so that you can recognize whether there is a trick for the rest, in your mind. You wouldn't be the only one and you're not going to be the last, so don't feel you are horrible if you have to change your mind, and don't feel you'd be crazy to try.
So, Frank -- not that you're currently open to this, but anyway --"We have no idea" is a statement I made in a set of statements (you seem to be good at ad hoc reading as well as general ad hoc reasoning).I will repeat for you:We can have no firm idea of burial location and still know he was replaced.We can say "no idea" and mean some reasoning about the issue of burial location but be recognizing that it may turn out to be false. It is in that sense that I said "no idea".We can state a case (any case) with knowns, unknowns, good guesses and call them tentative hypotheses within a case.Right? Of course right.
And Frank:Are Don Fox, Jim Fetzer, Nick Kollerstrom, Stooy44 (except the music issue), Tipster, graemebird, GMB and so many others here and elsewhere all my "stooges" as you suggest Amanda is?Of course not.They consider the forensics and/or the circumstantial case, openly. And it all holds up. But it takes patience to know, or find what's likely or unlikely; it takes impatience (such as you exhibit) to merely have a superficial impression either way. And some will never face the relative value of certain kinds of arguments, and continue to insist that outer ear cartilage, for example, being really different, means nothing when they think they have not been tricked ----- by the lying Beatles "machine" and by their own perceptual apparatus.Most of us were tricked. How does a trick work on us? How bad to we feel if we were tricked? Sometimes pretty bad. Sorry about that.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Well, as Sir Paul McCartney would say indeed, since he cannot afford to admit it. :)As to the rest of your statements:The case is provable self-evidently through three easy things.And there is a very strong circumstantial case (as there would be, in a true case).Either way, Paul died. Gone.You can go to my blog, but I am getting the impression you would not work through it carefully. If you wish to start at all with the three self-evident types of forensic photo proof we have, scroll up. There are links above.I suggest you learn about the outer ear cartilage shapes, first. But it's up to you now to do the work.
Isolated proofs, unless they're touted to the public such as DNA or fingerprints, often do not convince as they should.But here is one proof, which is conclusive on its own that you have been tricked:Outer ear cartilage shape:https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-C8EbKUErAOE/UYlz7n8vhjI/AAAAAAAAAP0/Jfef1kpPKk0/s1600/Comparing+their+ears+1.jpgThere are two others (mouth widths at rest and teeth due to space in palate, if you'd listened to the show carefully). Links are above to help you with those.
Clare, you were not around at the time. The Beatles, contrary to what you say, had EXACTLY the types of personalities to want to pull of this hoax. There has never been a collection of bigger smart-asses in history. It was ABSOLUTELY in their characters to want to pull off a stunt like this to see just how gullible their sycophantic fans were, and how much wool they could pull over their collective eyes.To suggest that these dudes were not they types to try something like this is utterly ridiculous and false, and it proves that you were not there at the time and that you have no real comprehension of what was going on in the 1960s during the mania that surrounded the Beatles.Please get a grip. :)
To joke around? Sure.To wish to consistently refer to one member as dead and do so with palpable grief? No.It misses a basic feature of their personalities: they loved the girls, the music, the friendship, the money, the genius of artistic collaboration.They were not hands-off hoaxers with severe psychopathic dissociative tendencies toward their public, with cruelty sustained for years. Covering up their peccadilloes? Yes. Joking for years and actually replacing a member close to them? Not normal, and thus not them. They were normal in many ways.
Clare, yes I believe that as part of the hoax of Paul's death the Beatles did use a replacement look-alike for photographs. This person is pictured in the middle of Sargent Pepper with the OPD on his arm. We all knew this back in the 1960s, this is nothing new. Of course that man is not Paul McCartney. But the whole thing remains a hoax, and my choice of this word is neither misleading nor improper.Anyone who denies that the Beatles used a look-alike as part of the hoax is not well informed.
Again, then, you do not mean it all was a hoax, as in, a LIE in clues other than the man himself in photos.Most people think hoax means there was NO CHANGE IN PHOTOS.
Clare, Clare...I think that the alleged death of Paul McCartney was a hoax (although I do admit that maybe you are right). Part of the hoax, in my opinion, was the use of photographs of a look-alike, yes.But until I hear a difference, and I promise you that I am still trying to do so with an open mind/ear, I will not be convinced that the alleged death of Paul McCartney was anything more than a hoax, however elaborate. But again, I admit that maybe the first Paul did die... anything is possible.Mr. Fetzer often refers to the epistemological notion of inference to the most likely explanation. Well, it seems to me that the most reasonable inference from the evidence is that the Beatles perpetrated a hoax.For that impostor who is pictured on the Sargent Pepper album, among other places, to have also been able to play left-handed bass and sing so much in the manner of the person he looked like is of course possible, but I think a better inference from all of this is to conclude that probably the alleged death of Paul McCartney was a hoax brought about in part by use of a person who looked very much like Paul McCartney.I am sorry if I cause confusion, and I do want to set the record straight. Yes, I believe there was a look-alike used in pictures. But no, I do not believe that he ever sang or played bass in the recordings.
No, Stooy44,you only cause confusion when you say it was a "hoax", since most people mean completely a hoax and you don't.As to the reason for this: again, there is no natural way for this to have been done by a shocked young John and the rest, and a devastated Epstein (as Nick pointed out, this is likely the case), without a real crisis at hand, not some nicey (non-death) version of a nasty (for the public) joke.So you will do best to revisit your assumptions about the music; I cannot help you further there. The man in all other ways was replaced and the naturalness of a crisis to provoke this is the most likely scenario to get this historically to have been done, thus the music must differ in ways you are not noticing.Just as for the faces, for others, they have to have been tricked because of certain things we can point to as differing in the heads and teeth and mouths and ears ... even if they don't see it perceptually, or think through how faces do change and not change, become similar (they do, even with people who are very different) and become dissimilar between two people.
Seems like the parents of the original Paul would have been able to shred some light on this subject.I am a musician/jazz guitarist. And I have many musician friends. Most of us are in agreement. That George Harrison did not play all the guitar parts on the Beatles records. There are too many different styles of playing at a very high level. George Harrison was not that good of a guitarist. There were studio musicians on those sets coming out after 1966.According to the research of John Coleman, the British invasion was part of the social engineering coming out of the Tavistock Institute much like the Lauryn Cannon music coming out of LA. Coleman claims that the Beatles had professional songwriters helping write their tunes.
I expect several of the top session players of the time such as Jimmy Page, Jeff Beck, Stevie Winwood and John Paul Jones played on some of the Beatles records. It was common back then to use session players uncredited. Often it was for non-nefarious reasons such as scheduling conflicts.I am of the opinion that the original generation of Rok n Rollerswas wiped out by the FBI. Some were killed like Buddy Holly, Eddy Cochrane and Richie Valens, some were scandalised like Jerry Lee Lewis and Chuck Berry, others were pushed out of the limelight like Elvis joining the army and Little Richard becoming a preacher.The British bands that replaced them were, in part, I believe, under the control of the establishment. The Beatles and The Rolling Stones being the most obvious, but I believe that some refused to play along, most notably The Animals. The accepted story is that they split p due to management issues and one half of the band being drinkers and the other half being into LSD and pills. Eric Burdon, one of the LSD half eventually moved to LA an became the central figure in the Laurel Canyon scene, so I strongly suspect he did agree to work for 'the man'. Chas Chandler, of the drinking half of the Animals went into management, determined to fight against the exploitative record companies. He discovered Hendrix and it is very likely that it was the refusal of Chandler and Hendrix to work for 'the man' that lead to Jimi's death, which was totally avoidable and the fact that the stupid bitch who caused his death was never prosecuted suggests strongly that she was working for the people who Hendrix refused to work for.
Coleman's claims are unsubstantiated and impossible, in their suggestion about Adorno as anything other than in his own right, some kind of well-placed agent (a socially prominent man for German Leftist-Intel circles, which he seems indeed to have been).The parents of Paul were: one dead (Mom), and one (Dad) had to be convinced to help the legacy continue through a live band. We discussed this on the show.As to the idea others played on Beatles records:there is some possibility, but it is just as likely that they controlled their own sessions and did not let others play. It is unknown.The major break-up was obviously psychologically in the works since the time Paul died and the pressure was on, but it would have come to the fore with other problems -- money, etc., as indeed happened.Thank you for the thoughts on Hendrix. I don't know why he was killed, but he was (forensically we can tell, from the last doctor's repeated statements and the paramedics).
Ian, I do think that some of the musicians deaths were assassinations. Lennon is obvious. Hendrix maybe. But why didn't they kill the Canadian Neil Young? "Four dead in O-hi-O."Do you think they killed Jim Morrison in Paris?Do you think they sabotaged Duane Allman's motorcycle? Lynyrd Skynyrd's plane?Keep in mind that sometimes these maniacs re-write history to try to take credit for things which were actually not their responsibility?It seems to me that Hendrix may simply have passed out stoned and drowned in his own vomit.What about Brian Jones?
Not sure about some of these cases. Morrison, I think he might have been bumped off, given who his father was and that he may well have been a mind control subject.Skynyrd, that, I am sure, was an accident, that plane should never have been flying, Aerosmith used it and said they would never fly in it again, I was a deathtrap. I don't see how Skynyrd were a threat.Allman, well, who knows, was he a threat?Hendrix choked on a painkiller, the woman who was with him was responsible, she took a very long time to call an ambulance and when the ambulance guys got there they found an empty fat with the door wide open. It seems likely that she basically waited until he was dead before calling the ambulance. People have a very wrong image of Hendrix, he wasn't into drugs much at all, he had a lot of discipline, remember he was a soldier. Others like Clapton and Page were far deeper into drugs and bad drugs. Hendrix was a black man on the verge of becoming the biggest star in the music world, he wasn't someone they could control, so he had to go.Bob Marley is the most obvious murder. A US documentary crew turned up, the director happened to be the son of a CIA director, he gave Bob a pair of cowboy boots. When Bob tried them on a small copper wire pierced his big toe. The toe became inflamed and Bob, being a believer in holistic healing, didn't seek medial help. A year later, playing football, the toe was injured and it really turned bad. When he finally saw a doctor, it was too late, cancer had set in and it came from that toe. Clearly, the CIA assassinated him using a fast-acting cancer virus.
For sure Marley was assassinated. Lemmy claims to have gotten lots of LSD for Hendrix. And as I noted earlier, I have a now departed uncle who did arrest Hendrix at the Toronto airport when reefers fell out of his hair. Jimi was not Mr. Clean.With respect to Skynyrd and Allman, I do not see how they were threats, so maybe they were accidental.But what about Neil Young? He produced a hit song, Ohio, about the Kent State massacre of students at the direct instructions of the squad leader who can be heard telling the troops to aim and fire what turned out to be live rounds. Four dead in Ohio.And to this day Neil Young has remained very political, his latest crusade being the horrible pollution created at what are known as the Alberta Tar Sands.Why haven't they taken him out? If, that is, they are in the business of taking bothersome rock stars out. And for sure with Marley and Lennon at least, they are in this business.
I agree with you Stooy, Jimi was not Mr Clean, but he wasn't the drug-addled person he was made out to be. They grossly exaggerated his drug taking after his death in order to diminish his image. Johnny Cash probably took more drugs that Jimi but wasn't someone they wanted to discredit.Lemmy is one guy who I would listen to and believe, he's a straight-shooter and his account of Jimi's death is the one I gave in my previous post. Jimi's death wasn't about illegal drugs, it wasn't a rock star dying in his own vomit due to over-indulgence, it was a tragic 'accident' that was probably the same sort of accident that befalls a lot of people the establishment find to be troublesome.Young, well, I can only guess that while he was highly respected among his peers; he never had the public profile or stardom on the same level as Marley or Lennon. Certainly here in England, he wasn't even close to the level of star, a lot of people would have been unaware of him.
Stooy44 and Ian:Neil Young may be more in the know but keeping his head down, than you thought. Dave McGowan covers the situation around Neil Young, particularly the others who were with him.
Stooy44:On Jones and on Hendrix, I have extended information and links on my blog. Do a search for their names and scroll to find the sections.youcanknowsometimes.blogspot.com (then click on the right at Dec 2013 for the PID page)
For those not familiar with this topic:http://educate-yourself.org/cn/colemanbeatlesandAquarianConspiracy01mar07.shtml
We all know the press has been controlled since WWII. How do we explain the massive TV coverage given to the Beatles in the early 60s?IMO, everything in the MSM is part of a political agenda.
Oh come on, Frank.Get a grip.When Stooy44 comes on he always talks of "a hoax" and then addresses ONLY the music, and has said so. It misleads the general readership.In that sense, I am clarifying what the position is, and it is important to do so.
Clare, you should take note of the large amount of sheer hatred you are inspiring in people.Why do you think that is?Could it be because you're arrogant, obnoxious, overbearing and talk down to everyone?You need to learn to present your arguments in a less offensive way an to debate with people, because right now, you don't debate, you just preach at people and it's earning you a huge amount of outright hatred, scorn and derision.Until you learn some debate skills and learn to speak to people in a better manner that doesn't come across so badly you'll get nowhere.As it is, you'e done nothing to convince people PID, all you've done is piss off a lot of people.Think about that, act on it, or be doomed to be denigrated.
The "listen to me" was a joke pun on John's statement in the song.The "obnoxious, talking down" idea you have of me is from the change between my first attempts to be clear and direct without asserting, and what later became my attempts to keep fielding nonsense which got repeated.How about you realize the case is proved and get on with it.My arguments aren't merely mine; and the Tavistock deflection (though it is part of the story), or the "Featles" or the "it didn't happen at all" or the "it happened but not in the music, only in a switch of people" (Stooy44) only obscure the main points.Stooy at least comes close to getting it. Do you?Jim also gets pissed off after a while. He is accused of all you say here, too. How about that? Have some respect for me and the case -- and other things I've done -- and I'll stop having to repeat myself and I can go back to being more discussion oriented.
But, Ian, I'll grant you:there is hatred, scorn and derision, and a lot of it has nothing to do with my manner as well:some people hate this topic, as if it's unimportant if true (which I think you know is not the case if it's true),and because it hits close to home: their personal perceptual acuity (but a trick is a trick, and no-one is bad for falling for one),and because I'm female (yes, that plays a role overtly or deep down, in a lot of the maligning, as Jim pointed out in another thread).I've done much work, not only on Paul is Dead. Check it out and no, I'm not actually against your process of incorporating a new case into your being, Ian.But discussion has its limits: some things are not useful for a discussion. Maligning (it goes on), and outright silliness of position (all answered by me and others), do not help the position's clarity coming through.
Jeez, it's clear now, Clare is so arrogant and convinced she is right and everyone else is wrong that it is absolutely pointless trying to talk some sense into her.Most people, when running into such a vast amount of derision would wonder what they have done to deserve it, not Clare, it's everyone else's fault they hate her.Hopeless case I'm afraid.P.S. PID is very far from proven, very far indeed...
Jeez, Ian:You sound puerile. You are so upset by this situation of a proof which you do not see yet, even though the teeth as palate space-affected prove it and the ears -- alone.The "Now listen to me" was due to a joke on John's song. I hate repeating myself to people's insults.The "BUNCH OF MAYBES" is an ARGUMENT POINT: it is how EVIDENCE ADDS UP DURING A PROCESS, to remind you that EVEN IF the case is decided against that evidence, it was called evidence when presented.And -- the forensics are not a bunch of evidentiary circumstantial case material. They are evidentiary conclusive pieces, which also fit a broader bunch of "maybes" which are evidence along the way until the decision is made finally.I was being kind in pointing out how the word EVIDENCE is used in the sense of tentative, while a case is argued, and also how the word EVIDENCE is used at the end when the case is decided for one argument over another.
The Beatles created the Beatles, Tavistock has nothing to do with it. Of course, after the fact they are telling lies to try to make us believe that they had and have this much power, but this is not true.The maniacs trying to control this planet often try to re-write history and take credit for things they were not responsible for to try to make themselves look more powerful than they really are, so as to put us in greater fear of them and allow them to more completely dominate us.Do not believe it.Every time there is an earthquake or a hurricane they try to "leak" information to make us believe they were responsible for it. Lies.Again, the Beatles created the Beatles. Their music is absolute genius, and they did it themselves.
Agreed absolutely, Stooy44.But the Tavistock/PR/cult-intel folk (whatever combination is actually the case here, and we cannot be exact in this), did come around and -- through Sir Paul's interests and friends, too, most likely -- influence the other three's interests a bit for a while.But they branched off again. They were their own people. It got them into hot water.
Stooy44" make us believe they were responsible for it...."WZS - Wizard of Oz SyndromeJust draw the curtain and it's a mouse with a megaphone.
Somewhat beside the point of this particular debate is the incredible genius of the Beatles.In my view, none of them was a genius in his own right. But the collection of the four of them lead to one genius.You had McCartney as the lover-boy romantic, Lennon as the political activist, Harrison as the philosophical mystic and Starr as the clown.Some of the greatest music ever created. (Whether Paul died or not.)
Agreed they were wonderful, as a group and individually. Yes. I love them all -- all 5 -- in different ways.
Clare, I should also add that in my opinion the person how played on the roof was the original and real Paul, and I also believe that the man who played in Wings was the original and real Paul, and the man who came to Ottawa for a concert about a year ago was the original and real Paul.I do believe that for a period from about 1966 to 1969 the real Paul stayed more or less out of the public eye, though he did continue to do all of the vast amounts of studio work the Beatles did during this time period.I think that the impostor was used only for a couple of years, during this era, for some photographs and maybe also for some film clips.With respect to any possible film clips purporting to be Paul from this brief time period they would have to be carefully considered individually, especially in any where Paul speaks.It might be a good idea for you to look for these types of clips for analysis.
Hardly the same man. Boppy little friendly Paulie who played to crowds with a winning smile, constant aliveness of body, quick mannerisms, slower only when holding back for an interview?No way.
Clare, please, you should recognize that I am doing my best to give you every chance to convince me on this. Find some clips that are purported to be Paul from this time period where the man speaks and I will have a look.Personally I do not care if Paul died and was replaced or not. I have no agenda here. I continue to listen to try to detect differences. And I will readily admit it if I hear any.Show me some film clips with the man speaking, the man you say is the replacement, film clips from the years after Paul allegedly died, and before the concert on the roof.Keep trying to convince me. Even if you do not succeed you will still be bolstering your own case.
Stooy44:I know you are doing your best, Stooy.I have outlined typical differences in their manners of singing and speech, before. Some are listed above. The songwriting and singing styles differ, but it's harder to discuss that in words.One major thing to notice -- but it is not alone, and not "the" thing, as in, it is one piece of evidence in a mass of things, not a singular item to "prove it outright" -- is that Sir Paul tends to hold back when emotional and needing to feel through some big volume of sound. Instead, Paulie tended to express a flow-through until maybe his voice broke. Sir Paul, in various places, holds back, so that he sounds rough, but it's by NOT feeling the feeling through. An example which is obvious of his pulling back is where Sir Paul holds back on "Why don't we do it in the road". He just refuses his voice and breath to feel the line through. Paul didn't do that, choking himself. He would, if it was required, belt something out and crack his voice naturally.Also, direct measurements of voice are not possible either: one needs to translate voice into a voice print first, whereas a measuring rod will do for an ear cartilage angle.
The different singing styles is not sufficient to prove anything. It is possible that as Paul got older his singing style changed, perhaps of necessity since he may have reached a point where he could not do the same things he used to be able to do. This happens to singers sometimes. What is important is the tone of the voice. So, even if I were to agree with you and grant what you say to be true about the technique, this would not change anything unless the tone is different, unless, to put it simply, it is a different voice.Maybe the singer of Let it Be does not have the same abilities as the singer of Yesterday. But this does not mean it is not the same singer. I believe a comparison of the speaking voices might be useful if you could find the clips.
Stooy44:Go looking for some clips where you feel they may have some difference.Yesterday has some similarities to Sir Paul at times, and would be expected to. He has a similar voice range. But Yesterday also has a soft -- oh there's not really a word for it -- soft transition between words, such that Paulie (and this is subtle, okay?) sometimes really almost sang from the throat/stomach rather than merely mouthing the words. His breath is more natural; he feels (expresses) the song not as emotion only but in the body. It brings out different results. This is something which can be argued from the results, back to the psychology -- not mere psychologically idiosyncratic theorizing on my part, as some like to think.He also always moves to the music, at some points truly "zinging" a bolt of rippling timing-energy through his legs and head, or at other points almost always tapping a toe and leg. These are things in the body.As to the voice: I have gone over some things. I can't discuss it more.At least you hear "ability" difference between Let It Be and Yesterday.Now you need to ask yourself, what kinds of abilities, and what could or could not change to make those specific changes, tendencies, etc.You will find (I think) such a change is already in evidence in Sgt Pepper and so on. Yes, he has a similar range, and does slur the odd word trying to be like Paul, but he is ... I don't know how to put it in words, brassy? Showy? But also does care -- Blackbird is very feeling.He does tend to think, or pose in his songs. But he has a lot of gifts and can really enjoy music, too. It's a different kind of thing with Paul, though: he's a feeler, a songbird albeit in rock and roll style. It's hard to put into words.
Get lives. Live them. Move on. I get so excited to see all the activity here on the home page.. Hundreds of comments when a year or 2 ago there'd be 1 or 2 and now 50 essays about Paul freaking mcartneys facial structure. I'm an illustrator. I've studied anatomy, a musician, a photoshop professional and I study music trends, fashion and the like and I can tell you that absolutely all the photos and recordings of the Beatles are the same 4 blokes. Now get on with it
I am a serious artist (or was) and know bone structure well, and can force myself to notice differences and similarities; artists who do not see the difference are doing what Stooy44 is doing audially (though he admits the man in photos is different). What are you doing? You are taking an overall impression -- which can be similar, in some ways: an eye expression in one, a chin attitude in another -- and forming an overall impression which you are not questioning is physically possible in the same man, or if it's an impression which is composite, between two men with different reasons for the similarities, such as: one has a longer chin, the other a long chin when pulling it down or smiling (skin only), and so on.As to money: hardly, Frank. Just ask Jim how poor I am. Jeesuss.
Besides, stevie.t -- whatever Frank wants to say about me -- start with the ear cartilage.Learn the teeth and the reason for the difference, not thinking "oh orthodontics fix stuff" -- palatal difference is required for the kind of difference seen in the teeth.Doesn't matter what your impressions overall have been in the trick:For comparison of outer ear cartilage with demonstration lines to help notice the different shapes, see:http:// 4 . bp . blogspot. com / -C8EbKUErAOE/UYlz7n8vhjI / AAAAAAAAAP0 / Jfef1kpPKk0 / s1600/Comparing+their+ears+1. jpgFor more information on teeth, see: http:// plasticmacca. blogspot. com / 2010/01 / forensic-science-proves-paul-was. html (and yes, the doctor in the article is a real doctor, who worked also on the Mussolini case, as evidenced here, including with a photo of her: http:// www. ilduce. net / specialemorteduce. htm )For mouths at rest see: http://i366. photobucket.com / albums / oo110 / faulconandsnowjob / freak_out_faul_mccartney. jpgi366. photobucket. com / albums / oo110 / faulconandsnowjob / paul_hand_faul. jpgdigilander. libero. it / p_truth / the_truth / faul_paul_eye_distance_comparison. jpgAnd the mouths at rest. Paulie's is often quite narrow. Sir Paul's goes narrow when he opens it for a pout.
Clare's PID work is on the same level as Simon Shack's 9/11 work - very flawed, very incompetent, very full of holes.Just as Shack has made up his mind that all is fake and nothing will shift him from that view, so Clare has decided PID and will never shift an inch.The problem with Clare and Shack is a stupendous level of arrogance and conceit. The main flaw their work shares is a complete inability to consider ALL evidence regardless of whether it conveniently fits their hypothesis or not. There is still a LOT of evidence that should be examined regarding PID, and until ALL AVAILABLE evidence is thoroughly studied then the hypothesis remains unproven.It is simply the proper scientific method to study ALL AVAILABLE evidence and until that is done, no hypothesis can be fully proven.Maybe one day some proper researchers who do follow the proper scientific method will prove PID, but it won't be Clare because she isn't going about the task properly.
Ian:you are simply wrong that I am to be compared to Shack in the way you think of him.He has, of course, amassed a lot of great evidence for media lying. In that I am similar.But as we discussed on other threads, his not being careful about some footage, assuming all to be problematic all the time (such as the photos of the hole at the bottom of the towers, etc.), his conclusions get way off. That would be more like the people who end up thinking other Beatles were replaced, that there was some revolving door ("revolver door" -- ha ha, just kidding) -- or that the whole idea is a hoax for fun, a mere "toy" for John and Paul (the original) to have fun with.And, no, Ian:the evidence on the basic material is good enough to know the man now Sir Paul is not the same man.But yes, Ian:not all features of the case can be settled: the cover-up is more closely controlled than a big event like 9/11 or JFK's death could be. We can only make a good guess as to where the burial was, for example.As Jim has pointed out: I am fine on the scientific reasoning method of what I am pointing out.
Stop being a moron Ian. Do you have some sort of new theory of adult skull morphology? If not you are the incompetent one. So stupid you should be vomited on.
Graemebird: Ian (and stevie.t and Frank and to a lesser degree Allison) are contesting that the forensic study of 2009 Wired Italia is okay because they used a few photos -- there were reasons those were chosen, primarily because of sure dates attached -- but they left plenty of room for error and explained the types of changes and some are not even camera issues which they found:- The teeth (with a specific reason for difference, not just a few teeth which crowns or pulling one would fix)- the mouth widths at rest - the ears (though I focus people on the outer ear, since it reveals the overall room the ear requires, not the inner shapes so much)
PID remains an unproven hypothesis, regardless of what you claim.Your work is terribly flawed, as is Shacks, but in both cases, you are incapable of grasping that.
Ian, try this for a non-reactive moment, if you will:What makes outer ear cartilage shape differ radically? Larger ear overall, thus not changeable well by surgery.Or how about this:What makes teeth crunched all over slightly and some way out of place? Answer: a small palate. Is that correctable with regular orthodontics? No. But if it were: were orthodontics worn for years and more after mid-1966? No.Does any of that help you see a trick might well be played on your wish that it remain an hypothesis only?
No no. You are full of shit. They are not the same person. Get it through your thick head that they aren't the same person. And you have never come up with a scrap of evidence that they could ever be the same person. For all you low-IQ types that want to claim that they are the same person, make good with the forensic evidence or take your tie and kill yourself in the women's toilet before you pass the stupid gene on. No man's eyes grow closer together in adulthood. They don't. They really don't. Even if you wish upon a star your skull will not lengthen in a matter of months even if you get acromegaly. The problem comes with your parents Ian. You are not that bright. Your father should never have gone near your Mother.
Aside from Ian's Mother and Father, GMB:you are correct, of course, forensically.
Frank, how about ignoring others' insults and cutting down on your own and focussing on the evidence for and, if any, against the thesis.Really.
Ian, I can not find any musician..not one, who agrees with this.Everyone agrees. Its the 50th anniversary and Apple/Paul are doing what they do. PR. And in a conspiracy mad world why not dust off their own death cab for cutie and take it out for a little spin again? They got us on about it. In a place where it would normally never be mentioned. Brilliant. Jim you interviewed Warren Cuccurullo a few years back about 9-11. Are you still in contact?He'd be an interesting guy to run this by...
Many musicians do agree. But just as many artists and fans and thinkers and hangers-on don't SEE IT PERCEPTUALLY IN THEIR MIND'S EYE, though it's there for their physical eye,so, too, many musicians do not "HEAR" it perceptually, though there are many changes to point out audially as well: Some playing differences, some singing typical choking or not choking on emotions in places, some slight audible voice range difference -- but much overlap there -- and some songwriting difference.It is meaningless if many musicians do or don't hear it; same for seeing.If there's a trick, many won't be noticing the sleights of hand and the ways their brains are misfiring.Some will.Many engineers don't "think" 9/11 has to be a fraud.Many in the military don't "think" 9/11 was a fraud.And this issue, of Paul is Dead, has received little serious acclaim, only more recently treated by more people as quite serious. Even in 1969-70 when it was a serious worry, it was more a worry and hope that it was a pure hoax than seriously studied for real, with dedication. Some, however, did.
Hiya ChrisI have to say the same - the musical aspects are a major hole in the PID theory and among my musician friends, we just can't make a good case for there being a difference between Paul 1 and Paul 2.There are other possibilities that remain under-researched, such as the use of a body double. Paul could well have made use of a look-alike at times in the past. Stalin had a very convincing double, but that doesn't mean Stalin was replaced.Read about Felix Dadaev, he was Stalin's double for decades:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-559234/The-man-Stalins-body-double-finally-tells-story.html
Just to put forward a little food for thought on the body double theory, here's one of the comparisons where it does look like two different people:http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/mccartney_cia_impersonator.jpgAnd a pair of comparisons that very strongly look like the same person:http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/aharddayscomp.gifhttp://i45.tinypic.com/1hotxi.jpgIf Clare were to research PID properly, she would consider alternative possibilities such as this body double being used sometimes. Further, she would submit her work for peer review rather than piss off all her peers with her rotten attitude and arrogance.
Some however, let their cheese slip off their bloody cracker.Who?? Dudette, dont just play me like that. Who agrees?
Hey Ian, hope your having a pleasant day. Yesterday I got a couple of friends (experienced musicians all) to listen to most of the show. At the fake mustache and the backwards stuff, they were done. Then we watched most of Help, then MMT. Everybody agrees. Its the same guy. No question about itIts all a freakin PR ploy for the 50th.
Ian:You want peer review? Well, it's out there.And who takes on PID in peer review? Even the doctors who did the work for Wired Italia are ignored or quietly praised (who knows).As to a body double being used: Ian ...the man is consistently the same. Once you get used to how to tell the difference and seeing him, he's he, and that's it. Snapshot differences make a little difference, and that's all.There are others who will assert differently, and they tend to be (as you) deniers of the situation, or (as Allison and sometimes Tina, unfortunately) either deniers who think there were multiple replacements circling through the Beatles or that Paul was gone but there were also constant replacements for some reason for some of the Beatles.YOU and a few others are pissed off at me. Some are not.You know why? I keep you on track. Sorry about that.Start getting pissed off at Jim, instead. He'd tell you what's hogwash, after dealing with a case for a long time, too. And he's good at telling what is and isn't, much of the time.Tina Foster is, too, by the way, but it stops at Paul for her on that, since she's become uncareful about John: she's gone on a personal impression, not actual overall case for that. John's idiosyncratic lovableness and problems and voice and manner and face stay the same, only age and get radically thinner and more serious more often.You want to know why sometimes Paul and Sir Paul look similar?- Sometimes it's doctoring- Sometimes it's that one has moved his chin or angled his eyes a certain way and yet the rest of the face will be differentDo you want me to WRITE OUT what is consistent between only Sir Paul and himself there, versus only Paulie and himself there, in your two comp examples?Do you want me to explain in words how shadows are working, how mouths are naturally different, in what circumstances a mouth will be wider from pulling it more versus from natural slight width difference, how the eye width is not matching, or the angle changes the perspective so the longer bones are less obvious, or the brows can seem similar but only under certain circumstances, or how catching an eye a certain angle (when it's been made droopy) will show a lot more in one angle than another, ...NO you don't.It is WAY too much for every comp.I COULD BUT IT WOULD BE A TOME to do with every comp.Suffice to say:Sir Paul is Sir Paul.Paulie is Paulie.And certain things will overlap in similarity at times, giving an impression of similarity until the comp is separated again and only Paulie is compared to Paulie and Sir Paul to Sir Paul.AT THAT POINT one can see --are you still with me, here? --AT THAT POINT one can see, if one bothers, that the REASONS for the similarities differ in the two people.For example, one ALWAYS has a longer chin; one ONLY when angled a certain way ...or whatever.Sir Paul is Sir Paul, and I'm sorry, Ian, because you hate categorical statements ...but I hope that my outlining even generally, as I did above, SOME of the reasons I can state that categorically, will show you I DO have CONSISTENT reasons, if I were to write them out for every comp.
Chris Amundsen:Do you note what you found with the musicians?THEY SLIGHTLY FREAKED at the idea that "it was a fake moustache" could be there.When one of them calms, ask him to listen again and see if he hears it. He may say, "Yah but that doesn't MEAN anything was done."That's the most likely reason.It hit close to home: AUDIAL.And for an artist, what hits close is visual. So when you say, Look at the Cartilage, they say, "Man, I'm done."It does not mean the case is not true.
LOL, no Clare, they freaked cause nobody in their right mind would ruin a record player and the lp to listen to some backwards jibberish. We hear it. We just assess it differently. Man, how to say this. I dont suppose you've ever been in a recording studio, high as hell, just fewking around with stuff because you can.This is all about being high as hell and playing around in the studio. Its really no more than that. And now its about PR. Sorry all you non players bite on this stuff...but your just falling for a 45 year old joke...again
Peer view, Clare? What peer view, Clare? There's only you and a couple of wacko Italian "scientists" who believe this PID bullshit.Peer view??!! LOL
Frank, you still don't understand at all, do you, how many people know of this issue, how many are open to it and who are convinced, but even were that not so:- The scientists are real scientists- The work is disparaged as you do, without bothering, as is most 9/11 research in most workplaces, even of people who do the same work (lots of pilots and lots of engineers and physicists do to that what you're doing here, and PID is certainly not at the level of political movement as 9/11 to garner more formal support as at least 9/11 has some of, openly),and your claim of bullshit is vacuous, since you do not seem to understand what ears do and don't do naturally,or how palates crunch teeth or don't,let alone how trickery works on the human mind: hearing, seeing, thinking.You would do better in other cases with people who doubt those such as you're doing here, to at least understand your current prejudicial errors of reasoning, even IF this case were not true in the end.
PID Latest!!Clare Kuehn has now revealed that not only does she use old photographs (two sets) and old videos as "sources" for her PID twaddle, she also uses "CARTOONS"!!!This PID shit is getting funnier and weirder by the minute!! CARTOONS as "sources"??!! It's time you brought Amanda back for some moral support, Clare. CARTOONS as "sources"!!!You just got to laugh, don't you??
Frank, as Jim would say, you are taking one piece of evidence out of context, ad hoc.The cartoon image is part of a booklet. The booklet is part of an artistic compilation. The artistic compilation is part of an album. The album is part of a movie and album theme. The theme is part of a specific year with other themes. The burial idea is referred to in several ways in different places. The year is in an historical position with other years. And the forensics prove the replacement anyway. And the burial location can be reasonably assumed from some lines of argument, to have been therefore related to a hill and the hill which most "crops out" in the history (yes that's a joke on an outcropping, like a hill), is the one with the church of St Peter and the private land of Strawberry Field orphanage.So:If asking about burials, the cartoon has a place as evidence.You are far too knee-jerk to bother to laugh at or with. Your attitude, even if this were NOT true, would never help you find if it were true or not.Next time you see someone treating 9/11 the way you are treating this, think twice.Of course not all claims and cases turn out to be true. This one happens to, or I would not be arguing it. I only take on strong cases, as you will have noticed from my other work, talking of the Altgens, 9/11, Sandy Hook, Boston bombing, Columbine, etc., and you will find me very reasonable there.So let's handle the mouths, the teeth, the ears ...so that you can recognize whether there is a trick for the rest, in your mind. You wouldn't be the only one and you're not going to be the last, so don't feel you are horrible if you have to change your mind, and don't feel you'd be crazy to try.
Also:of course the photos are old. They are also of different men.Would you say Paulie didn't have brown eyes, just because in all old colour photos he has brown eyes? What "twaddle" ... whose twaddle? Yours.Finally: of course one must be careful WHAT things one uses from any item, including old photographs.Teeth showing crunching from palate is something an old or new clear photo can tell. Yes? Of course, if the photo is clear.Totally different ear cartilage outer rims angles can be told, yes? Of course, if the photo is clear.And so on.
Just as with any would-be debunker out of his league on a subject, I suggest you stop the ad hoc and ad hom reasoning you're using,JUST TO FIND OUT if you are in fact correct.But let me warn you:Outer ear cartilage shape accounts for an overall ear size and shape, thus is not changeable.And teeth without room do not become teeth with room -- without serious work done.And mouths at rest, and green eyes (with other photos doctored) do not become other than they are.Just to give you some sense that perhaps what's "Daffy" is your ignorance -- at present.Any time you want to change that, you can.And by the way:I KNOW WELL THAT NOT ALL WEIRD CLAIMS ARE TRUE; SOME ARE. KNOWING HOW TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE IS PART OF MY (and your) JOB. Why not try to figure out if you're doing yours ON THIS issue. Just in case ears don't do in one person what you ignore they do here in two people. And so on.
Clare, how about you cutting the bullshit and answering the questions on your sources for believing that your imaginnary dead Paul is buried in one of two LIKELY spots. Cut your blatant divesionary tactics. Concentrate on answering the questions and leave the "cartilage" crap out of it.
I went over the reasoning about the as-yet-unknown burial place. We can make a reasonable hypothesis, is all.And I went over the lines of evidence for that hypothesis.- Hill with Fool (there's more on why the Fool links to Paul as a resurrection image, if you go to my blog or think about it)- Line of song about Paul and clues overtly stated (Glass Onion) talking about residing on a hill- Dead-man hand in image of Sir Paul as Fool on Hill (thematic link) with cracked head too (the drawing cartoon)- Eleanor Rigby (St Peter) Paul song connection / Strawberry Field John song connection- Pilgrim effect if buried on that hill- Merseyside.com calling Strawberry Field a cemetery on its home page.These are suggestive thematic and humanly reasonable ways to argue that John and the rest might well have chosen a hill, that hill, and why.But the CARTILAGE AND TEETH PROVE THE MAIN ISSUE: OF REPLACEMENT.So, if you really are worried about the burial plot, whose location is not admitted in other ways than I give you here, and thus is more covered up than the actual replacement could ever be, fine, worry about the burial plot. I make a case here it's on that hill.If you want to learn whether the actual man was replaced at all, and if there was any surety to this PID case AT ALL, then learn the cartilage and teeth, rather than start with things which are not truly known yet, and think therefore that you can overthrow an entire issue by a part of it which is subsidiary.We don't need to know where the body is to know he's not Sir Paul.Right? There is a relative difference in those issues' importance, right? Of course.
"We don't need to know where the body is to know he's not Sir Paul MCartney."OMG What a ridiculous statement to make, Clare!!That really says a lot about you and your PID rubbish, Clare. So we just take your word for it, Clare? PID is real because Clare Kuehn says it's real. Forget about proof!! You're pathetic, Clare.Your statement above shows clearly what a con you really are!
To repeat for the umpteenth time, Frank, since you are so prejudiced about anything I say you misrepresent it to yourself and it comes out in a skewed way:There is a relative value to proof of replacement and proof of body.If there is a death and replacement, direct proof of death would prove the death part conclusively, but the replacement could be known by other means.There is plenty of proof of replacement; consistent tooth, ear and mouth at rest issues, plus (if one knows how to assess it, measure, be careful, consider why certain shapes fool the overall perception or not) there is bone structure proportion difference and a consistently taller impression for Sir Paul, except the exact measure of that is a bit off by each camera and angle.For the death itself, the situation is, prima facie, likely rather than replacement but a joke. Once one knows there was replacement, one can posit why. A death is what is indicated and also what is most likely as a crisis for a catalyzing event.And the burial is covered up (pun intended). So what can we reason about it? Well, as I have said -- I repeat -- we can reason quite a bit about it. But beyond that, we cannot know if our reasoning is right. We have evidence pointing toward the hill with St Peter's church and Strawberry Field orphanage, and it comes from several lines of reasonable hypothesizing: about Beatle clues, about emotional significance to the Beatles and their fans, about the geography of the region, about Merseyside.com as a possible place where someone put a clue mention.But we cannot test it ourselves. It is testABLE, but not by us. Someone who is not in the coverup and who is police, and who would not be stopped, could find out, sure. But that is not likely to happen in such a coverup, now is it?One way or another, you don't have to "take my word" for it. It is all reasoning and background in the case.No conning:There is a relative difference in the issue of body burial and instead replacement forensics.If we have the replacement forensics and no exact burial spot as a sure thing, we can understand there was a real basis to the clues of grief. We can then hypothesize as reasonably as possible about what remains covered up: which is, pun intended, the dead body.
Frank:I can't believe you don't realize ... thatYOU DON'T NEED A DEAD BODY LOCATION AT ALL TO PROVE REPLACEMENT.One could have the opposite situation, which is no photos or voice records for someone but a known continued person claiming to be someone, and a dead body for the original person. In that case, one has a dead body but no OTHER proof of replacement.We are in the situation where we have proofs of replacement and subtle or not-so-subtle references to a death; but even if we had NO references to a death, the likeliest crisis cause for a replacement is death (the "all is fake all the time and anybody will do anything" crowd here notwithstanding).And we have some suggestions as to where that victim of death might have ended up: on a hill, and possibly quite close to home, not far away, given the closeness of love of home which the Beatles shared originally.
And Frank:why would I mention Jim's name? Because he outlines in this broadcast and both before it on this subject, and in many places, how ad hoc reasoning does not allow pieces of evidence to line up;cross examination tactics approach the evidence as ad hoc, and are important in case there is some glaring hole in something, or in case the line of reasoning is not solid in the context of the evidence even IF something about the evidence is solid in itself.But ad hoc reasoning never shows whether the evidence has a pattern. Sometimes the pattern tells a lot, and leads to more work's being done.That is what happened with PID. There was a lot of evidence for a pattern, but it was a "maybe", a suggestion maybe, and forensic work was done after.Once that is done, those evidences of something going on show themselves to be actual evidence in the final analysis, as well as called evidence during the process. Evidence is a term used during the process of working through a case, as well as as a final name for what is decided as "real" evidence of something at the end.
All right Clare, I am gradually becoming closer to being convinced. I am now at the point where I know exactly what would probably convince me.Find a clip of Paul with his voice clearly audible. Find a clip of the replacement (provable by the ears, teeth, whatever) with the voice clearly audible. If I am certain that I see two different people, but cannot detect any difference in the voices, then I might be persuaded.I would love to get a grip. :)
Hi, Stooy44. I meant no insult with the "get a grip", but it's rather much to say an audio clip can be argued as well in words if the voices and manners are being mock-copied at times, than to argue physical differences which have forensic consistencies.What can be done is to say:Paul has a softer tone, slightly. He also has a kinder, less posing manner (in voice and body), but Sir Paul was sometimes buoyed by enthusiasm, too -- in a different way.We can say that Paul tended to feel through a line, not choke his voice, unless doing a simple "ah-hey, a-hey hey hey" type of Buddy Holly thing. But his voice would crack from flow-through, is what I meant, not choke up on a main line: he'd have sung "Why Don't We Do It In the Road" with directness, candour of breath (flow-through), and if forcing too much the voice would get rasp maybe a bit, or break on a high note, but Sir Paul starts with a very choked emotion.Sometimes the tones of voice sound similar, I'll grant, as an overall thing.Paul wrote silliness or soppy things in a blues-American 50s style more often, not things like "Maxwell's Silver Hammer", and if he had, he'd have sung it most likely with more cleverness in harmonies.These are kinds of things to notice. But with audio which is fairly similar a lot of the time, the best would be a formal voice print. As I've said, they cost $15-25 K, according to one expert (only one) who wrote back to me at all. (So much for the idea that average experts in any field will even consider there is a difference in something than an official story.) And formal voice print forensics COURT protocol can only be done, he said, on spoken voice. -- Of course, if something is radically different enough, it can be told by a song, too.Dr Henry Truby did a song vocal comparison and found differences. Unfortunately, not only is that not, supposedly, protocol, but we don't have a write-up for his work, so we can't do quality checking of a peer review on it.Just think on the kinds of things I've pointed out. You will hear the difference maybe at some point, but it is not always strongly different, and again, it is in certain tendencies moreso than others.
This is all subjective voodoo bullshit, Clare. Unscientific, pseudoscientific claptrap with no basis in truth or fact. Stop trying to do a snow job on the impressionable and young boy, Stooy44.You have not provided a shred of proof for your ridiculous PID balderdash. Your PID nonsense is based on the doubtful and useless "analysis" of old photos, videos and cartoons!!
Old or new, Frank:the teeth are radically different,the outer ear cartilage is,and many photos show consistent differences.The "cartoon" was part of a thematic context of constant references. Your ad hoc thinking -- sorry Ian for sounding strident, but Frank is full of ad hoc thinking, even deflecting onto the burial site instead of the forensics first -- your ad hoc thinking, Frank, is never going to get you to even guess it might be true.You will find that in any argument. Try on the big picture; put it all together as maybes; see what holds and what's most important (such as forensic arguments); get to learn the general case as you go.Always. Not just here.Stooy44 is older, I think, by the way, since he says he was into wondering about it when it happened.And learn what's pseudo- and what's scientific. You're nowhere there yet.Teeth. Outer ears. Start there. These photos are fine for that.
I do not find you insulting Clare. I like your style and admire your determination. I think you waste too much time responding to those who are vulgar and insulting, but that's just me.In the end, I am still not convinced. I am not going to pound my fist on the table and declare that Paul did not die, because I admit that maybe he did. There certainly exists some evidence that points in that direction.But it remains plausible that it was all just a hoax, and until and unless I am convinced otherwise, this is what I will continue to assume and believe.In the final analysis, it does not matter much either way, unless you are Paul McCartney or his replacement.
Well, Stooy44, suit yourself.But again, it was not a hoax if there was ANY replacement at all; there could be a joke replacement and death could be hoax (a limited meaning) in your assessment ...but again, saying "it was all just a hoax" means to EVERYONE ELSE that you think the idea of any differences in Paul and Sir Paul are imaginary and the "clues" stuff was the hoax.
And I don't find you insulting, either. Thanks. I get uppity with some things I say, it's true; I'm impatient after all this time. But I'm not rude, unless it's back at someone, almost ever even then.
So you're now a qualified dentist and otoloaryngologist, Clare?Is there no end to your talents, Clare? Perhaps you could learn to answer questions and avoid using your obvious diversionary "cartilage" tactic?Can you now answer my questions and give details on your sources for your belief that your imaginary dead Paul is buried in one ot two LIKELY spots?
I have done so already in telling you why we can posit anywhere at all for a burial, since we are not otherwise told. (Well, as clue themes we are, but I was meaning more the fact that those clues dovetail with a specific place which could fit them, as well.)AND you can look at the self-evident problems with the teeth (which the doctor mentioned first, anyway) and the radically different ear cartilage outer shapes.Or do you need someone to tell you the obvious?Maybe you have a spot on your face and we need an expert to confirm that. Duh.
And Frank, your getting hung up on the word "likely" shows that you're forgetting what you should remember here, remember?That when considering hypotheses, some may be more likely than others, without being conclusive (as far as inductive reasoning can be, i.e., beyond reasonable doubt).And yes, you can unstick yourself from where the body is, if you can understand the cartilage and teeth. Then come back to the body. I've given a nice argument, a likely place and reasons for its being on that hill, from SEVERAL lines of reasoning (clues from the Beatles that there's a hill involved specifically to do with Paul and a dead body and a -- consistent to the Paul death -- head injury, a location with personal attachment for John and Paul, a location for Beatles pilgrimage emotional honouring, a location with either privacy -- Strawberry Field -- or official ability to put a false gravestone or no name but a nice location and tend it -- St Peter).Get over the fact he was replaced, first, though, since you can't prove his replacement from an as-yet unknown (uncertain) but good hypothetical location for a grave.
As anyone else will see, if they're not your amanuensis, I have answered all your points.- Forensics for the replacement are more important than where the body is, if we have a replacement as well as a death and more information from the replacement at hand than information on the death itself at hand.- Forensics considerations here include some self-evident things, in the sense that the doctor pointed out some reasons the teeth can't be in the same mouth structure without serious surgery and we have no serious surgery on record (no tooth braces, no head brace for palatal surgery), and for the ears we have such radically different ear area as a shape that the outer edge of the ear is quite a different line.And I answered you how we might -- might -- know where the body is, in the general area of that hill, but how it might be a false lead. It is, however, a lead from many lines of reasoning.No avoiding. Any more questions, do ask. But stop your resistance, just in case you find that it's true. Of course, maybe it's not, you could think now. That's fine. But resistance makes you a bad jury member.You do know how prejudice works, I am sure, so you might wish to think on how you are exhibiting extreme prejudice.The only reason you think I'm saying bullshit is that I didn't let you deflect onto a burial site as needed for the proof of replacement; and that I pointed out that if we do discuss burial sites, we can discuss likelier and less likely locations. Police do that all the time, of course.
Well, I've come to the conclusion that we could have a very nice, rational debate about PID if only we could get Clare to butt out. She's too strident, won't listen to anyone else, is incapable of debating, in short, she's a massive impediment a debate. It saddens me because I truly would like to have a nice debate about PID, but with Clare spoiling things, it ain't gonna happen.
Fine, have one. You seem to ignore my points and just mention what you think is strident in what I say.
Ian, how in the hell does the guy come in with Lady Madonna, Hey Jude and Let it Be and then goes to C Moon, Bip Bop, Mary had a Little Lamb and Loup 1st Indian on the Moon?I'll tell you how. Completely crushed by the breaking up of his band. Faul wouldnt have cared less. Why the f**k should he? It was in no part his band. And he barely used the other three to play on his Beatle tracks as it was.Why does Faul fall all apart? It makes no sense in the way this is being told.None. Zip, zero, nada as Jim likes to say
Ian,My dear boy, you're missing the point. It's in the cartilage, you see. You must study the cartilage. The answer is there..in the cartilage. You see? In the cartilage. Yes. Understand the cartilage. Yes. Cartilage. Study the cartilage, my dear boy. Conquer the cartilage!! Remember!! It's the cartilage!! The cartilage! All truth is in the....cartilage.
Frank,My dear boy, if it were fingerprints instead of ear area, would you be so silly as to act as though it is insufficient to argue from that TO A TRICK OF YOUR PERCEPTIONS, not even all occasioned by other people but by your (and most of our) brains?A trick is a trick.
Chris:Sir Paul's "Lady Madonna" has some social awareness which he considered in the subsequent work he did after the split-up;"Hey Jude" is kind, but rather simplistic, as is Lady Madonna. He also forces his voice a lot -- just as in "Why don't we do it in the road".He wrote or at least sang without many harmonic complexities the insipid Penny Lane (though it's got a nice idea in the beginning).He also wrote "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" -- come on.But I'll grant you, some of his work with Wings and later was ridiculous in the extreme;while some (like the pastiche "Honey Pie" and the lovely "Blackbird") was really good with Wings material also containing some real clever songs, albeit in a different style, for the new era.And WHY WOULD SIR PAUL, IF DIFFERENT, CARE ABOUT THE BREAK-UP? Oh come on, here:- He's a person, and had made what he hoped would be friends.- He'd got a lot riding on the continuance of his dream band (after all, it was all he had at that point, and had given up a lot to become part of it).- He was controlling and felt the sting of resentment from the others (this is known from many things which happened; it's not my own supposition at all).- He had to make it on his own.- There were a lot of current (at the time) money and social problems in the running of the business which fatigued and angered all of them.
Chris amundsen:"completely crushed"??!!So like Clare Kuehn, you're a fucking mind reader who can tell us how and what Paul McCartney was thinking.You were fucking there, were you? Is that what you're saying?
Frank, they would have to be completely crushed to do this.It is in reply to people who say it could all be done, but as a joke, with Paul (and even other Beatles) simply switching themselves out at times, or in reply to people who say it could be thematically done as a mere joke at all, given the consistent, grief-themed, insistent level of the mentions of Paul's death and the other timeline considerations -- all of which of course avoids the forensics of actual replacement, let alone death considerations.
Total surmise, conjecture, guesswork on your part, Clare and on Chris's. Absolutely no foundation in reality.Provide your proof, Clare.
The proof is in human nature, Frank, from the sweet and basically driven, music-success-oriented band members, that they would not simply joke about the death or posit one and send Paul away, which are the other two possibilities than that the clues have no merit at all.Since you don't take time yet to understand the forensics considerations, you miss the proof that a replacement was done, and thus can't even start to ask why, it seems.Are you any good at even positing an "IF"? How about "if" Paul was replaced, would it likely come from a crisis or a simple game? Were they really cruel at heart to the public, or just protective and sometimes resentful?Those are the proof, not the final proof, mind you, the proof as in a case proof argument, that this was not a joke. It is a prima facie argument given the basic friendship and decency of the bandmates toward each other and their drive to succeed and try to reach out to the sometimes exasperating fans, that they would not merely playact Paul's death for years, or send him away and playact, but that he died.But you are not there, yet: you don't even face that he was replaced. Try that first:ears, teeth.
Who let the chihuahua in? Yeah thats exactly what Im saying. I was there and I know exactly what he was thinking.Your move, sparky
That's a good point Chris. McCartney;s solo work is not great, Live and Let Die is not bad, Ebony & Ivory is passable, but a lot of it is dire, not least Mull of Kintyre...Cartilage eh, wasn't that a city in North Africa crushed by the Romans? lolThat Italian study really isn't convincing, but to some, it's concrete proof.Why is it I can find photos from both before and after 66 where Paul looks exactly like the same person but can also find ones where it looks like two different people?Why are there lots of post-66 photos that are clearly not this 'Faul' person?So many holes in PID. It remains an intriguing hypothesis but it's such a long way from proven.How can these photos of what is clearly the original Paul McCartney taken long after 1966 be explained?http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb77/diabolo123/aharddayscomp.gifhttp://i45.tinypic.com/1hotxi.jpgWhy didn't the Italians examine photos from post 66 that look like Paul? Clearly, that study is flawed, they should have examined far more photos.So if we have photos that show the original Paul after 66, what does that tell us? I accept that there are photos of a guy who isn't Paul McCartney playing the role of Paul McCartney, but I also accept that there is a lot of evidence that the original Paul McCartney was still around long after 66.So what can we hypothesise? That there has been an impostor McCartney that appeared from time to time? That Paul used a body double? All in all, still way too many holes in the PID hypothesis.
How about, Ian, you work at really studying the ways and reasons they look similar and different; you will find that any similarities are due to things which happen for different reasons in two people, and always have Sir Paul in Sir Paul's time period, and Paulie in Paulie's time period, except for a few obvious fake images (doctored).And ... as to the playing and songs, as I just posted above:Ian and Chris:Sir Paul's "Lady Madonna" has some social awareness which he considered in the subsequent work he did after the split-up;"Hey Jude" is kind, but rather simplistic, as is Lady Madonna. He also forces his voice a lot -- just as in "Why don't we do it in the road".He wrote or at least sang without many harmonic complexities the insipid Penny Lane (though it's got a nice idea in the beginning).He also wrote "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" -- come on.But I'll grant you, some of his work with Wings and later was ridiculous in the extreme;while some (like the pastiche "Honey Pie" and the lovely "Blackbird") was really good with Wings material also containing some real clever songs, albeit in a different style, for the new era.And WHY WOULD SIR PAUL, IF DIFFERENT, CARE ABOUT THE BREAK-UP?- He's a person, and had made what he hoped would be friends.- He'd got a lot riding on the continuance of his dream band (after all, it was all he had at that point, and had given up a lot to become part of it).- He was controlling and felt the sting of resentment from the others (this is known from many things which happened; it's not my own supposition at all).- He had to make it on his own.- There were a lot of current (at the time) money and social problems in the running of the business which fatigued and angered all of them.
But at least, Ian, you're noticing the 2nd fellow.Aside:You can really see the difference compared to original young boppy Paulie in the Wizard scene, fairly brimming with overexcitement and cuteness and a shorter distance between his upper jaw area and his eyes.However, good luck with your investigations.
I meant, of course, the Magical Mystery Tour movie Wizard tower scene. His eulogy cameo.Sir Paul looks subtly a lot more like Paul than usual in the Fool on the Hill sequence, but it's still him; he had a somewhat more oval shape than he later developed, but it's still his look and his slightly playacting poseur side. When Paul playacts, he's more naturally ebullient and almost not in character. But these are not forensic considerations.Nevertheless, as Stalin's double has said, movement is the most telltale thing -- and movement can be copied only in positions or general lines, not in actual causative energy. But again, it's not forensics.
Ian,Cartilage wiped out by the Romans? You mean Carthage? Absolutely obliterated by the Romans. Not a trace left. Not even a greasy spot. God forbid the same should happen to PID. Obliterated, I mean but not by the Romans.
Clare,How about Ian really working at studying...? How about you stop trying to soft soap Ian and stop patronizing him as if he were some kind of moron? Clare, how about you providing proof for your PID nonsense from your "bunch of maybes...and likelys"?
Again, Frank:The use of terms "maybe" and "likely" I use in context.What is likelier and less likely, given what indications (evidence) we have on the location of a body, is fine to state.And what is "maybe" about evidence is when evidence is marshalled before a final statement of a case, or part of it (whatever part is under discussion). Once the case is finalized (or part of it, say, where this body is), then the word evidence is used in a final, not a "maybe" sense. Evidence is called evidence while arguing AND after decisions are made (say, in a court, for example). Then some evidence is not considered maybe at that point and some is tossed out as evidence of anything. But before that, the marshalling is of things called pieces of evidence, and at that point they are, admittedly, maybes along the way to building the case proof. And there is an opposite case proof also being marshalled. We call the final case decision a proof, with evidence and clues, in a DIFFERENT SENSE than we mean it when there are two (or more) case proofs and clue sets and evidence sets still on the table.Hence I used the term "maybe" for the evidence marshalled along the way, to act as if I didn't know which way the evidence would be decided in the final analysis of replacement or not, and likely death or not.Until you get off your worries about where the body is, to whether we can know there likely is a body since there is a provable replacement, you will continue to malign me and reasoning for the case.
"Maybe" is from your "bunch of maybes", Clare and "likely" is from your "two likely spots".
Yes, Frank, I know and was referring to those.Let me shorten my reply. Hope that helps you understand:Again, Frank:The use of terms "maybe" and "likely" I use in context.What is likelier and less likely, given what indications (evidence) we have on the location of a body, is fine to state: "Two likely spots" in one general likely location.And what is "maybe" about evidence is when evidence is marshalled before a final statement of a case, or part of it (whatever part is under discussion). Once the case is finalized (or part of it, say, where this body is), then the word evidence is used in a final, not a "maybe" sense. Evidence is called evidence while arguing AND after decisions are made (say, in a court, for example).So during the process of argument, evidentiary material is a "bunch of maybes" called evidence, and after the final decision we call only some of it evidence and some not evidence, when we decide which bunch of maybes was not maybe at all.
We've heard all this shit before from you, Clare. Repeating it ad nauseam doesn't make your PID lies true. Why the heck Jim Fetzer has had you on three times with this same asinine PID rubbish is a total and complete mystery.
This comment has been removed by the author.
No, you didn't "hear" me at all, Frank.Repeating, though, does not make sense, it's true, in your case. Stop bothering with a case you won't look into properly.When you meet someone who doesn't understand contingent and unfinished arguments versus more solid arguments and final assessment of what is evidence versus using the term along the way inside a case, in another field (say, 9/11 2001), you'll hopefully see your error.
One point that is often over looked is the size of Faul's feet. Faul has big clodhoppers and the real James Paul McCartney had small feet. There is a YouTube clip on my blog that does a nice job of breaking this down. Not to mention that Faul moves nothing like the real Paul onstage, the bass playing is way different and Faul is much worse singer.
Yes, you're right, Don, overall, in my assessment of Faul's general capacities, but I don't rate him as being quite as bad as you do; he has gifts, and rose to the level of the others in some ways, giving a new direction -- along with life changes and Paul's death -- for the 3 Beatles other than him.But if he was in on the murder possibility, which the Shears books imply, and which Nick Kollerstrom and Jim at first seemed not to appreciate the implication thereof, then we have a serious crime problem for him, not only around him (which is almost certain, given how quickly he was "found" at least), as you know, not merely a 5th Beatle in a cover-up.What concerns me too, and I said in this broadcast at one point, is that the Shears books try to make out that Paul wanted to "die for the band", which sounds like apologetics (not apology) from Sir Paul or his camp, if the books are a leak at all, and they seem to be.
Faul is not a terrible musician but look who we are comparing him to. James Paul McCartney was a SUPERSTAR! Watch the Shea Stadium concert from 1965 - it's all over YouTube. The real JPM transcended pop music. He had an affect on women that maybe only Elvis Presley equaled. Faul is a serviceable singer/bass player but nowhere NEAR what the real JPM was. The last Beatles albums had a lot of previously unreleased McCartney material. Once the back catalog was released Lennon pulled the plug on the Beatles. I don't give Faul much credit for those albums. There may have even been other singers besides Faul substituting for McCartney. As far as his solo career again it sounds like they brought in songwriters to help him. Needless to say no one is going to confuse Silly Love Songs with the Beatles. That's why the "Sir Paul" thing gets to me. No way this guy would have been knighted on his own merits. He's just a cover band guy in my book.
Yeah. You said it, Clare. It's not forensics. It's bullshit.
No, Frank, I said the opposite.I said, really, that the Beatles clues themes and situation historically (timing, etc.) for this to be done, if it were done, are marshalled first. Then one thinks to look for forensics arguments; without any suggestion of replacement, few would notice the problem. If there is a trick, most would be fooled, by definition.We have the forensics arguments. It was you who went off into a different question, which is, where the body is or might be. In this case, we don't have a definitive answer and can hypothesize only, but at least there are some indications of what might be; it's not a totally uninformed hypothesis.But since we don't need a dead body to prove replacement, we are lucky to be able to settle the case without it in the most important first sense (i.e., in the basic question of a cover-up of a replacement, not a pure myth unrelated to the Beatles, or a hoax-joke with no replacement at all).Back to the ear area shape and outer line of the cartilage;and the teeth in a smaller palate.Forensics, Frank; no bullshit. Wish it were bullshit.Ears, teeth. Even if you don't see the rest of it, yet, which is fine for the moment, ears and teeth will show there was a slight of hand trick which got you -- and most people, I might add. Some of that is prejudice on their and your part, and some is true illusion which our minds do anyway when we don't know there are things which are sort of alike: we try to blend them. It is a well-studied phenomenon.
Crap, Clear.Save it for Amanda.Doesn't wash with me.
Nothing washes with you, Frank, no matter what, it seems.When you meet someone who doesn't understand contingent and unfinished arguments versus more solid arguments and final assessment of what is evidence versus using the term along the way inside a case, in another field (say, 9/11 2001), you'll hopefully see your error.
Clare,I don't give a fuck where the body is because there is NO body. Who's maligning you, Clare? Certainly not me. If you can't present your rubbish PID "theory" coherently and cogently, then you deserve everything you get. You have supplied not ONE piece of credible and conclusive evidence for your so-called PID theory in THREE podcasts on Jim Fetzer's blog. Not ONE piece of credible and conclusive evidence for your PID nonsense. What a waste of Jim Fetzer''s blog's bandwidth!
I could have predicted all along, but don't like to do that to people, that you would not handle carefully the evidence presented;hence, you are too prejudiced to even come to the "courtroom" of ideas, on this case, no matter whether you had happened to be right or wrong.Ears, teeth. Start there and argue those -- what argument besides the "old photographs" nonsense, since these are very clear issues, can you marshal against the doctors? Or go away.You cannot decide what is cogent or coherent when you are prejudiced. Do you not know that?
I'd say you've seen your error a long time ago, Clare but you're in too deep to pull out and admit that you are wrong. Sad.
Since you have not handled the forensics, Frank, in any way (except about "old photos", an irrelevant issue if the photos are clear),it is you who cannot admit you haven't considered the content of what's said to you in a careful way. And I hope you do one day. My ego is not such that I would not welcome real discussion with you in future. I hope one day you will re-read the points made to you and think about this again ...not only because it happens to be true,but because it's more interesting to discuss things from knowledge than ignorance of them.
what would be the negatives of revealing the truth now that paul died? not like the moon and holocaust or Hook and Boston Marathon lies
Well, how about the following?- Intelligence services revealed as willing to be complicit after a death of someone famous (as shocking to us as Snowden's NSA spying non-revelations but shocking to many, because official)- Intelligence and/or cultic elements revealed in murder cover-up possibly- Embarrassed (selfish) reasons to do the switch for the Beatles and family of Paul, to keep the gig going- Money for those around the Beatles and power over the impressions in the public, once it was done (stop accusations and outrage from people who don't have sympathy, unlike me)- Possible infiltration of circles around the Beatles to suggest some of their lifestyle and religious turns at the time, revealing "Mind Control" in general, i.e., all the attempts to create and influence performance arts and posh social scenes, to influence us in turn, not only specific trauma-based mind control of the direct kind on one victim at a time.
"Courtroom of ideas"??Wise up, Clare. What kind of gibberish is that? A courtroom is for facts, proof and evidence and justice.You accuse me of being unable to decide to be cogent or coherent and you write something like "courtroom of ideas"?
We are the public court, we and the experts we can make use of when times need them.There is no formal courtroom which will hear our cases, which we discuss here at Jim Fetzer's blog.Coherent and cogent, yes, I am, about the "courtroom" metaphor, Frank, as you would see about other issues you already understand.Even Sean Dix is not getting justice. Hopefully he will, but if he does not formally, we are his appreciators, we his jury and we his public judge, spreading the word that his case has strong merit.Just for example.
I don't know if anybody else pointed this out, but I notice in the doodle that the dog is licking the boy's hand, and the dog is placed behind the boy, which taken in perspective would make it impossible for the dog to lick the boy's hand -- unless the boy was stretched out on the ground. So, my opinion is that John Lennon (who had gone to art school and would have been taught perspective) intended to imply that the figure was lying down.
The figure's hand is cupped and in front of his pant leg, as is the dog's muzzle, in front of the pant leg.The figure is lying down in his head injuries but standing as a figure. It's a visionary composite idea: blood as he saw it, but body as symbolically standing on his grave.
Yeah, right. Clare.More subjective mumbo jumbo.You're an art critic too, now? I take it.
Have you seen the drawing?And yes, I was trained in art history and criticism, among other things. But this kind of thing doesn't need too much background, I'd think.You can see examples of vision art everywhere: people combine what has happened at one point with what happened later, or what they wish to have happened. In scenes of mourning, people often include symbols of comfort or resurrection (which John did, in the Sun and dog and flower), sometimes getting them from other scenes, such as, likely, the typical "Fool" tarot card). -- Oh I know you hate this word, "likely", but here's the context (another word you seem to hate):the Tarot was big in the free will magick alternative art scene then as now),and the Fool as an idea was very much a part of the Beatles song, the movie MMT, and they used a group called "The Fool" to design things for them, including, I might add, the record paper sleeve for ----- oh get this! Sergeant Peppers, with a bloody red fade design:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fool_%28design_collective%29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sgtpepperinnerbag.jpgSo anyway, the point about the drawing is that if it shows Paul dead, it also shows him holding a shovel and over freshly turned earth with a horizon line behind him, so he's also standing.It's more like a vision, with different elements included together, to exorcise a memory (the accurate head injuries), provide a wish (that he be comforted by a dog), that he be okay in the heavenly realm (the resurrecting/ death image sun and flower of new growth), and the representation of something John attended (a gravesite).So, not too too hard, is it?Hope not. Maybe one day you'll notice things about drawings, too.
Tried to listen, but won't download.Went to Sticher . It has other recent shows there - except this one.
Worked fine for me just now. Try again? Maybe blog error?
And this is due to what particular thing I said, Frank?That the Fool concept fits the drawing?That we are the courtroom for these kinds of things?That Paul's body is not necessary to find to know if there was a replacement, even theoretically, since they are different issues, technically speaking?That ears and teeth are a place to start which you don't need much of an expertise to understand arguments about?And that tricks work on us in certain ways, but certain things give the game away?Those were our main topics of conversation. Which one sets you on edge?
Your whole attitude stinks. You have no place on this or any blog. Obviously something has set you "on edge" as you weirdly put it. Was it my mentioning Amanda's name that put you over the tipping point, Clare?
Nothing put me over any tipping point, Frank, of course: you are merely an interlocutor who does not appreciate the case. I asked you what your problem is with the case, since your upset shows in most posts, spewing as you do, invective and misunderstanding of what was said to you. This is due (I assume) to only emotional upset, not intellectual capacity in principle, or you would not likely follow Jim's radio work at all.I don't know Amanda well at all.You are on edge: too on edge to deal with the case. You want to talk of me, not the ears, teeth or anything else relevant, and can't face that clear photos can be old or new ...etc. So, you are prejudiced about the case and making assumptions that your ad hominem position and ad hoc appraisals give you anything to judge PID (or me) with.
Clare,So you are not only an art critic,a qualified dental surgeon and an otoloaryngologist, a telepathic mind reader of people in old photographs and videos, can we now add psychiatrist/ psychologist and personal analyst to your list of talents? I haven't even included your expertise in cosmetic surgery and biometrics.What other hidden attributes do you have, not including your talent for avoiding answering questions and employing diversionary tactics when cornered, Clare? Strange that you write Amanda REALLY helped you but you HARDLY know her. I find that a rather odd statement to make in the circumstances, Clare.
What I want you to do, Clare is provide PROOF for your outrageous and ludicrous PID baloney. So far you have provided nothing but long meandering posts that could be condensed into a few lines and still say nothing of value or interest.
Frank, TINA's pages really helped me, with images and thoughts -- though some things I have checked into and found to be spurious as well. THE WINGED BEATLE movie is also important, but not for passive viewing; it is part of a set of flashing-image leaks and possibilities for the case, some of which are very strong and consistent things.Amanda contacted me on my blog recently, and here.That's all with Amanda.There's no telepathy; circumstance, body language, statements and general mood types, give a fine set of psychological assessors.One doesn't have to "read minds" in some bizarre way.Biometrics are proportion; artists learn them but some do not really work to understand how impressions get created if one wants to fake something.Dentistry in this case is not complicated: too much room, too little room, a problem.Age of photos is no more relevant if we are talking proportions than new photos. Where do you get the blandishment general impression that "old photos" has any problem for what we're talking about here?Ears from the side require some AREA ... some space, are built with an AREA; to adjust the outer rim angle means to change a lot of area inside. Hence, different ear angle outer change means too much work. I cover some of that on the blog.Are you actually not capable of thinking things through, or is it just for this case? Have you some trust in your ability to think on your own or do you need blandishments about "age of photos" to hide behind? Dear one, look into more things with the experts as your assist, but think the arguments through.I hope you do better on 9/11. If not, it's a sorry day for the public courtroom of ideas, i.e., the research community and those who share in the general benefit of the work.By the way, you forgot, in your silly list of "expertises" for me, dear rote thinker, "art critic", simply due to my comment that there are elements of wishful thinking about death in the drawing, and that the muzzle of a dog is in front of a pant leg, so it's not behind Lennon, as Tipster had in error.In front. In behind. Do we need an expert here, Frank? Does it make me a "critic" formally as you suggested? Of course not. I do have some qualifications from experience in some things artistic, but ... you leap to these generalized "compliments" which are intended as ad hominem criticisms of what you think are my own over-weening attempts at excellence.Tooth room in mouth. Easy? Hard?Ear area and outer shape of back of ear. Easy? Hard?Not needing a body bag to prove a replacement if there are mouths and ears to go by. Easy? Hard?Muzzle of dog in front of a pant leg or behind? This is not Picasso, so easy? Hard?And Johnny's basic goodness and simple intentions about friendship, versus pure long-term cruel joke for money. Easy? Hard? Well, he did like a joke, and he loved money, but his basic friendship? No, that required something to be so crass about, if it were anything other than horrible crisis which brought this about.So:EarsTeethStart there.
Correction: "Strange that you write Amanda REALLY helped but but you don't know her WELL AT ALL."
As for my being on edge, the reality is that you are on edge because you have been exposed as a fraud and a babbler of inconsequential gibberish. You have made no headway with your ridiculous PID claims and this, of course, is at the root of your ennui.
Babbler you. Whatever. Read my post above for what is easy and hard and decide for yourself if you can think this through.EarsTeeth
Frank wants proof.EarsTeethWhen he starts to handle the proof, instead of wandering all around it in shock of how dumb it all supposedly and attacks on me as if one needs to be an expert, given the type of easy tooth and ear problems we have between Paul and Sir Paul,then he can move on to other things in the case for the wider set of information. Good luck, Frank. Stop cluttering the blog with your nonsense resistance. Go somewhere else until you can think through ears and teeth on your own.
Yes. Indeed, Clare. Frank wants proof. But not only Frank wants proof. Ian wants proof. Stooy44, I'm sure, wants proof and so , dare I say, does Jim Fetzer and numerous others too many to mention on this blog, all want proof. Why else are you on this blog, Clare if not to provide proof for your PID claims? Incidentally, Ears and teeth do not constitute proof of anything - except that ears and teeth are ears and teeth.That's about the height of it as far as ears and teeth are concerned.
No, Frank: you don't even deal with the teeth and ears.Ian sees differences, but can't quite yet conceive how consistent the differences are (certain comps confuse him).Stooy44 sees the difference, but can't hear it yet.Ears and teeth are DIFFERENT and prove DIFFERENT SPACE AVAILABLE FOR EACH, because of the SPECIFIC KINDS OF DIFFERENCE.Even most people who resist the case know that ears and teeth prove more than that they are ears and teeth. And age of photo has nothing to do with such assessment.Are you an agent, cluttering the blog with inanity, or just dumb?
New comments are not allowed.
(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: