To suggest that the education provided by a British Secondary School* or High School* or Grammar School in the late 1950s or mid 1960s was equivalent to a Bachelor's degree is arrant nonsense. The British (Scottish, Welsh and Irish (Northern Ireland)) education systems at that time started at seven years of age with the Primary School where thepupil spent four years learning how to read and write and also how to count - arithmetic. At the age of eleven the pupil could either go on directly to secondary School or High School or if he or she wished and was particularly bright he or she could sit the "11 plus" (an exam at the age of eleven) at the end of the Primary school years whereby he or she could go to the Grammar School where they were taught history, English language and literature, science (biology, chemistry and physics) art, foreign languages - usually French and Latin, home economics and other subjects. On completion of his or her Grammar School education at the age of sixteen years the student would sit exams ( 'O' Levels) in all his or her subjects. After two years at the age of eighteen the pupil would sit more exams in two or three subjects ( 'A' Levels)and depending on the results could go on to university and study for either three or four years and obtain a degree (in the subject of his or her choice) either a Bachelor of Arts (BA), (In a foreign language or history etc., etc. BA Hons or a B.Sc (in a science subject)). If the pupil did not sit the " 11 plus" or did sit it and did not pass he or she could go to the Secondary School where the student would also study some of the subjects of the Grammar School but could also study wood-work, metal-work and other less "academic" subjects or some other subject which would equip the student for a career perhaps as an electrician etc., etc. Many pupils could also go to Technical college or Tech as it was called which again provided an even more hands on and less academic education than that provided by the Secondary School, High School or Grammar School. All pupils at either the Secondary School, High School, Grammar School or Technical College could simply choose to leave the education system at the age of sixteen after they had sat 'O' Level exams if they wished as long as he or she had fulfilled the legal age requirement for their education. There is no essential difference between a Secondary School or a High School - both offered a less academic and more practical education. The Technical College was designed to provide the student with a career on completion of his or her studies. John Lennon for example went to Dovedale Primary School and then to Quarry Bank Grammar School. The High School in John Lennon's time in Liverpool was called the Rose Lane Secondary Modern School. The Quarry Bank Grammar School merged in 1967 with the Calder Grammar School. He then went to the Liverpool College of Art. Confusion arises in that Secondary School and High School are interchangeable and in that, although a High School and Grammar School are not the same, a Grammar school can be referred to as "a high school".The essential difference between a Grammar School and a High School or Secondary School is that a High School or Secondary School does not select pupils on the basis of their academic ability whereas a Grammar School does.
There is no doubt that the real Paul McCartney died and was replaced. Gabriella Carlesi, an Italian forensic scientist examined photos of pre and post 1966 Paul McCartney and concluded that he did indeed die in late 1966 and was replaced by a double. If you look at the photos it’s pretty obvious that they are not the same person. I went to YouTube and found some old interviews. Check out this David Frost interview from 1965 with the real Paul McCartney and compare it to this 1967 Faul interview. The Beatles never played another concert after McCartney was replaced except for the rooftop concert in 1969. Compare that to the real Paul McCartney live at Shea Stadium in 1965. It's not even close.
The videos posted didn't make me believe there were two Paul's. And the speaking style in the two interviews was exactly the same.
Jim-It is said that the Beatles were a creation of the Tavistock Institute and there is much "Total" misses about Paul/Faul. It was the McCartney replacement, Faul, who began the Indica newspaper and art studio. Indica was where John, "accidentally" met Yoko, whose art was on display at Indica. If you can find Indica papers, you will also find that Faul was deeply into Aleister Crowley's magickal system., hence Crowley being featured twice, if not three times on Sgt. Pepper's. In one pf the Indica papers there is a lengthy interview with Faul and Burroughs where they discuss, at length, backward masking and backward speaking, which is ubiquitous in later Beatles albums. In a later interview with Faul, long after the Beatles demise, Faul even talks about being the head of the London "scene" and not John.Along with the different facial features between Faul and Paul, Faul was taller and much broader-shouldered than was Paul. The height difference can be readily seen on Sgt. Pepper's as well as on Abbey Road.On Paul's death: Paul was said to have been seen in the French countryside, disoriented. A few days after this report from a woman, Paul was allegedly found, thrown from a plane in France, his legs so crushed they were in his chest. His face was completely disfigured, which was where the "walrus" mention was supposed to be first made; an emergency responder to the death scene reportedly said to John of Paul (John and Ringo, I believe, were flown to the death scene to identify Paul), whose teeth were poked out from his cheeks, "He looks like a walrus." John was said to have freaked out...There is much, much more information, if you'd like to know.
Also, Evan's diaries have been found and are supposed to be published is some form, either through a movie, or in book form, in 2012
http://beatlesnumber9.com/dead.htmlFrom my understanding, this all started with a phone call to a radio station from a college man who said he deduced from clues on Beatle albums that Paul was dead. For whatever reasons this rumor spread like wild fire. It certainly didn't hurt Beatles sales, and The Beatles didn't say much about the whole thing. John said it was crazy, Paul's first comment actually fanned the rumor. He said, "If I were dead I'd be the last to know." (I think that's a Mark Twain quote). But anyway, besides the fact that The Beatles had not been in the public eye much at the time, and Paul was quietly at work producing Mary Hopkins, and the press was desperate for a Beatles story, I still think there's more here than meets the eye.
Here is what was supposed to have happened: The story was that Paul McCartney had died in a car accident at 5:00 a.m. on Wednesday, November 9, 1966. 'Paul McCartney Dead: The Great Hoax' suggested that Paul had picked up a female hitchhiker on his way to visit friends. The woman became so excited when she realized who had picked her up that she threw her arms around Paul and caused him to lose control of the car. Both Paul and his passenger were killed when the car swerved off the road and hit a stone fence. And here's where the story takes a turn toward the ludicrous—Paul was decapitated in the accident and the trauma to his head was so severe that even his dental records were useless in identifying the victim! Not wanting to lose potential record sales, record company executives suppressed the story of Paul's death and brought in a lookalike to replace him. For some reason (this is the part where you have to suspend disbelief) the surviving Beatles agreed to go along with this scheme, but they left clues on all of their subsequent albums about Paul's death and the imposter who took his place. Paul's stand-in was a man named William Campbell, who had won a Paul McCartney look-alike contest. With a little plastic surgery, William Campbell had taken Paul's place in photos of the group. The surgery had been successful except for a small scar above his lip. And, as luck would have it, William Campbell could also sing and just happened to be a songwriter with an exceptional ear for pop melodies.
The Beatles all denied that they had perpetrated a hoax and insisted that none of the "clues" about Paul's supposed death had any significance whatsoever. I'm inclined to believe them, and lean toward unintentional "clues." Especially now, knowing all the hard times the group was going through that lead to their demise.I think a riff started with Paul's mega hit Yesterday, coupled with John's statement about being bigger than Jesus. John was a very insecure man, and he really did resent Paul being the cute one, and was jealous of Paul's success's. There was friendship, yes, but there was also an extremely strong state of competition between the two. Turns out this was great for song writing, but in the beginning they were a team, a 50 50 songwriting team. They'd sit across from each other and write songs together. This later turned into writing separately from each other and trying to one up the other. We know now that this style of writing is doomed, it can't keep going. One has to lose, one wins. Paul was winning. He wrote more songs and had more number 1 hits than John. Remember, John was by nature very insecure, and his lack of self confidence was fulfilled at the time by the fans.
But Paul also suffered from a very human character defect. He had a huge ego, and it showed. It wasn't beneath him to rub it in when things were going great for him. In the beginning John was considered the leader. Slowly Paul was taking over, and then rapidly after Brian died. The other three resented Paul. A serious clash was brewing. Paul was looking for approval for his amazing talent as were the others, but they weren't getting it from each other. It didn't matter that the whole world loved them, their world was much smaller and consisted of mostly each other.John's statement that The Beatles were bigger than Jesus was made to a friend/journalist and printed in the British press months before without any noise, but when it was picked up in America (the holy land of Gawd), John was receiving death threats and was 'extremely' paranoid about being shot. A concert in Alabama was actively protested by the KKK, while kids in the bible belt burned Beatles records and books with the blessing of the holy DJs. And, though they stood side by side with John in front of the cameras while John defended himself, the other three were actually very resentful toward John. Touring was eventually stopped and music was made in the studio. The public was not getting their Beatles fixes frequently enough. (Most importantly, John's ego was being dissolved by huge intakes of LSD, and it fell on Paul to hold the group together through this phase).
Now back to the Paul is Dead clues. I think this was mostly a result of Paul's ego. He began to try to stand out from the others. He wore a different color carnation in the now famous Magical Mystery Tour sequence. His later comment that they ran out of the red ones is possible, but absurd. Ask a florist how difficult it is to mutate a black carnation. He turned his back to the camera on the back of the cover of Sgt Pepper, as if he was the maestro conducting the other three. His face on the 8 x 10 glossies that came with The White album was huge. They were supposed to be 4 portraits of each Beatle. His was so close up you could count his nose hairs. Was all this intentional? Probably not all of it, but does it really matter? Being the only shoe-less one out of step on Abbey Rd might have been an accident, but it speaks volumes about Paul and the others. And some of it must have been on purpose. Paul is smoking a cigarette, also known as a "coffin nail". He is holding the cigarette in his right hand, even though the real Paul McCartney was left handed. Was Paul's way of hinting to the world that he was the main Beatle being misunderstood as Paul was the dead Beatle? Hmmm...
There are a few weird things that leads me to believe that John had a bit of fun with it, after the fact. Just before Blackbird on The White album, if you play John's mumbling backwards, it sure sounds like, "Paul is a dead man, Paul is a dead man, miss him, miss him, miss him." But Number 9 backwards sounds a like 'turn me on dead man' just because that's what number 9 backwards sounds like. I think John's only intention when making Revolution 9 was to make an avant garde recording. Oh, at the time, many believed everything was placed there by the Beatles with the intent to let you know Paul was dead (ask any fan from that time), and one could search and find anything one wanted to believe, and Revolution Number 9 was the most used example. Other White Album clues were "Don't Pass Me By", where Ringo expresses his regret at the tragic turn of events after Paul's angry departure from the studio one evening: "I listen for your footsteps coming up the drive/I listen for your footsteps but they don't arrive." George moans "Paul, Paul" at the end of "While My Guitar Gently Weeps." It all really got out of hand. I had a great time of it. Lots of bizarre coincidences. I wish I could have wrote this article then, when I was full of enthusiasm about it all. The hand over Paul's head, Paul sitting behind a sign that said "I WAS," Revolution Number 9 backwards, 28IF on the 'Beetle' Volkswagen on Abbey Rd meant Paul would have been 28 IF he had lived. The major problem with that is he would have been 27, but not to worry. In some Indian culture somewhere they count the 9 months in the womb as your first year, so it all made sense (sarcasm). John was the minister, Ringo the undertaker, Paul the corpse, and George the gravedigger.
The OPD badge that was given to him by the Ontario Police Dept suddenly meant officially pronounced dead. Lennon's inspiration from The Walrus and the Carpenter was replaced with the belief that the walrus was a death symbol in Greenland or something. Ha, again. Most clues were a real stretch. John's 'cranberry sauce' at the end of Strawberry Fields at the time was heard as 'I buried Paul.' And it went on and on. I hope you find one of the better web sites that goes into some of the clues. No one could cover them all.It was a cool event to live through, and it's a big part of Beatles history. I don't want to attempt to start listing all the clues because of my perfectionism streak. I know I can't list them all so I won't even try. Besides, to me it's more interesting to decipher the psychological dynamics that were at work among the Beatles that resulted in such weird deductions from fans. It wasn't the clues and sounds and pictures so much as the personalities behind the art.If looked at with a sensible attitude rather than the belief that The Beatles actually inserted codes into their work to hint to fans that Paul had died, I think you can tell a lot about the group. It's too bad really, that two best friends could become such bitter enemies while singing songs like All You Need is Love. What a mess things had become. Perhaps Paul died as a Beatle? Well, they all did didn't they? But maybe if died first? Paul became very depressed over that break up, though he's the one who instigated the lawsuit to dissolve the group. If only he'd waited. If only this, if only that. I happen to be looking at the Let It Be cover right now. Isn't it odd that Paul is looking straight ahead while the others are looking to left. Almost looking away from Paul. But just look at them. Lennon and McCartney's 'lovers spat' completely overshadowing George's talent. Ringo, well he was just happy to be the Beatles drummer. They all forget something vitally important that Brian Epstein told them about the survival of the group. He told them that they were each 25% of the whole. No one can be the Beatles without the other three. And maybe, just maybe, Paul was the first to forget this, and by doing so died as a Beatle. All rumors are based on some facts. And it seems to me, though I've only slightly touched on the subject, that this is what happened. At least in part.
And now, the world is rediscovering The Beatles. Not the break up or the fighting, but the four lads that were friends and belonged in a band together. We remember when we all lived in a yellow submarine, were all together now, and all you needed was love. And those four guys put their life's into that dream and gave it to the world. That light will never dim. For those that came here to find out about the Paul is dead thing, I'm sorry if I've disappointed you. John is dead. George is dead. Ringo still plays drums in his unique and amazing way. Paul is working his butt off doing many things, seemingly revitalized by a new young wife. His pop music still misses that Lennon edge, Harrison guitar, and Ringo back beat.Even Paul had some fun with it on his 'Paul is Live' album. The cover of Paul Is Live shows him with his dog on the famous Abbey Road crosswalk—hardly a funeral procession. In the background of the album cover photo is a Volkswagen Beetle with the license plate reading "51 IS". Rather than being dead in his twenties, Paul is still alive and making music. http://beatlesnumber9.com/dead.html
Jakob-I won't bother with going into a lengthy explanation of why you are wrong. Enough information exists for you to find out on your own. However, one tidbit is illustrative of just how off base you are on the Faul/Paul issue: there is no such thing as the Ontario Police Department. It is the Ontario Provincial Police. Their badges Have the letters "O.P.P." on them.
This is simply a fascinating subject, I can't wait to hear Claire's perspective! Although I haven't looked into this subject in any detail, besides listening to this podcast and reading the comments, I tend to agree with Total and others here that Paul was replaced. D-Wil, could you provide us with a few sources?
i thought that i would right about some of the problems i have with "totalinfo's" theories1. early instrument replacementall the beatles music up until "I Want to Hold Your Hand" were recorded on 2 tracks machines with the instruments recorded live together onto one track of tape,there would be know possible way to remove any instrument such as Ringo's Drums or John's guitar and replace it with someone else.there is no evidence that any one other than The Beatles, Pete Best, Andy White or George Martin played on any of the records up until "Yesterday"even when they moved up to 4-track machines the majoriy of songs (up until Paperback Writer) were recorded with the basic tracks drums bass and guitars recorded onto one track. there ave been many session tapes and segments that have been bootlegged over the years and there is no evidence on these of anyone other than John, Paul, George and Ringo playing on these songs, no other names are spoken in relation to playing music on these tapes. There would also be no reason reason to do this as all four of them were great musicians even at this early time (this is evident it tapes of them playing in Hamburg in 1962).2. Hendrix and Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Bandthe fact that Hendrix played a "note for note" cover of "SPLHCB" the day after it was released in no way indicates that her knewthe song from anytime before it was released.a guitarist with the musical ability that Hendrix had could quite often learn a song within 24 hours of hearing it (especialy since SPLHCB is quite a simple song).as for the song on the album, there is no evidence that anyone other than McCartney is playing the lead guitar, it's certainly not Hendrix.If Hendrix did play the lead what reason would they have to keep it secret given that they let the world know that Clapton plays lead on "While My Guitar Gently Weeps"?.3. A Day In The Life and The McCartney Fragmentif this part of the song was in fact from a tape recorded at Mccartneys home studio why is there a version that has a different bass and drum track by Pual and Ringo (which were recorded together onto one track) and a vocal in which McCartney flubs a line.Why if Paul is dead and this was from an old home tape would they not only add drums and bass to a "complete" version but also to one in which McCartney flubs a line.
D-Wil said... Jakob- I won't bother with going into a lengthy explanation of why you are wrong.That's a cop out!! Please bother! Give me your "lengthy" explanation why I am "wrong".Your whole "theory" is patently ludicrous, preposterous and ridiculous...not to mention absurd.
This Paul is Dead (PID) rubbish has been around the block so often that the block has been demolished and is now a Disney Land theme park and the world has moved on. The Pidders should all get a life, get a job, get paid and get laid. If you were mad enough you would believe that President Obama is also dead (OID) and that the Obama who was elected in 2008 died one year later in 2009 and was replaced immediately and seamlessly by a body double. This would obviously explain a lot of things about the new Obama. If you check photos of the Obama who was elected in 2008 and compare them to photos of the new Obama, you can see immediately that the new Obama is slightly taller or smaller (it's your choice) than the the 2008 Obama and that the nose/chin/ears/eyes are not the same and guess what,he talks different to and, yes, he also walks different. What about Michelle and the kids I hear you ask. Well, they were replaced too. Isn't it obvious?By the way did I tell you about my Jim Fetzer is dead (JFID) theory? Same idea - just change everything - the name and the years etc., etc., etc. ad nauseam.You Pidders are worse than the JFK Lone Nutters and that takes some doing.
@Robert Lindsay: Please see my previous post where a forensic scientist who examined photos of pre and post 1966 McCartney concluded that they are not the same man. Anyone who has 2 eyes can also plainly see they are not the same person. You sir are an idiot.
Rumors of Paul McCartney's death began to circulate in 1969, a time when the strained relationships among the Beatles were becoming public knowledge. Written versions of this story first appeared in college newspapers in the fall of 1969, but the precise origin of the rumor is unknown. The story caught fire with the public when it was broadcast by a radio station in Detroit. Russell Gibb, a disc jockey for WKNR-FM, received a strange phone call from someone who identified himself only as Tom. The caller told Gibb that Paul McCartney had died in 1966 and was then replaced by a lookalike. The Beatles had subsequently left clues on their albums about this deception. The caller claimed that the cover photo of Abbey Road, the Beatles' most recent release at the time, represented a funeral procession with John as the minister, Ringo the undertaker, Paul the corpse, and George the gravedigger. Other Beatles album covers also contained clues, the caller claimed, and a few Beatles songs contained clues about Paul's death—including some that could only be deciphered when the records were played backwards! Gibb related the rumor of Paul's death on the air, which brought a strong reaction from listeners and the story spread rapidly after that.
The rumor became so widespread that Life magazine sent a crew to Scotland to track Paul down and take a photo of him. Paul had taken refuge from the Beatles' legal battles at his farm in Scotland and he was not at all happy to be confronted by reporters. When the crew from Life magazine appeared on his farm, Paul became angry and doused the photographer with a bucket of water as he took pictures. The reporters quickly left and Paul, realizing that the photos would cast him in a negative light, followed after them. In exchange for the film of his outburst, Paul agreed to let the Life crew do an interview. The resulting article, which went into some detail about the supposed clues to Paul's "death", appeared as the cover story for the November 7, 1969, issue.
About the same time, a fan magazine appeared that reinforced many of the stranger elements of the "Paul is dead" rumor. A sloppy account rushed to newsstands to take advantage of the public fascination with the story, Paul McCartney Dead: The Great Hoax went into some detail in presenting the story of Paul's "death."The story was that Paul McCartney had died in a car accident at 5:00 a.m. on Wednesday, November 9, 1966. Paul McCartney Dead: The Great Hoax suggested that Paul had picked up a female hitchhiker on his way to visit friends. The woman became so excited when she realized who had picked her up that she threw her arms around Paul and caused him to lose control of the car. Both Paul and his passenger were killed when the car swerved off the road and hit a stone fence. And here's where the story takes a turn toward the ludicrous—Paul was decapitated in the accident and the trauma to his head was so severe that even his dental records were useless in identifying the victim! Not wanting to lose potential record sales, record company executives suppressed the story of Paul's death and brought in a lookalike to replace him. For some reason (this is the part where you have to suspend disbelief) the surviving Beatles agreed to go along with this scheme, but they left clues on all of their subsequent albums about Paul's death and the imposter who took his place. Paul's stand-in was a man named William Campbell, who had won a Paul McCartney lookalike contest. With a little plastic surgery, William Campbell had taken Paul's place in photos of the group. The surgery had been successful except for a small scar above his lip. And, as luck would have it, William Campbell could also sing and just happened to be a songwriter with an exceptional ear for pop melodies.
Of course, Paul wasn't really dead, as he explained in a statement accompanying the Life article (and several years later to Chris Farley on "Saturday Night Live"),Paul McCartney and Chris Farley on Saturday Night Livebut that didn't stop fans from poring over the Beatles' albums for "clues" to Paul's untimely demise. Many of the supposed clues to Paul's death are simply vague references to death. Other clues are pictures of the Beatles that show Paul in a manner that is different from the other Beatles in some way, especially involving the colors red (blood) or black (death). Most of the "Paul is dead" clues are simply the product of an obsessive search for significance, but a few are genuinely chilling. The Beatles all denied that they had perpetrated a hoax and insisted that none of the "clues" about Paul's supposed death had any significance whatsoever. According to Ringo, "It's all a load of crap."  When asked if he had intentionally placed any of the clues, John denied it in similar terms, "No. That was bullshit, the whole thing was made up."
Yes, the whole "Paul is dead" rumor was absurd, so why did it create such a stir? It may have had something to do with the public's growing awareness that all was not well with the Beatles. It explained why the Beatles had stopped touring (their final concert had been in San Francisco on August 29, 1966), why their music and appearance had changed so dramatically in the late-1960s, and why the Beatles seemed to be drifting apart. In his statement in Life magazine Paul declared that he wanted "to go on making good music. But the Beatles thing is over. It has been exploded by what we have done and partly by other people." Perhaps the antiestablishment sentiment of the time kept the rumor going. The rumor was initially told through alternative media at a time when mistrust for the "establishment" was high among young people. Deciphering the clues made fans feel as though they were in on the joke with the Beatles and, as a Chicago disk jockey put it,"The kids are enjoying the mysterious flavor of the rumor." According to Ralph L. Rosnow and Gary Alan Fine, who wrote Rumor and Gossip: The Social Psychology of Hearsay, the Life article only served to reinforce the belief in an elaborate ruse among those who accepted the conspiracy theory. The article created a "boomerang effect" that actually extended the life of the rumor. The Life article even contributed to the rumor by publishing sonagrams of Paul singing "Hey Jude," which would have been recorded after Paul's death, with Paul's voice from "Yesterday." The magazine quoted Dr. Henry Truby of the University of Miami, who found them to be "suspiciously different." "Could there have been more than one 'McCartney'?", the Life article asked. After Paul appeared on the cover of Life magazine, coverage of the "Paul is dead" rumor declined rapidly. References to it pop up occasionally, but the lie had run its course.
Paul was replaced but the PID clues were designed to keep investigators hung up on this conspiracy aspect and away from the idea that ALL the beatles were replaced around the same time in 1966.
To Jakob Everardski:You're wrong in general about the case. But what I will say specifically here is that the Life article contained photos back to only 1967. How convenient. Best wishes.
To D-Wil:The issue was that no-one knew for many years what OPP or OPD would mean. Then someone realized that OPP was Ontario Provincial Police. You're right. But as I explained in my coverage of the subject, the main photo used to argue about was the 2nd image used for the Sgt P inner-double-album picture, had the "D" of the doctored image going around the arm, which many people therefore believed was merely a "P" in foreshortened shape. This was what was intended. A tease. (Of course, it was not a P, nor could a P look like a D when it had a long stem on the P, as these do, judge-able by the middle P which was frontal.)Anyway, another picture they used exists, possibly for an early British release? Or a rare poster? Anyway, it is shown in an older film, reproduced in the Iamaphoney Youtube video "Rotten Apple 47 2" at 0:07 forward for a few seconds.THAT image had a FULL FRONTAL "OPD" in slightly different embroidery.They had to have used an OPP patch and altered it physically each time, or done photo manipulation (most likely the latter on the commoner around-the-arm version, since it would be a slight change in that one and not in the full frontal version shown in the rarer image).I have seen that full-frontal OPD before, but I don't know where it was. Anyway, let THAT debate end. Whatever the reality of Paul's death or not, the damned OPP was changed to an OPD.
Claire -After Jacob's lengthy faux or Faul-dismissal, I removed myself from this thread. I did, though, listen to your 1.4 interview w/ Jim. I am the person Jim referred to near the beginning as a "listener" who indicated that Paul was murdered.I have studied the Beatles/Paul/Faul issue along with Crowley, JFK, RFK, and so much more for nearly 3 decades now. I would very much like to talk with you as soon as you are available.Please email me at: email@example.com.Thank you.
To Chevy West:Agreed that the Beatles were not a composite band, a near-fake or slapped-together band, totally Tavistock or CIA. Some Laurel Canyon artists were, though, it seems. See davesweb.cnchost.com for an 18-page romp about many of the 60s characters in music and other hangers-on, in his series "Inside the LC: The Strange but Mostly True Story of Laurel Canyon and the Birth of the 60s Generation". The 18 pages were on-going research; they are not perfect nor claim to be. However, they contain stunning research into memoirs, news articles, cross-temporal (many decades) and many lines of inquiry. Well worth studying in full and really thinking through.
To Don:Part 1 on forensics:Absolutely. And any hoi polloi can understand the arguments if they think about them enough. One issue is the teeth. The teeth are so compressed in the original James Paul McCartney that braces would have to be significant and many teeth pulled, or, possibly, as the forensic scientists suggest, he would have needed "reconstructive palatal surgery", which breaks the palate, a very bloody & long-recovery-time surgery even now. Back in the 60s, it was occasionally done, but wld've been even more difficult to recover from, such as over a year. It would have required a head brace. We know he did not have this surgery or major braces and teeth pulled, blood, etc.The only attempts to debunk rather than ignore the forensics are by: Gary J Anderson (covered below) and various Youtube and forum comment posters, who say the forensic scientists got their photos from PID forums and "so their conclusions are discredited".So let me handle these things in order.1. The forensic analyst is a medically trained forensic photoanalyst, who has worked on high-profile Italian and other political cases, among other things. The computer specialist who modeled the findings for further comparisons in 3D is her son, who also works in these fields. They explain how they had a hard time finding good frontal photos of Paul but found 2 which were on PID sites which actually matched frontally and which they found the sources for. They said clearly dated frontal early photos of him are hard to find. They were delighted when it turned out that the kinds of medical points they needed were similarly angled in each. They used these two to model front views for Paul, to which to match others to.They found that Paul#2 matched himself (post-1967) but never matched the first Paul and were astounded. They also found some photos, particularly obviously the Sgt Peppers inner cover, which had to have been doctored between the two for the doctored photos matched neither in most things and a few proportions of one and the other.There is nothing wrong in their method of choosing photos, and nor are they flakes, as some have claimed.(cont'd ...)
To Don:Part 2 on forensics:2. Gary Anderson wrote "The Walrus Was Paul". He has a Webpage in which he does actually attempt to respond to the forensics. His response was to run the idea by a friend of his who works at the famed "body farm" in the USA. The friend is knowledgeable about his own death-process medical knowledge, of course, but misrepresents the problems in photo forensics. The friend suggests that although it isn't his field, he doesn't believe it's possible to DO photo forensics!How so? Well, he says, when a skull is "clean", it is impossible to know how much tissue depth would have been on it -- you could be fat or thin, have a birthmark, etc., but never know by the skull. So sculptors working from skulls -- as we know -- cannot say they have the person's look exactly.Of course this is begging the question of what photo forensics (and our own brains) do to recognize people's heads and faces. In the case of a live person, we forgive a bit of skin change, but judge relative changes and relative set-points. Some set-points change almost not at all, without other changes occurring, or never occur without great emaciation, and even then not by much (say, the temples or the lowest join of nose to upper lip or between the inner and outer eyes relative to each other or to uppermost cheek, etc.). Some cannot be modified by surgery beyond a millimeter or so, or would be so obvious as say, adding a major bulge to a whole area, because those points are themselves unchangeable in isolation: no bone to change them with (the lowest nose join on the skull is an example: there's nothing you can do to raise that point of join, since there's no strong bone to connect a higher nose join to!).All right, so these forensics experts compared point-to-point with some forgiveness, then those totals to others and others and so on, and then modeled a 3D and 2D version. Then these were compared with the same actions from multiple and individual photos from the later Paul.The summary of these findings was published in Wired Italia magazine in 2009, and released on the same day or very close thereto, as the Letterman interview of Paul #2, where he talked about PID "at the end of the 60s" (quite a rarity these days for him to talk of it, and the timing seems now like it was a deflection from the brouhaha which might have reached the US from the Wired article). The machine Google translation at plasticmacca.blogspot.com/2010/01/forensic-science-proves-paul-was.html (see the bottom, the article in PDF is on top) is the only translation available on line other than post by "js" at http://invanddis.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=print&thread=5735 --- date of post Jul 17, 2009, 9:21am, about 1/2 down the page.They also wrote a book called: "Codice McCartney. La verità sulla morte di Paul" (Alessandra Gigante, Fabio Andriola). It is available here: http://www.ciao.it/Codice_McCartney_La_verita_sulla_morte_di_Paul_Alessandra_Gigante_Fabio_Andriola__3426643
To John Friend:I hope you enjoyed my broadcast. It was filled with references. There are many others of course, which I could have used, but these should suffice to wake you or a friend up to several things. I don't agree with Total that the band was "Tavistock product" or a "collaborative effort" ... in the way he implies. However, they may have been influenced through cultists and ideologues from Tavistock or elsewhere, as people who were friends of theirs. They also may have been aware of some other bands which WERE more shady in origin. See D-Wil's comment above from January 4, 2012 10:58 AM. He is right about the Indica scene. See also Iamaphoney's movie "TheWingedBeatle" carefully.Also for USA CIA/Military/Cult activities in music & film in the 50s & onward, read davesweb.cnchost.com "Inside the LC" all 18 pages. Be patient. It's complex and imperfect but very good and interesting.
To D-Wil:Very good. As well:Anyone interested in the Mal Evans issue must now know the following:1. However, EVANS' BOOK MANUSCRIPT, NOT HIS DIARIES WAS THE ITEM OF IMPORT LOST AT HIS DEATH. See below the next section for the details on the book.2. Evans' diaries were published in excerpts some years ago by the Sunday Times.The only remaining record of what was published which I can find are some excerpts of these excerpts at http://beatlesite.blogspot.com/2009/08/mal-evans-diaries.html (Aside: The original article of May 20, 2003 on the Times' Website is scrubbed now).Details on the date of publication of the original article and acquiring of the diary were posted at http://board.georgeharrison.com/viewtopic.php?q=board/viewtopic.php&f=3&t=34&p=109861 .3. So, back to the BOOK MANUSCRIPT:EVANS' BOOK WAS THE ITEM OF IMPORT, lost after his shooting by Charles Higby in 1976, a suspicious character in the LAPD. (That's another story and set of research. Look him up and find the old articles of his boss complaining about his usurpation of his own role, especially when investigating police corruption -- ha ha, looks like a plant. Also was involved in the Robert Kennedy death cover-up.)It seems the actual BOOK, "Living the Beatles Legend: The Secret" manuscript by Mal has in fact been found now, or is being finally released by its owner.Page 146 is purportedly shown in Iamaphoney's movie, "TheWingedBeatle". Here are the details:In part 5/5, at 10:26 we see the putative cover of the book, inscribed as "RIP". At 10:28 we see a full-page "p. 146" of the book. Parts of the page are blurred, but most of it is readable.There is a partial close-up at 10:37, which fades in. It includes most of the previous blurred part unblurred.If you stop to read each time, you'll find hints of Paul's death -- that "Paul" fit right in as if he'd been part of them the whole time. Let me transcribe some of the salient parts:At 10:32 you can see:Mal kicks out George (Kelly) the housekeeper for Paul's house, forever. Then Mal writes the following (a few names hard to read have "[?]" after, and parts which are outright blurred deliberately by Iamaphoney have "[...]" after):"The next day Paul arrived. We were all there, Neil, [next name hard to read - ?], John, Ringo, Anita[? unsure], George and Tony. Everybody was excited and stunned. They did a good job in [... -- which must be the name of the hospital/ town in Kenya they went to at the time]. It was really happening. It was like we had known him forever."The next sentences say, "Brian was afraid. Neil assured him that he could trust Pete [I don't know what Pete is meant here; possibly Pete Best], but he needed a commitment from him. John was paralyzed. Just don't go there, he said. We don't need friggin Pete involved. I don't need to see him again."You can read the rest of that 10:32 image yourself.Now go to 10:37 for a clearer close-up of some of it, and some of the previously blurred segment.Note that at the very fade-in at 10:37, he shows the very bottom section of the now-unblurred section -- Very briefly. This part talks about creating the concept of Sgt Peppers, and says how it was "discussed at the clinic in Kenya" and a new sound "was the kind of thing that could distract from what we were doing."
To Jakob Everardski about http://beatlesnumber9.com/dead.html :No. The man who called in said later that he had heard it around campus already, so he was not cooking it up. He said he thinks his roommate heard it too from a band which came from London or England, and turned him on to the idea.We also know that it was late 1969 when this began to be more widely heard of in the USA. But it was already in Feb. 1967 fan-base "Beatles Book" in England where the rumour was first denied. To suggest that was to "boost record sales" would be silly.But you do have a point: in 1966 though, not importantly in 1969, the Beatles ALSO had disappeared for a month or two. Someone expressing himself as "Paul" for newspapers was suggesting the band might split, or might not.I think they were indecisive of what to do, and maybe felt if it didn't work they would all sheepishly apologize. But it began to work. Can you imagine the grief AND disgust an intelligent Lennon would have for the fact that few suspected?Anyway, it was in 1966-67 that the issue was important for the case, not when the rumour made it to the USA in force, which was 3 years after Paul's death.
One of the strangest events surrounding the Beatles was the rumor in 1966 that band member Paul McCartney was dead. Not only was he dead, but was replaced with a double. More amazing was that the band seemed to be putting clues in their music and album covers to leak the truth — although the Beatles always denied any part in promoting the rumor. The most famous elements were contained on the Abbey Road album cover. The four Beatles are shown walking across the pedestrian "zebra crossing" on London's Abbey Road, but there are curious clues. McCartney is in a suit, barefoot and out of step with John Lennon (dressed as a priest), Ringo Starr (dressed as an undertaker), and George Harrison (dressed in work clothes, like a grave digger). A Volkswagen Beetle is parked on the road, with the license plate "LMW281F," implying McCartney would have been 28 "if" he had lived, while LMW supposedly stood for "Linda McCartney Weeps."
In 1969, a Detroit disc jockey named Russ Gibb received a phone call from a listener named Tom, who announced that McCartney was dead, and for clues, to play the Beatles song "Revolution #9" backward. In reverse, the words that are repeated over and over, "number nine, number nine," sort of sound like "turn me on, dead man."The rumors continued to spread and became a worldwide urban legend when a WABC disc jockey in New York rambled on about it on an overnight show that was heard over the clear channel AM station in two-thirds of the U.S. and halfway around the world. Afterward, there wasn't a campus radio station in the country that wasn't running a weekend-long "Paul-a-thon," with listeners calling in their favorite clues as they pored over the albums and fan magazines until their eyes fogged over. Grade-point averages plummeted all over the United States.
Conspiracists pieced together a hodgepodge of lyrics from several albums to create the story. Supposedly, McCartney had a fight with the other members of the band during the recording of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and stormed out of the studio. He hopped into his Austin-Healey at about 5:00 a.m. on November 9, 1966, drove into the dark morning, crashed into a light pole, and was killed. Following the accident, a secret funeral was held, and the news was withheld from the public. A quiet search was quickly made for a McCartney look-alike/sound-alike — named Billy Shears — who finished the recording of Sgt. Pepper. It was Billy Shears who went on to record all subsequent Beatles albums and launch his own band, Wings.Of course, all this started in the creative minds of a small group of college students who went cherry-picking through the lyrics of wildly different Beatles songs to invent the story. Unquestionably, the band was bewildered at first by the story, but John Lennon in particular seemed to enjoy playing along, while never exactly commenting on it openly.
Correction on forensics book -- It is partly by Andriola who is the freelance writer and interviewer who wrote the Wired article and was interviewed on a now-scrubbed TV show about the subject referenced here: http://invanddis.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=print&thread=5735 under sub-post "Re: Finally!!!!!!!Post by ilras on May 4, 2010, 1:31pm"The TV show originally had 30 more minutes aired; voice analysis (of course) was cut for the more widely aired version; the widely aired version on the forensic facial and graphological analyses; then the widely aired cut version was put on Youtube; and now it's got "copyright infringement" scrubbing from Youtube.Also, though I mentioned PlasticMacca's Google machine translation of the Wired article, and one on this forum page where the TV show is mentioned also, there is a third translation of the Wired article (also on the forum page), and it's better than some: it's at "Re: Finally!!!!!!!Post by jojo on Jul 18, 2009, 10:12am"
To Jakob Everardski:Your point is? Of course we know that the typical pages on the issue focus only on the 1969 USA issues. The real issue is that the rumour started much before.We have:a) The Beatles Book Feb. 1967 disclaimer.b) The memory of "Tom" who was interviewed in the early 2000s and said he heard it from his roommate, who had heard it from a London band, and others in the campus were already talking about it: he didn't come up with it.c) The new interview with Emilio Lari, on the Iamaphoney member site, which you wouldn't know of, since you're not into the case enough to see what people who believe in it are posting in detail.Lari was the photographer on the movie Help!, and claims he has been harassed by Paul #2, that Paul #2 is scary to deal with, and that he's definitely not the first Paul he came to know well and photograph often.Good luck.
To Jakob Everardski:Part 2 (see directly above for part 1)But yes, there were hodgepodge theories along the way, of course, as people gathered all possible threads. We still don't have all things nailed down. But we do know he's dead."Tom"'s 1969 phone call is not "the start" of the issue. Lari says already in 1966 he'd heard in London -- "Seemed like everyone knew," he said. People dismiss these things as being critical to their own lives and only later realize they should speak -- or not, for safety.Roby Yonge, the DJ who lost his job for not only taking "Tom"'s call in 1969 but particularly for pursuing it with vigour on his next programme, commented later that he'd already suspected Paul was replaced, at least for the event he was at, when he was at Jane Asher's / "Paul"'s engagement party in late 1967. It niggled at him. Like a lot of people, however, in weird situations he didn't know what to make of it personally.He and others made mistakes in what they believed might be part of the clues. Who wouldn't? It's part of investigations and brainstorming.Again, good luck.
** Correction re. last post to Jakob Everardski:I said people dismiss things as being critical to their own lives. I meant to say:Many people dismiss things as being *NOT* critical to their own lives. Hence, many witnesses don't come forward realizing how important their testimony would be. (Other than witnesses who are killed or afraid to come forward in some cases.)Lari and Yonge fit the idea of people who heard, knew, or suspected, but only later realized they should, could, or ought to come forward.
Weird how it's only Americans who believe this "Paul is dead" slanderous and vile crock of sh1t. People in the UK and Ireland who grew up with the Beatles view this "Paul is dead" baloney with the disdain and contempt it so richly deserves.
Oh!!Americans and Japanese, too.
This "Paul is dead" hoax and so-called "conspiracy" gives REAL conspiracies a bad name.Let's have no more of this CIA funded and sponsored swill, hogwash and moonshine.
To Jas Monteith:The rumour started in London. Read the posts and stop slagging. I too didn't think it was anything more than people who look into images and think that any connections can be made; it turns out not to be the case, though there were/are some over-credulous people in the field. The reality is bad enough (not just Paul's death but the cultic links of the music industry and Beatles hangers-on), but yes, there have been some odd researchers along the way, as well as, quite legitimately, lines of inquiry pursued which didn't pan out.The CIA/Mi5-6 hogwash is that there is no cultic conspiracy and that Paul didn't die and that the rumour started in the USA.Read my posts on Lari's testimony, Yonge's testimony, the Beatles Book "disclaimer" way back in 1967 Feb. (England only, at the time). If anything, the idea was "seeded" by them, but actually it was being denied already, not seeded.Learn about the forensics and the timeline. Learn about Mal Evans' book (p. 146) as I've transcribed above and linked to.Until then, you're ill informed.
Clare:At first I thought all the PID stuff was BS until I started searching Google and came across the Wired magazine article. My observations: obviously the teeth and mouth of James Paul McCartney (JPM) are visibly smaller than that of the replacement (Faul). JPM's head was smaller and rounder than that of Faul. To my eye it's not even close. I don't have any trouble telling the difference between JPM and the replacement. It's blatantly obvious that the individual on the Sgt. Peppers album cover is not JPM. The whole album cover looks like what it is: The funeral for JPM. As to that 2009 Letterman interview: Faul obviously has no recollection of being in the Ed Sullivan Theater in 1964. Faul even admits that "people know my history much better than I do." That's because it's not HIS history. Faul is a replacement and a sham and a phony.I've been searching for the last known time that JPM was seen alive. There is some speculation that he was replaced after the Seattle concerts 8/25/66. Faul is first seen at the LA press conference on 8/28/66 and the San Fran airport 8/29/66. As far as I can tell the last time we saw the real JPM was the Memphis interview 8/19/66. So at some point between 8/19 and 8/28/66 JPM was killed and replaced. To pull this off there had to be involvement of one or more intelligence agencies. There must have been payoffs and intimidation to shut up everyone who knew. The intelligence community controls the mainstream media so that would explain their silence on this issue for all of these years. The power structure can kill a president in the middle of the street at high noon in a major city, they can nuke buildings in downtown Manhattan and they can kill and replace cultural icons. At some point we need to stand up to these guys and stop this insane ruling class.
To Don:Yes, the gist there is what I conclude as well; as to his death date, well, we really don't know exactly. We know he was at the Melody Maker Awards, though it seems that footage was recycled for photos later ... I forget where that argument is made, but Tina Foster of PlasticMacca.blogspot.com has talked of this in a radio interview she did.I think it's unimportant to pin it down right now; we do have the "I ONE IX HE DIE" image from the original drum-skin gravestone by "Joe Ephgrave" (who doesn't exist, so it's probably Epitaph-Grave) on Sgt P cover.Aside: this "I ONE IX HE DIE" is not on the CD re-do of the lettering, which totally changed the lettering style, so that it f-cks it up to be "I ONE IX HE BIE".Anyway, my point was going to be that the original, which was "I ONE IX HE DIE", would be literally 11-9 ... or I suppose at the latest, 1-19 he die.If he'd died in January as the Beatles Book of Feb. 67 suggested, you could go with the 1-19 date, but again that would be US dating style AND we know Paul was missing and the new guy in Kenya -- if you have any eyes to see the difference in the men -- and Mal moving in with the new Paul in late 66, and Mal's book page talking about the events mentioning firing George Kelly (housekeeper for real Paul) and saying Paul came and Strawberry Fields was started in Nov 66. (This is at the end of "TheWingedBeatle" movie, Mal Evans' purported book typescript flashed in the movie several times at the end.)So anyway, it all points not to January.Why am I elaborating on what's NOT the case (i.e., January)? Just to be thorough.Now to the point:It was BRITISH dating to put DAY first (which we do here in Canada, too, usually). So that would make it 11 September that the drum-skin refers to. Maybe it also refers to the new Paul's arrival after Kenya, to start his new life as a Beatle.But the Cultic issue is strengthened if Paul died on Sept 11, 66 (where 9 and 6 are interchangeable for "magic" purposes sometimes), which makes it Sept 11, 1-666.Plus it fits the timeline best. By November, they were already finished with the Kenya trip initial plastic surgery.
To Don:I have to add here: No, that Memphis interview is definitely the original Paul. Exuberant, small, and more triangular of face in structure under the roundness ... it's not really roundness, but it's different than the slightly older (though friendly sometimes) Paul#2. Yes, there's some TV stretch of the image, but this still leaves us the original Paul. The original had large eyes for his face; the second has less so, but a bit buggier from his eyes being more flat with his upper cheekbones, not from overall size in his longer face.
" I have to add here: No, that Memphis interview is definitely the original Paul. Exuberant, small, and more triangular of face in structure under the roundness ... it's not really roundness, but it's different than the slightly older (though friendly sometimes) Paul#2. Yes, there's some TV stretch of the image, but this still leaves us the original Paul. The original had large eyes for his face; the second has less so, but a bit buggier from his eyes being more flat with his upper cheekbones, not from overall size in his longer face. "Is this your idea of what biometric face recognition is all about? " it's not really roundness "!! Just guess work and school girlish prattle?"it's not really roundness, but it's different than the slightly older (though friendly sometimes)" " The original had large eyes for his face; the second has less so, but a bit buggier from his eyes being more flat with his upper cheekbones, not from overall size in his longer face."This is laughable drivel and babble!"Until then, you're ill informed."You've been misinformed and ill-informed for a long, long, long time!! Isn't it time you wised up?" Faul is a replacement and a sham and a phony."Just change the name and it's YOU!!
@Jas:Instead of posting your drivel, please present some evidence that backs your position. I have sited a forensic scientist who determined that James Paul McCartney and Faul are not the same man. The real Paul McCartney would have had to have undergone reconstructive palatal surgery, which breaks the palate, in order to match Faul. He wouldn't have been able to sing or perform for a year if he had undergone such surgery so it obviously didn't happen. See if you can find photographs of the pre 1966 McCartney that match the post 1966 McCartney. Won't won't be able to so please crawl back under your rock.
To Clare:Melody Maker - I have read that JPM attended it but I have yet to see a photograph that was dated showing JPM at the event. What day did MM actually take place? I have read that Melody Maker was taped and broadcast later. So I would want to know what day it took place and was it JPM or Faul who attended.I ONE IX HE DIE - If that is true then I believe the date they are referring to is 9/11/66. The 60IF document states that JPM was kidnapped and they did not find the body for sometime. Perhaps he disappeared on or around 8/25/66 and the body was recovered on 9/11/66. That was the day that "Brian Epstein" (he was replaced too) announced that the Beatles would not tour again. The thought here is that once they knew for sure Paul was dead that there was no way they would try to pull off a tour. If Paul would have turned up alive it may have been a different story.The main reason that I want to determine the date of his death is to find out where he was killed. If it was August then he was killed here in the US. If it was September then it was England. 60IF states that he was kidnapped by KKK members. It's unlikely that the KKK would fly to England to kidnap and kill McCartney and Epstein. 60IF makes more sense if it happened in the US.
Physical facts- he grew 2 inches taller, his feet got bigger, changed his eye color, ear and head shape, his natural hair part swithced sides, observations- Faul plays more piano,pre 66 PJM hardly ever looked at his right hand when playing guitar or bass Sir Faul can't take his eyes of his right hand.There is an obvious drop in quality after 1966, i think yesterday is one of the most covered songs of all time- who covers Sir Faul's songs? I'm interested in Total's speculation about ghost writers, George was found guilty of 'unconscious' plagarism which got me thinking- why did leon russell cover 'beware of darkness' so soon after george's version? Maybe he wrote it, leon, like elton was a ProIMO The MIND that wrote Yesterday, Michelle, Here There and Everywhere would NOT refer to them as 'silly love songs'
To Jas Monteith:No, silly. Read my post of and the full translation of the forensic summary. I understand it. I was simply describing in common terms what we see.The second Paul tried to mimic some of the movements of the first Paul who, when he is most subdued, succeeded in some mimicry of the first Paul. But the egregious differences, even when subtle, betray acting. And the faces are different -- but sometimes we get similarities, of course: one reason is that when one is relaxing the other looks like him a bit in another position; the mind can conflate the two different reasons for a "longer" or "shorter" aspect and think of a conflated image which is neither-nor but feels like both at the same time, but was physically impossible.Your vitriol is unfounded, but I forgive you. I see it all the time.
To Don:Yes, I know the points you're raising. I was only pointing out that that interview is the original.I think we don't know for sure the date he died or was found, beyond the drum-skin claim. There is, as I mentioned from Tina Foster's interview, some indication he was or wasn't at a certain place in late August. I forgot the exact debate (others, such as TF, are more conversant on that particular issue than I at this point).The only honest position is to:a) recognize that we don't know if the 60F document is legitimateb) recognize that there HAVE been changes to the Beatles on-line sites specifically in the area of Paul's last days/appearances. There are posts on forums over the past 8 years, concurrent to changes made on Beatles sites about Paul's last days timeline. One sees frustration of researchers in noticing the changes to the timelines going on when they posted. Such changes were co-ordinated with their pointing out problems. This smacks of the same thing that occurred in the JFK death case, or 9/11 case, when changed documents were released or new documents (or images) were released with unmatching aspects compared to already-public items, because researchers had pointed out problems in the already-public items: something fixed in a new release had new problems because perps couldn't get everything new to match up.In Paul's death, we can note that he may have been missing a few days or a week, or he may just not have been in front of a public camera (nor was John at this period), and then something happened. We just don't honestly know at this point.I've heard, but never seen proof, of Epstein's announcement's having been on Sept 11. Iamaphoney claims it, too. This date was one of the issues the forums were discussing and which is now seemingly not present on line anymore on official timelines accurately or at all (they often say only that "late in 1966" Epstein made the announcement).As to Epstein's replacement as well: I highly doubt it. I have never seen any proof of that which satisfies me. People have proposed all sorts of things (on the forums) -- which are used to "discredit" them and Paul's death.We DO know, to be honest, of people's recent doubles -- Saddam springs to mind -- being killed in their place, but fulfilling a role until their own murder is expedient (or their "airlifting", such as if the man who doubled for Saddam wasn't killed, but I bet he was, and had been lied to until then, that they'd let him live, but that's just a hunch on my part).We also know of doubling in the public eye through video releases and press releases (now also voice doubling) for Osama bin Laden.Something comparable could have been done to Eppy after he came up with or agreed to TRY to replace Paul in late 1966, which would have been a long shot, I think, in his and others' minds. Not that no-one had ever been doubled before, but I think it was more of a gamble here.But as I said, I have never seen any good reasoning about Eppy's own replacement. If you have something you think is fairly well reasoned about it, let me know. I haven't found the reasoning I've seen convincing.Doris Day and BB King I do think might have been ... not just for the public but for their families' convenience (in Day's case). Certainly the BB King case is a rich one: there was a fire, there was a change in guitar styles and loss ... it was very interesting.John Lennon sings: "CIA, FBI, BBC, BB King, Doris Day, Matt Busby". But this could as easily be about machinations by the CIA/FBI/Media (incl. BBC)/Mi5-6 around these people and others, as about replacements literally.I think we really don't know properly about these cases. BB King maybe. I think that one is possible -- if you know the strange details about that weird period in BB King's life/lives.Paul yes. Definitely.
one more thing about ghost writers-people ask'why wold the Asher family go along with the fraud?"Maybe Margaet Asher had an uncredited hand in the writing of those big Paul ballads. -Paul lived in her house for two years!- she was a pofessional musician and teacher (she taught George Martin the oboe)-her son covered some of the songsI assume she was Paul's informal teacher but perhaps there is more to the story.IF she was involved in the writing of songs she may have been compensated off the record or in kind -perhaps giving her son a career'jane, just pretend this tall guy is Paul and your family will continue to get paid, if you refuse, the Paul estate goes to his dad'
To Jo:Yes, I covered the comp. in sizes, the best sources. And though I didn't get to the natural hair-part side, you're right.The rest is true, too. It's not absolute on its own, but it is part of the case, must be accounted for, and fits better with the death of Paul than otherwise. We know for sure, however, through the physical changes, though, and the desperation of the "clues".Everyone should go to Magical Mystery Tour (movie) and watch the Aunt's dream of "food" where the 2-dead-body composite photo image fades in, again compositely over the Aunt's own moving image. Then see the restaurant horror scene after, and what it implies (says) symbolically about the situation they found themselves in.Anyone who takes the rarity (i.e., never) of showing a dead body in Beatles materials (other than, again, linking it to Paul's death, in the montage of Cream of the Beatles during the "A Day in the Life" segment, produced by Apple but that's often not noticed), should notice the specialness of this MMT death image -- grizzly though somewhat obscured. Its specialness indicates it may indeed be Paul. It also looks like him somewhat.As to the Cream of the Beatles montage for A Day in the Life:The link to a dead Paul in THAT film is not that his dead body is shown there, nor is it necessarily the song itself (it may be or not; it's usually stated that it's about Tara Browne, though Paul # 2 denied that, while Lennon claimed so). Rather, it is that there are two images OF Paul which flash: one of the Paul is Dead rumour (from a newspaper), and one of Paul sleeping or pulled from a pool at some point, when he'd nearly drowned, I think I read somewhere. But the point is: Paul is directly linked to deathlike imagery and the death rumour, and DURING the song for the film where the montage shows lots of other very definitely dead people.But the only other image of a dead man in Beatles films -- and Cream of the Beatles is someone else's doing, as well as Apple's, as I mentioned -- is this double-dead man in MMT.You could also count the more symbolic dead man in an MMT segment (again). The segment is the end of Blue Jay Way. A man with head not showing (cut off) and sparks flying out of his neck and fire raging in a corner of the image, lies rather blueish like a body on a slab. He has "Magical Mystery Boy" written, as if carved, on his chest. This could be Paul as cultic sacrifice represented or simply tribute after the fact of Paul's death. This guy though is not actually dead, it seems.
To Jo:Part 2: about people going along with it:Loyalty is the most likely for all of these people. There was intense loyalty to these guys and their success. There was also grief and shock, and maybe eventually resignation in personal terms.Money is part of it also, but never fully buys complicity of several people.There is also the cultic overtone: there may have been some fear.We don't know exactly how each of the players managed their own reactions to this, but that they did somehow is required by the thesis. And it's not impossible; Peter Asher later said, "Yes, I've known both of them" (Pauls, that is), as if he was joking, but it may well have been one of those sneaky admissions people do when they can. Jane refuses to speak of that episode of her life entirely; that's one way of handling it personally.Mal says in the only book manuscript page of his we have, p. 146, shown at the end of TheWingedBeatle by Iamaphoney Pete Best wasn't brought in on it. And I think PB wouldn't have been noticing or watching or believing such a thing, which blocks the mins.See my post above about the Mal book vs diary issue.
Correction: TO Jo:I meant in my last post at the end to say, not "believing such a thing, which blocks the mind" to the fact. I typed "mins" instead of "mind". Oops. :)
To Don: sorry, I misread. I thought you were saying the Memphis interview was Faul. You were saying the LA Press Conference was Faul. No, it's still Paul. He's got that nervous thing with his lip and is more triangular of cheek to chin. It's Pauly. Faul was first involved after the death it seems, from the page by Mal (putatively) at the end of TheWingedBeatle, which looks like a genuine old page, has Mal's style, and is rather fascinating.
Habeas corpus!!!If Paul McCartney is dead, then show us his death certificate.Where is he buried? Do you really think that if Paul had really died John, George and Ringo would have allowed Paul to be buried secretly in an unknown and unmarked grave or his body disposed of like a a piece of garbage? Thrown into the ground like a dog and forgotten. Do you really think the People of Britain, Ireland and the indeed the world would have allowed such a crime to happen? If you think the English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish people and indeed the people of the world would have permitted such a thing then you are crazier than anyone can guess.If Paul McCartney is dead, show us his death certificate. Where is he buried? If Paul was cremated, then where is his urn? Show us his death certificate. Tell us where Paul McCartney's body is buried that we may visit his grave. Shakespeare has a grave. Where is Paul's?Habeas corpus!!!
" I have sited a forensic scientist who determined that James Paul McCartney and Faul are not the same man. "Okay , you have cited a forensic scientist. So what?P.S. How about you spend some time learning how to spell simple English words?You don't need a forensic scientist! You need an English language teacher!! You "SITE"!!!
" The second Paul tried to mimic some of the movements of the first Paul who, when he is most subdued, succeeded in some mimicry of the first Paul. But the egregious differences, even when subtle, betray acting. And the faces are different -- but sometimes we get similarities, of course: one reason is that when one is relaxing the other looks like him a bit in another position; the mind can conflate the two different reasons for a "longer" or "shorter" aspect and think of a conflated image which is neither-nor but feels like both at the same time, but was physically impossible."This is all your opinion!! Pure speculation and surmise. Unfounded hypothesis! It's all in your mind!!"....the mind can conflate the two different reasons for a "longer" or "shorter" aspect and think of a conflated image which is neither-nor but feels like both at the same time, but was physically impossible."This is pure babble and gibberish!!!Habeas corpus!!
check out The Rise Of The Heros The Great Secret Of Queen
u tube user name is DILLONSONG
i bet mr fetzer will not have a plausable logical answer for it all
These Pidders are all strong on dubious videos but very weak on the paper work.When was Paul McCartney declared dead and who declared him dead? A doctor? A surgeon? When was the autopsy (post mortem) carried out? Who carried it out? What was/were the cause/s of death? Who signed the death certificate? When was he buried? Paul was a Catholic - a non-practicing Catholic. His mother was a Catholic and father a Protestant turned agnostic. It is very unlikely Paul was cremated. When was the inquest held? What was the name of the coroner presiding over the inquest? Was the death announced - as is usual in the local papers? Who attended the funeral? John, Ringo, George? Family? Of course. Friends? Relations? Was the funeral private? Note private does not mean secret.Where is Paul buried? Let's see the paper work!!Answer these questions!!Habeas corpus!!!
red flag-Faul didn't go to his dad's funeral because it was two days before a Wings tour
all the clues were deliberate- meant to bring exposure and slap on the wrist for the hoax but the imposter was so good the death was rejected by the fanswhen the fans missed the clues, the band hit them over the head with the exposure in 69
George:Try to keep up with the action here buddy! I'll go a little slower so you can understand..Paul McCartney was killed by the intelligence community. It's called a Black Operation or Black Op. In a Black Op standard procedures are not followed. See the 9/11 operation or JFK assassination. That's why there is no public funeral or autopsy etc. They have the power to cover up deaths. Just because there is no death certificate etc. doesn't mean that Paul is still alive. What you have to do is evaluate the evidence that is there: photographs and videos. This evidence proves that Paul McCartney was replaced. The system isn't going to suddenly come to its senses one day and admit all of this. It's up to us to demand justice.
Jim Fetzer is a great interviewer. Sometimes he grills the people he's interviewing. Who are they? Where do they come from? Where have they been? What is their background. What are their qualifications. Their credentials. Who do they know. Who don't they know. And that's BEFORE he really begins the "real" interview. Sometimes Jim doesn't grill. He TOASTS. Don't get me wrong. It's all very leisurely BUT it's f***ing LETHAL! Sometimes Jim's like a hatchet man on speed and I hope he's in top form when this PID poppycock comes down the f***ing pike.
George said "What YOU have to do is get a life"Now THAT is one well though out and reasoned scientific argument my friend. I now see the error of my ways! It's now plain as day that the Paul McCartney on the Yesterday and Today album cover looks the same as the Paul McCartney on the Sgt. Pepper's Album!Except that he's 2 inches taller and the shape of his head has changed.
Clare:At first I thought that was the real Paul at the LA press conference too. But after reading Sun King's post and watching the press conference a few times I don't think it is the real Paul. Before the press conference starts you can see him standing next to the others and he looks taller like Faul. His voice also sound deeper than at the Memphis interview. At the airport there is no doubt it was Faul.
Dear Don:He's in his subdued mood. He could be very "politic" but understatedly aggressive with stupid reporters. But he still has not just a smile (Paul#2 sometimes smiles genuinely too), but a liveliness and funny mouth movement. Yes, he's his subdued self -- the one that Paul#2 mimics the best -- but it's the real deal subdued, not the copyist.
I agree with Don re LA. I was fooled at first- It's a brilliant impersonation of Paul. IMO Lennon looks very nervous at the sart- his right leg wont stop moving, then he swivels in his chair, then he relaxes. But comare it to this-http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=IbbOpOpulwMIt's a different Paul.
To George Marshall who called me crazy, and to Don who was "insulted" as well:It's amazing how this issue has polarized so many -- not all -- people here, more than other issues, some of them less well argued (even when partly true), and some of them not as definitely true. Ha!George, you must understand the forensics and the voice analyses, the photo comps (particularly good is the comp with Mal because in both the first and 2nd, the hips are lined up in space, so you can do a height and proportion comparison properly, over their whole bodies with Mal as the control test). The test is here: http://plasticmacca.blogspot.com/2009/09/mal-evans-suspicious-death.htmlBesides this, you must weigh in the timeline, the comments (yes, from George as well, that there was something which changed -- and his eyes darted -- in 1966, which might be India but could also be Paul's death). You have to consider Emilio Lari's testimony now that Paul died. And also Yonge's eyewitness impression from 1967. You know nothing yet if you don't try to go through the evidence! Just read the posts above with patience once. (I can tell you didn't; that's obvious.)And you better familiarize yourself with forensics, especially on the teeth.If this carefully sifted evidence makes me a "crazy", then I'm happy to be one, just as if Fetzer's points about the Zapruder film and X-rays makes him a "crazy", then he's happy to be one.Get informed.I have posted information above on the forensics and outlined the arguments. I have also posted about Mal's book (as opposed to his diary).:PAnd to Don: thanks for trying to wake these people up too. (But the interviews of Paul until late 1966 are the real Paul. I know why you have your doubts, but he's got his special smile and his subtler, more controlled emotions, lower -- slightly aggressive -- politic voice, which Paul#2 was best at mimicking rather than the other moods of Paul.)
To Jo and Don:No, it's the same Paul. If you watch Paulie being particularly subdued, which was rarer in earlier interviews, you catch these movements and tones of voice. They are the ones Paul#2 was BEST at imitating later; but then, his face and mannerisms are wrong sometimes, so you can tell it's the new Paul. They overlap in mannerism at times -- this is one time where Paulie comes closest to the best acting of Paul#2.Watch Paulie smile and light his cigarette. Watch his barely concealed smile. He's not a poseur. The other man has friendliness at times, and feelings, but he's basically more a poseur when trying to smile "like" Paul's manner. And when he first came on the scene, he was much more different than even later (with more surgery); and then age made changes as well so we all "forgave" those differences.So anyway, in mid-late 1966 Paulie was quite different than the few early interviews with a nervous and longer-faced Paul#2, in very late 1966 and early 1967.Anyway, glad Don and Jo get it overall. :) I had a hard time thinking about this issue, and there's nonsense in some of the research on it, but yah, there is a fifth Beatle. I actually don't hate him. I DO however hate the mix of Crowley in with more positive "religious paganism" in the circles around the B's and Paul#2.
TO George Marshall (and Don, just fyi):GM might do to remember that "habeas corpus" was specifically necessary only when there was a body to be shown, and no forensic and circumstantial evidence. GM might also do to remember what Lifton's contribution -- and later Horne's and Mantik's: that we DON'T HAVE A BODY in the usual "BEST EVIDENCE" sense. We don't have a "VISUAL RECORD" either, in the usual sense. We have TAMPERED evidence.In the case of Paul's death: we have actually suggestive hints of such things as DNA problems and graphological problems, but most of the evidence is withheld: he was asked by the public to submit his fingerprints but like Obama refused. It doesn't prove he wasn't the same, or was. But it leaves the case open. His passport has never been released. His paternity suits have all claimed in some astonishment (not knowing of PID issues, I'm sure) that the man submitted "an imposter's" blood and writing samples. This would not be a necessary interpretation, of course, if he was not Paulie.But the point is: we HAVE the body in photographs. The Mal comp I already posted for you is good enough, as is the photo forensic facial comp work (if you understand how they did it and what they looked for, you will know, even as a hoi polloi person like the rest of us, that it is "juryable" evidence). :)The teeth issue is damning on its own.So we have a "corpus". Get informed. Read about it. I've sifted it for you and put up the posts (above). READ.As to Don: Hi. :)
To George:Yes, Don misspelled "cited". I know.As to forensics, since I've read your resistance position now even higher up in this thread, I will say:READ THE FORENSICS AND UNDERSTAND THEM OR **YOU** ARE NOT DEALING WITH **WHAT WE DO HAVE** which is quite a lot, without having the dead body.The whole reason for developing forensic science was WHEN THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE DEAD BODY. They had tests of some things which were physical items ... but no dead body. The first case to be won this way was the case against Sweeney Todd, in fact! And it's also what Lifton is really arguing about the JFK case: have a body but it's not "best evidence" on its own anymore.Now, if that makes me "crazy", sign me up. I am far more patient and intelligent than you seem to think currently.The info on the forensics is posted above, with links. The info on Mal's book and diary is posted above, also with links and transcription and care. The info on Emilio Lari's testimony and Yonge's, with references and comments are posted. (But unless you're a member of the Iamaphoney member site, you can't hear the whole interview with Lari.) And the voice comp information you can look up yourself. There are some good pages on that scattered around, one of them at PlasticMacca.Not all work on the subject is good; not all of it is correct (even when it was a good attempt). But there is good work out there.Good luck in understanding your world more patiently and properly, including what "habeas corpus" meant vs. what it means now: a proper body of evidence about what the facts of the case are.
GM seems to think that if you don't have a body, you don't have a murder. And if the paperwork was hidden, you don't have an event.What drivel.You can't argue it happened merely from the fact there's no evidence of dead body (except that image in MMT I found), and no paperwork: that would be arguing from the lack of evidence in those fields.But you can say a) it could have happened, and then b) find the evidence you have, the positive proof of a NEW, and LIVE body: Paul#2.If GM can't think that through and understand that the forensics are quite real (on the new Paul compared to the old), and a few researchers getting the double and the original a bit confused because of mannerisms in a video, then he doesn't understand evidence. I'd hate to have him on any jury where it was a complex case until he changed his attitude.GM: read the forensics posts (x2). Go to the links. Try to understand first, then comment. Same for Mal's page: the book manuscript seems to have been found. Learn the circumstances. Mal's page describes some of the "how" it was done -- just a bit.As to spellings and Latin: I took 7 years of Latin. You? And you got "PhD" wrong. I don't know Don, or Jo, but I must say at least they know enough to try to understand the case first, and, to boot, they don't post the same "habeas corpus"/"show me the paperwork" drivel in post after post. In this case we have suggestions of what might have been done with the body, but more than that, we HAVE A DIFFERENT MAN AFTER, based on forensics of voice and body.Should count for something. Ha.
7 years of Latin.. lolDoes that make your point of view superior to anyone here ?
No: GM mentioned Jim F and Latin. I was saying I know it too.
And re. spelling: GM was picking up Don for misspelling "cite". He refuses so far to look up to the detailed posts here (they're easily here on one page), on forensics of the 2nd vs. 1st man, the posts which mention the timeline conditions, and posts on Mal's putative book page, or on the paternity cases which showed a right-handed not left-handed man and the wrong DNA (though that could have been a bait-and-switch done by a real Paul, seeking to get out of the suits, of course), and the posts on Lari, Yonge, and others who've testified extensively now, or on the voice prints harmonics (inaudible, but particular to a person, like a fingerprint), or on the Mal-with-Paul/Mal-with-Paul#2 photos ...So ... when the homework has been done, then the comments by GM, Jakob E, etc., will at least be about the case itself, not prejudiced by pure impression and emotion and unreasonableness about "where is the dead body and paperwork" -- for it's desirable to have such but not required in this case. Perhaps one day we'll have those. (However, the body may in fact be shown in the MMT film, as I pointed out.)
To Clare and Jo:If we could determine where and when JPM was killed we might be able to convince the local police to open an investigation. There is no statute of limitations for murder. They could bring Ringo Starr, Yoko Ono, Jane Asher and Faul in for questioning. Time is starting to run out and if something isn't done soon anybody that knows anything may gone in the next few years.It may turn out like the Garrison investigation and get subverted by the alphabet soup agencies but it needs to happen. James Paul McCartney was one of the greatest songwriters in pop music history. We can't just let the faceless Black Operators get away with killing and replacing him.
Dear Don:It's occurring now through the sometimes maligned Iamaphoney group. This is a legitimate leak, though artistic (with some bad moves: to give an impression of what the Beatles and Julian might say if they had told the story, there are some moments where they edit/change the tracks, giving the impression to some people who don't think the whole leak through, that the Iamaphoney group is entirely deceptive).The people at the top are speaking now: from the group (whose name I now forget, dammit) who show the Ryde Blaze of 2007 was of the same complex where "The Magic Christian" with Ringo and Sellers was filmed, and make the claim that they will "tell" what Apple has done and not let the arsonists and killers "of their friends" get away with it anymore.I think there is something now brewing.The page 146 putatively from Mal's typed manuscript, previously lost, shown at the end of Iamaphoney's "TheWingedBeatle" movie, gives quite a bit of information to us, because it's a page from the moment when Mal brings the changed Paul#2, it seems, for it says, "It was like we had known him forever," and, "They did a good job in the clinic in Kenya." This comes after describing how Mal had just fired George (Kelly) the longtime butler for Paul, and then moves into Paul's home to work on Sgt Peppers, for that "was the kind of thing that could distract from what we were doing." (See my post above from: January 7, 2012 8:54 PM)We CANNOT determine when Paul died exactly at this point except to take Sept 11 as a likely date when he died or was found. It fits, within a week or two before it, with the last days of footage from the Melody Maker Awards show. But yes, there's a question around the Melody Maker date or whether he lived a few weeks later and was found, or died suddenly at some point between then and Sept 11. The footage and date for the MM Awards have been in question, both as catalogued on some forums and by Tina Foster in her radio interview, available on her Website PlasticMacca).Let's not be silly enough to "try to figure out the date". No-one has yet to pin it down; we know within a few weeks. It's enough for now.We have insiders, it seems, or people who were let in on insider information through the release of Mal's manuscript by someone, who are going to tell all. So let's just help get people to get more serious about the case, which SOUNDS at first like a SILLY and DISTRACTING case/issue, when it's not.Read my post above on that Mal manuscript and check it out at the source.
Clare:Mal Evans - Some bits from his diary corroborate the photos we see of Faul from Kenya. So there is little doubt that Faul was in Kenya for plastic surgery in the fall of 66. Faul's first appearance - There is no doubt that it is Faul on the steps getting off of the airplane at the San Fran airport on 8/29/66. If it was really Paul at the LA press conference on 8/28 then that means that either Paul was replaced later on 8/28 OR Faul was being groomed in advance to take over for Paul. How sinister is that? Paul and Faul may have co-existed for some time: "After that Billy, already within the Beatles, was set up as a Paul replacement but first it was preferred Dino Danelli because of his better compliance with Paul's figure." Could it have been Dino at the LA press conference? I am collecting some screenshots from YouTube and the LA Paul looks taller than the original. It may not have been Faul at the press conference but I don't think it was JPM either.
To Don:1) The press conference is Paulie. I know why you think it isn't but it is. Faul was LEAST like Paulie when he was 1st on the scene.Now, in trying to describe why this is Paulie, there's a problem. The image is TV and slightly distorted (only slightly). Plus, since one can't do the absolute tests using such images, one can broadly describe what one sees -- and I was lambasted above for doing so, as if I don't know the more controlled-case forensics argument about the photos, though I'd posted an extensive set of assessments above, talked of them on my show, and linked to the work itself -- I resist doing more ordinary description of the image from TV. (My forensics info posts above are in 2 parts at *January 7, 2012 8:26 PM* and at *January 7, 2012 8:27 PM*.)But one thing I'll mention is that Paulie does his slightly "I'm on good behaviour" high lip-line smile. He pulls his mouth high on his face, which, is quite the flat lip line and high smile-suppression move!It looks particularly cute due to them frontal-triangular & equilateral-triangular aspect of his facial bone structure (a loose description, of course: I've done sculpture and know how planes interconnect on objects quite complexly). The confusion you're making is semi-common on the PID sites, but it's a mistake, I assure you.The fact that we're having this disagreement is not a sign of our total inability to see 2 different men because they are 1 man, as some people here have claimed ... it's a confusion of what makes Paul distinct, which was increased with surgery, after Paul#2 came on the scene and was slowly "rounded" out (widened at upper cheekbone) by implants -- though he's still longer from temple to chin, of course, relative to brow and relative to the base of his nose relative to the chin.2. Paul may well have known some of the B's before, but we don't know that either yet.3. You are confusing the DIARIES and the BOOK MANUSCRIPT, which is a common error. The DIARIES existed for us only in excerpts, given in a Sunday Times article. And all that remains of those now are excerpts taken onto Beatles Websites from the much longer article in the Sunday Times (now scrubbed from the Times).The DIARIES said nothing (in the excerpts) about Paul's death or about those circumstances. I have given the link to the only excerpts from the Times excerpts I could find. I will give it again (sigh): http://beatlesite.blogspot.com/2009/08/mal-evans-diaries.htmlThe TYPED/HAND-CORRECTED MANUSCRIPT seems to have been found or is being leaked now. One page is shown in full (the full page is shown with some blocked areas, but these are MOSTLY shown unblocked in a later fade-in cropped image). I have given the details above in a post of *January 7, 2012 8:54 PM*, and there I also transcribed the most relevant portions. The page (putatively p. 146) is given at the end of "TheWingedBeatle" movie.
Don:See above. But also:You say there were things in the diary about Kenya. Where did you see these excerpts or summaries? As to Kenya itself, we have the home movies by Mal now, from that trip. They are of a different man -- though some can't see the difference for some reason.
Clare:LA Paul - I am not 100% sure one way or the other if the LA Paul is the real deal. I have my doubts that it's the real JPM but like you mentioned the video quality of a 60s TV broadcast on YouTube is less than ideal:) Seeing Faul at the airport on the 29th makes me doubt that the real JPM made it from Seattle to LA. I would say this is an open question for the time being and requires further study. The alphabet soup boys are very good at putting on a show and they specialize in manipulating and controlling the press. Everything they do requires intense scrutiny. So I will keep this one in the back of my mind for now and wait until I get some more info to make a final determination. Photo from last show - Having said all of that I have found a photograph that looks like the real JPM running to the stage at Candlestick Park. I read somewhere that McCartney and Lennon both took cameras on stage that night and sure enough this photo shows both of them with cameras. It looks like Candlestick Park as well even though the photo is undated. I have listened to some audio of that concert as well on YouTube and it sounds authentic but it could have been pre-recorded. If this photo is legit then JPM may have made it back to England. Mal Evans - I was surfing the internet early this morning and came across some stuff. I think it was from my work computer so I'll check the history when I go in tomorrow.
Don: Great. Let me know re. Mal diary summaries or extracts. The original article from the Times is no longer avail.The Book is the more important item, however, since it would have been written from the diaries if it's genuine, and never fell into Ono's or Mal's widow's hands, like the diaries. That is, the excerpt we have now, if genuine, is a whole page, and from the time where Paul#2 is brought to meet the band & initial close acquaintances, after surgery.As to the park and photos and so on:Tina Foster covers some of the possible problems around those dates, as I said, in her radio interview, avail. on her Website.So let me know what diary excerpts you saw, but also what I do wonder is this: what photo from "the 29th at the airport" do you think is Paul#2? Do you think that's Aug. 29? If so, then maybe Paul#2 was already groomed, or maybe Paul himself had died, or Paul#2 was friends and got taken along to France with the real Paul and Paul died in France, as per the 60F doc.See my attitude is, fyi, that I'm open to any hypothesis until we know for sure or likely which line is accurate. But it's clear to me that currently, the only meaningful date we have for Paul's death or discovery is Sept 11 (not Nov 9, by the way). If this changes, it changes.The airport photo could be from AFTER Kenya and promoted as being from BEFORE Kenya, too, just to give an image from a time where otherwise there would be a longer gap of no photos.So, lemme know re. your Mal diary finds; check out the all-important Mal BOOK possibility in TWB (TheWingedBeatle), and also please lemme know if you meant Aug or Sept 29 when you said airport photo? And do you have a link to the airport photo you mean?When I talk of the airport photo I mean one where Mal and Paul#2 (definitely #2 in the one I mean) are standing near a car and hanging out with suitcases. It's in TWB. So what airport photo do you mean? I'm very very good at telling the real from the 2nd Paul. Gimme a link. Thanks.
Clare:I'm talking about the San Franscisco airport on 8/29/66. This photo is the first time I've seen Faul anywhere. Scroll down a bit to get to Sun King's post. You can also check out this YouTube video of the Beatles at the SF airport. I'll try to dig up my Mal Evans stuff tomorrow.
Don:If the debarkment was the double already, but the concert was Paul, it may be that Paul's friend (later Paul#2) was already doing some work for them/him.Here is the only closeup video of them I could find in good quality, from the airport in San Fran, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b59tEMNUd5E&feature=related -- and a bad-quality one which makes him look even more like Paul#2, because the shadows, blurred, turn the face into a much longer face sometimes http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WsMPSeFQBuUHe does seem to have a wider chin, angled and slightly cleft. He also does not seem to have as much space between his eyes and brows as the graceful brows of Paul were to his eye height.On the other hand, there are some aspects of strong light which could fool one into thinking a person had a longer face. But you might be right.The concert photos show Paul, though.Here is a montage of stills from the concert set to music as played at the concert, http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3hivsPWLYAUIn those images from Candlestick Park itself (Paul straining, elongating, tautly stretched skin) and in strong sunlight with accentuated shadows under his cheeks in the film of and photo of the airplane debarkment ... Paulie ends up having a few features similar to Paul#2's bad surgery.When we really LOOK at these compared to the photo of Paul#2 in the MMT bus, or with Linda Eastman in late 1967, or with Jane Asher in the graveyard for the "date" -- really a suggestive photo op, of course -- we see the two men are very different, but share some visually similar features UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.Hence the conflation in our own minds, sometimes, which we have to work to separate. (Notwithstanding George Marshall's nasty comments to me about "conflating in our minds" two separate people.) We'll find out in November, I guess.
TO DON: WHAT? I didn't post that note!!!!!!!!! Who signed up as ME? DON I NEVER SAID THAT! I'm gonna find out from Fetzer. What the HELL? I HAVE NEVER CALLED ANYONE ANYTHING WORSE THAN IDIOT IN FORUMS if I remember correctly ... and that, rarely.
Clare:I know that wasn't you. That person's blogger.com profile # is 11874383771781558087 which is obviously not you. Just another gutless hater out there.
Clare said: "If the debarkment was the double already, but the concert was Paul, it may be that Paul's friend (later Paul#2) was already doing some work for them/him."YES! This has been my contention all along. They wanted to make a move on Paul but they waited until the tour was over and they had a suitable replacement lined up. The airport business was a test run. Since nobody noticed the replacement there, they were confident they could get away with it. The 60IF document makes it sound like the Beatles had no idea that Paul was going to be killed. Which is probably true. When Paul turned up missing they called the police and the intelligence service for help. The intelligence service told the Beatles to keep going as though nothing had happened and they would take care of everything. Then when Paul turned up dead lo and behold the intelligence service already had a Plan B ready to go - Faul. He gets some more plastic surgery, learns how to play bass left handed, the Beatles stop touring and there you go. Record sales were still strong and nobody really notices anything in the US until 1969. Lennon and Harrison didn't want to let Paul's murder stop them. They wanted to continue on until all of Paul's back catalog was released. The price for all of this was silence or death. Lennon was shot by a CIA operative in 1980 and Harrison ended up getting stabbed in his own house by another operative. In retrospect they would have been better off just coming clean from the git-go instead of making a deal with the devil. Those stills on YouTube of the SF show match the still photo that I have so obviously the real Paul was able to finish the tour and get back to England. There the trail gets murkier.
It's also really really stupid. Why would anyone -- me or anyone -- insult someone out of the blue that they get along with overall? And I don't call people names such as that.As well, even on the surface, a thinking person would find this fishy. But some people would not think that through, so I have replied. Anyway, have lodged a complaint to Fetzer.
To Don:Well, I'm glad you checked the ID on that poseur. Amazing how people who don't do their homework get so worked up on a topic; if they had an argument about the case, where it might be flawed, because they knew it intimately, at least they'd have that. They don't feel it's worth it, and put down the idea there COULD be any forensics involved, then misunderstand (in George's specific case anyway) that forensics involve not only identifying a corpse, but sometimes identifying people when alive, or when previously alive (original Paul), and other aspects of the evidence.So okay, you're a) trusting the 60F doc. If we take that position, then perhaps the replacement was already posing as a double from time to time. They DID use doubles for certain things (as far as we know officially, however, it was only for movies).It is also true that Paul would normally have flown in with them. If your contention is that he didn't, where was he at this point? Or is this footage staged later? Or what?And the photos from Candlestick Park ... are they truly datable to then? If so, why was Paul not on the airplane to debark? These are the questions which must be answered in this line of thinking.b) If Paul was on the plane, and/or wasn't on the plane but was at the concert, the Beatles still could (as you suggest) NOT have known or have known that Paul was done for. I suggest they did NOT know as you suggest, too. But ... I think they may indeed have known the cultic stuff was going on and thought they were directly responsible for putting Paul in some kind of danger.There is some suggestion that John said, "Oh my God, we've killed him!" I forget the reference for that -- if it was in Mal's page or somewhere else.Iamaphoney shows several other people's book pages in the Rotten Apple and TWB films. The book pages are often shown about things which are suggestive of Paul's death or some aspect around it, so maybe it was there that I read that.I am distracted today, so I'll leave that.One thing that's fascinating is that for sure the MMT film's Wizard scene is the original Paul. So he was filmed at some earlier date ... and the footage worked into the final MMT film, which became more of a tribute to his death than of course it would have been otherwise, ha ha.c) I should also mention in this context, that in the MMT movie, in Blue Jay Way's soundtrack, for the first verse, between lines the Beatles sing a background sound. Forwards, not backwards, quite clearly though a bit subdued, they say "Paul ... Died ... Paul is very ... Bloody". But it's NOT in the mono re-release.Does anyone have the original MMT LP? It would have been very revealing to leave it on there -- a bit far, if you're trying to tell yet not tell. The movie was unavailable for years, and shown only once (or was it twice?).So they changed the soundtrack and though it's now available in its original form through Youtube, etc., the song, on the mono mix (the re-issue anyway), is different.And it's less musical actually, now that they took it out for without the background in those places, the words themselves aside, the notes they sing while they say those words are wonderful.I want the film's version, even though they're talking of poor Paul's bloody death.Anyway, I'd love to know if those words (and notes!) are in the original LP of MMT, or were taken out even that far back, and only in the movie.
I have now learned that the vocals which say "Paul ... Died ... Paul is very ... Bloody" between lines in the 1st verses of Blue Jay Way in the MMT film ARE there in the CD version (stereo) of MMT album. This means it was likely on the LP too. (Which was not a true stereo mix, but was an early version of pseudo-stereo, which was common at the time.) But in the re-release of the mono mix, these background lines are NOT there.So I don't know if the mono mix LP at the time had the lines. But it probably did because it was in the stereo CD mix from later, and was in the film at the time.One way or another, the MMT film's version is stripped of these, in the mono re-release. And it's a musically worse song for the 1st verse, too: these background vocals are part of the musical harmony.
And sorry for 3 deleted replies above. They were duplicates of the post I left after: there was a tech. glitch which posted 3 of them at once.
Paul is dead is a HOAX!!GO HERE TO READ THE TRUTH:http://www.amazon.co.uk/Turn-Me-Dead-Man-Beatles/dp/1418482943/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326459513&sr=1-1
This is a generalized case against the case; it is where the clues are debated one way or another and the date of the ultimate larger-scale break-out of the rumour in 1969 in the USA. It does not do a complete argument against the forensics as they're now presented, with seeming rigour, by the Italian experts.If the experts are wrong, then that must be proven.If they are not proven wrong, the case goes back into the quagmire of hoping one way or another. Your Website presents a lot of hope via incomplete arguments, even on the clues and the timeline.We know a lot more now about how the case broke, in 1969, than this Website said. The rumour was itself already in London.This Website is simply not up to date. You can't use it except for what it's correct about. And even then, it's useless until we sort out the forensics.Any arguments against the forensics case?No. I didn't think so, Jaco. You've not done your homework on that, and that's where we're at now in this case.
******************************************* ******************************************* It would be helpful if Clare could TRY to understand what "habeas corpus" ACTUALLY means AND it would be even more helpful if Clare would get an education and learn how to spell. She says Don spelled "cite" wrong (site) and then she goes and spells it wrong too!! Habeas corpus* A "habeas corpus" is a legal writ , a feature of British and American law that protects an individual against arbitrary imprisonment by requiring that any person (corpus) arrested be brought before a court for formal charge. When the writ is executed, the court hears the complaint under which the person (corpus) has been detained and rules on the validity of the arrest. If the charge is considered valid, the person (corpus) must submit to trial; if not, the person goes free. Just as it is illegal to arrest a person (corpus) without valid cause it is illegal to declare a person (corpus) dead without a valid cause. In both cases the "corpus" which means the "person" and not the "body of evidence" as you so ignorantly write, must be brought before the court. No one can be declared dead until the body (corpus) has been entered into evidence before the court. Clare wrote: "we HAVE the body in photographs." Hilarious!! Get your facts right and learn to write and spell!!! -*- Paul is dead is a HOAX!! GO HERE TO READ THE TRUTH: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Turn-Me-Dead-Man-Beatles/dp/1418482943/ref=sr_1_1?s= books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326459513&sr=1-1
In other words...Habeas corpus!!Where is Paul McCartney's dead body?!! We are not interested in your stupid photographs. Show us the "corpus"!! Where is Paul McCartney's dead body? The real answer is that Paul McCartney is ALIVE and well and it is YOU, poor Clare, who is DEAD from the neck up. GET A LIFE !!
"Where is Paul McCartney's dead body?!!" Why don't you go get Jimmy Hoffa's body first THEN I'll go searching the English countryside for Paul McCartney's unmarked grave..."We are not interested in your stupid photographs." You mean you are not interested in pesky things like facts, evidence and the truth. You just want to spew your meaningless babble."GET A LIFE !!"Another tremendous statement that adds a lot to the discussion. Instead of name calling and spewing bile why don't you flat earthers gather some EVIDENCE that supports your position? Like a pre-1966 photograph of Paul McCartney that matches a post 1966 McCartney? Oh that's right no such photos exist..OR you could have Faul take a DNA test but he won't submit to one of those...
Even poor JFK has a grave.
JFK was executed in public. Paul McCartney was killed away from public view and replaced by a double.
Read Turn Me On, Dead Man: The Beatles and the "Paul Is Dead" Hoax by Andru J. Reeve for the TRUTH about the "Paul is dead" scam and read Hunter Davies The Beatles: The Authorised Biography for the TRUTH abut the Beatles. Read what Hunter Davies - a man who has known Paul McCartney intimately for over fifty years and who is in regular contact with Paul McCartney - has to say about this crazy "Paul is dead" crap. Do not rely on the misguided and insane, voodoo basket case Clare (Clare who?) for the "truth". Clare and her photographs. That's ALL she has - PHOTOGRAPHS.
"Do not rely on the misguided and insane, voodoo basket case Clare (Clare who?) for the "truth". Clare and her photographs.That's ALL she has - PHOTOGRAPHS."Yep. Clare is the DEVIL. She has the audacity to look at a BEFORE photo and compare it to an AFTER photo and determine they are not the same man. She is crazy and insane no doubt. Just like the Italian forensic scientist and any other honest person who has 2 eyes and a brain.
To Don below, and first to Frederico:Frederico: Using ONLY the testimony of friend of the imposter and original who would be -- if the thesis is correct -- in on the replacement, a friend who says that his friend is not an imposter ... priceless, Frederico.Also: OMG. That I can't spell? Ha ha ha ... What REALLY happened was that Don used "cite" for "site" as you say, but when I replied to the person putting him down for that, I used the wrong one for what he'd said, while defending his mistake though I'm a longtime excellent speller. (Not perfect, but would not make Don's mistake.) I made a mistake remembering which way he'd made his.As to "habeas corpus" -- YOU DO NOT NEED A DEAD BODY TO PROVE A MURDER. This is what the whole development of forensics as a discipline is about: proving whodunnit with aspects of a case which may come from a dead person or be other physical evidence. Learn of the significance of the Sweeney Todd trial (besides the sensational aspects of the transgressions on trial) before you spout your mouth off at me.The term "habeas corpus", you are right, Frederico, that it derived from having the live person who is accused stand trial him or herself, not in absentia; and I was wrong, that it derived from having the dead body and now means having a body of evidence, metaphorically a body.THE IMPORTANT ISSUE WAS, however, that George Marshall used it to mean basically "bring the dead body into the evidence at court" and that without it there could be no murder case. He is most importantly wrong. I was wrong in my detail but right in my intention and basic contention: that he is wrong that you cannot bring a case before a court -- or before our own citizen minds to consider -- without having the body available.And you are most SALIENTLY WRONG that photographs cannot prove a replacement of a man; or that the case is "voodoo", unless you mean that the intel services partly, i.e., in secretive networkings, are infiltrated by cultic fraternity beliefs and behaviours, as are avant-garde artistic corporate circles -- which is my contention and also Dave McGowan's. But of course that isn't what you meant. You merely accuse me of intellectual hogwash, i.e., voodoo as a metaphor.Patently absurd.Thanks, Don, for being on to this guy. Sheesh. What a closed-minded idiot who won't even learn the case before commenting.Comparing this lack of a body to Jimmy Hoffa indeed, Don! Good, in the sense you meant it. And of course, we have the body of JFK, but the main point to the detractors here is that Lifton, Fetzer, Horne, Mantik, etc. have shown that the state of the body was tampered with, and thus was almost like having no body. (Except: where we can tell, through various means, what tampering must have been done, then the body is useful for showing what must have been its state before the tampering.)What frickin idiots we have about PID here. How on earth will they ever be good juries?If they think this case is just plain stupid, then fine, at least let them MAKE A CASE AGAINST THE POINTS which is coherent. But claiming photos and forensics and timelines and arguments have to be nonsense because these people SIMPLY SAY SO? Or that I can't spell, as a rule? Cripes.
Clare:- ^ " Frederico: Using ONLY the testimony of friend of the imposter and original who would be -- if the thesis is correct -- in on the replacement, a friend who says that his friend is not an imposter ... priceless, "**Could you possibly try to communicate in a coherent and intelligible way? I haven't a clue what you are trying to say.^Frederico. Also: OMG. That I can't spell? Ha ha ha ... What REALLY happened was that Don used "cite" for "site" as you say, but when I replied to the person putting him down for that, I used the wrong one for what he'd said, while defending his mistake though I'm a longtime excellent speller. (Not perfect, but would not make Don's mistake.) I made a mistake remembering which way he'd made his.**More insane gibberish! You insulted Don who is, as you very well know, not EXACTLY the sharpest knife in the drawer. You are a longtime excellent sap and waster.Yes. You are semi-literate. Some work is needed on your spelling, grammar and syntax.^ As to "habeas corpus" -- YOU DO NOT NEED A DEAD BODY TO PROVE A MURDER. This is what the whole development of forensics as a discipline is about: proving whodunnit with aspects of a case which may come from a dead person or be other physical evidence. Learn of the significance of the Sweeney Todd trial (besides the sensational aspects of the transgressions on trial) before you spout your mouth off at me."**Incredible!! Who is talking about murder? Concentrate! You cannot say someone is dead without providing proof to that effect in a court of law! You must present evidence in a court of law - either by presenting the actual dead body or providing solid and verifiable evidence that the person in question is REALLY dead.
^ " The term "habeas corpus", you are right, Frederico, that it derived from having the live person who is accused stand trial him or herself, not in absentia; and I was wrong, that it derived from having the dead body and now means having a body of evidence, metaphorically a body."**The law does not deal in "metaphors". Evidence! Evidence! Evidence! Proof!Proof! Proof! Do you understand? ^ " THE IMPORTANT ISSUE WAS, however, that George Marshall used it to mean basically "bring the dead body into the evidence at court" and that without it there could be no murder case. He is most importantly wrong. I was wrong in my detail but right in my intention and basic contention: that he is wrong that you cannot bring a case before a court -- or before our own citizen minds to consider -- without having the body available."**"I was wrong in my detail but right in my intention" You are wring!!! PERIOD!!!An actual dead body MAY be taken into court but it is more usual that the court or officers of the court will go to the location where the dead body is and confirm that the remains are indeed the dead body of the person concerned. George Marshall is correct. YOU are wrong!!^ " And you are most SALIENTLY WRONG that photographs cannot prove a replacement of a man; or that the case is "voodoo", unless you mean that the intel services partly, i.e., in secretive networkings, are infiltrated by cultic fraternity beliefs and behaviours, as are avant-garde artistic corporate circles -- which is my contention and also Dave McGowan's. But of course that isn't what you meant. You merely accuse me of intellectual hogwash, i.e., voodoo as a metaphor.Patently absurd."**Do not try to muddy the waters and divert attention from your total and complete ignorance in these matters. "Secretive networkings"? "avant-garde artistic corporate circles"? What ARE you talking about?? You are obviously on drugs or some other mind altering substances.
^ " Thanks, Don, for being on to this guy. Sheesh. What a closed-minded idiot who won't even learn the case before commenting. Comparing this lack of a body to Jimmy Hoffa indeed, Don! Good, in the sense you meant it. And of course, we have the body of JFK, but the main point to the detractors here is that Lifton, Fetzer, Horne, Mantik, etc. have shown that the state of the body was tampered with, and thus was almost like having no body. (Except: where we can tell, through various means, what tampering must have been done, then the body is useful for showing what must have been its state before the tampering.) "** " Learn the case before commenting "? There is NO case!! Why you should see fit to drag Jimmy Hoffa into this is beyond me. Whether the body is tampered with or not is totally irrelevant. The body is the important thing here. The "body" is essential!! Habeas corpus! Where is Paul's dead body?^" What "frickin" idiots we have about PID here". **I agree but I cannot approve of your vile language. Yes. you are - to use your filthy language - a "fricking idiot" and I am gald you have admitted it at last. This is progress.^" How on earth will they ever be good juries?" **There will always be "good juries". Your lack of trust and faith in the judicial system is alarming. ^ " If they think this case is just plain stupid, then fine, at least let them MAKE A CASE AGAINST THE POINTS which is coherent. But claiming photos and forensics and timelines and arguments have to be nonsense because these people SIMPLY SAY SO? Or that I can't spell, as a rule? Cripes."**More incoherent baseless balderdash!! Cripes (?) I suppose "Crikey" will appear somewhere in your next outburst!! "photos and forensics and timelines and arguments" in this Paul is dead hogwash are totally useless unless a Paul's dead body is presented in evidence and proof of his death can be ascertained conclusively.You have NO "case"!!!Habeas corpus!!
For: More incoherent baseless balderdash!! Cripes (?) I suppose "Crikey" will appear somewhere in your next outburst!! "photos and forensics and timelines and arguments" in this Paul is dead hogwash are totally useless unless aPaul's dead body is presented in evidence and proof of his death can be ascertained conclusively.You have NO "case"!!!Read: More incoherent baseless balderdash!! Cripes (?) I suppose "Crikey" will appear somewhere in your next outburst!! "photos and forensics and timelines and arguments" in this Paul is dead hogwash are totally useless unless Paul's dead body is presented in evidence and proof of his death can be ascertained conclusively.You have NO "case"!!!
I'll try to explain this again. You don't need a body to declare someone dead. See the Natalee Holloway case. Forensic science proves that people's ears, nose and other facial features are unique and can be used in a court of law to identify people. Measurements taken from photos of the real JPM do not match up with the replacement Faul. Therefore Faul is NOT the real James Paul McCartney. The real James Paul McCartney has not been seen since late 1966. So if Natalee Holloway can be declared dead so can James Paul McCartney. You could just as easily get a DNA sample from Faul and compare that to JPM's brother Mike. When it comes back that the 2 are unrelated will you stop posting your nonsense then?
Don:-As always you are missing the point. Clare was right in what she said about you. You need the body of the "dead" Paul McCartney (Hello! Paul is dead...remember?) because YOU are claiming someone is impersonating Paul McCartney who is, as any sane person knows, very much ALIVE. Of course, the reason you cannot show us Paul McCartney's "dead" body is because Paul is ALIVE!! So, your whole "Paul is dead nonsense" has its own inbuilt paradox / contradiction --> No dead body of Paul McCartney because Paul McCartney is ALIVE!! We don't need to compare your "Faul" fantasy with Paul McCartney because your "Faul" does not exist!! Of course, he exists in that sick deluded cavern in your head that you call a mind. As for asking Mike McCartney to provide DNA. I know what Mike's reply to that rubbish request would be: Two words: "F*** off!" Spoken in a broad Liverpool accent. Go compare your photos with your Italian "forensic scientist" toy boy and stop making a complete jerk of yourself in here.
Again!! The simple question which you refuse to answer.Where is Paul Mccartney's dead body? (Please forget about your Italian forensic scientist kook and, please, don't mention the photos.) "The real James Paul McCartney has not been seen since late 1966. So if Natalee Holloway can be declared dead so can James Paul McCartney." Are you now saying that Paul McCartney is not dead but has simply not been seen from 1966?Why have you changed your "story"?Natalee Holloway may have been declared dead by YOU and your deranged friends but she has NOT been declared legally dead by any court.
Clare:" We DO know, to be honest, of people's recent doubles -- Saddam springs to mind -- being killed in their place, but fulfilling a role until their own murder is expedient (or their "airlifting", such as if the man who doubled for Saddam wasn't killed, but I bet he was, and had been lied to until then, that they'd let him live, but that's just a hunch on my part).We also know of doubling in the public eye through video releases and press releases (now also voice doubling) for Osama bin Laden."You really are scraping the barrel here. The use of doubles by Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden is totally different from what you are expounding in your " Paul is dead " piece of nonsense. Many famous people have "doubles"for security and political reasons. Even Winston Churchill and indeed JFK are said to have had "doubles". There is no evidence that these "doubles" were anything more than "doubles" who were used for particular purposes. There is also no evidence that any such "doubles" (Churchill, JFK, Hussein, bin Laden etc., etc., etc.) ever actually TOOK the place of the person they were doubling. I fear you have read too much of the book " The Man In the Iron Mask ". Please do not introduce these silly red herrings into the debate.
For: Where is Paul Mccartney's dead body? Read:Where is Paul McCartney's dead body? Clare:There is also no evidence that any such "doubles" (Churchill, JFK, Hussein, bin Laden etc., etc., etc.) ever actually TOOK the place of the person they were doubling. In other words there is no evidence whatever that any of these doubles (Churchill, JFK, Hussein, bin Laden etc., etc., etc.) actually replaced and supplanted the person (Churchill, JFK, Hussein, bin Laden etc., etc., etc.) they were doubling while that person (Churchill, JFK, Hussein, bin Laden etc., etc., etc.) was STILL alive.
Clare:" We DO know, to be honest, of people's recent doubles -- Saddam springs to mind -- being killed in their place, but fulfilling a role until their own murder is expedient (or their "airlifting", such as if the man who doubled for Saddam wasn't killed, but I bet he was, and had been lied to until then, that they'd let him live, but that's just a hunch on my part).Saddam Hussein and his sons had several doubles. These doubles are still alive and have, in fact, written books on their experiences.Let's have less of your "hunches" and more of your hard facts - if you have any.The sloppiness of your "research" is breathtaking.
Clare:Your little friend Don has written that Paul McCartney was, in fact, murdered. What are your views on this statement from Don?Please confirm or refute.URGENT!!
Don takes so long over his posts.I suppose that strait-jacket and face mask he wears doesn't help his keyboard skills.
"Don takes so long over his posts.I suppose that strait-jacket and face mask he wears doesn't help his keyboard skills."You have exhibited excellent name calling skills and an ability to twist and confuse the issue but no ability enlighten anyone on what actually happened. What is your real name Frederico and who do you work for? The NSA, CIA, FBI, DIA or MI5/6? Are you paid to monitor blogs?
" You have exhibited excellent name calling skills and an ability to twist and confuse the issue but no ability enlighten anyone on what actually happened. What is your real name Frederico and who do you work for? The NSA, CIA, FBI, DIA or MI5/6? Are you paid to monitor blogs?"That's rich coming from you whose only contribution has been the constant reference to an Italian forensic scientist and telling people to crawl back under rocks. Yes. I've read your posts. You think you know it all and you know NOTHING! You paranoid idiot. Who do I work for? What business is that of yours? At least I have a job. You're a joke! Constantly changing your story and now showing signs of a persecution complex. When are we going to get some answers from you two dorks? Where is Clare? Has she become sick of your stupidity,too?
To Frederico:Part 1The irony is, after your comments about your job because of Don's question, that I was at my job. I work any of 7 days a week at it. So your assumptions about my whereabouts were entirely wrong and ironic without your knowledge.Let's back up, since you're so hot under the collar about this issue --- though why, I do not care to think about.What Don obviously meant to ask was, as you figured out eventually, whether you are an agent -- not that you are, but there are some out there and yes, about this PID issue.If you think that's a silly thought, you'd be wrong, though I understand. You'd understand why someone might think your rabidly irrational attempts to be rational (i.e., that you assume this is a false issue, PID, and so you do not do the work properly to find out if it is).The reason agents hang around the issue, if you thought for a minute about it, is that this cover-up not only entailed infiltration at one time, but is also that it wakes people up to infiltration, if it's true that Paul died and there was not only an imposter-replacement, but there would have been quite a cover-up as well. Beyond that, it tends to wake people up to other aspects -- some confirmed and some not -- about cultic infiltration of not only the Beatles circle but also of the general music/art corporate scene in the USA and Britain.Look, Frederico (and the rest of the rabid naysayers), as I said in my interview, I started with the same assumptions you now have about the PID issue.I was well aware that claims of proof of different kinds and seeming connections between them could all be spurious or at least really tentative.That is not what I found, but it took me quite some sifting to determine that.You have not done such work, not to mention you are simply wrong (and don't know it). When you have done the work to find out if the photos, the timeline arguments, the forensics, the connections to cultic activities, are all wrong or right, then you will be able at least to argue each side to its utmost.I can make the argument he didn't die. Unfortunately, it holds less water than that he did. He died. Deal with it. The rest of your questions I'll answer in a second post.
regarding the Mal Evans Book, as far as i can recall the title was "200 miles to go" i have no memory of ever reading or hearing anyplace else other than the Iamaphoney videos that it was to called "Living The Beatles Legend"
Clare said "The reason agents hang around the issue, if you thought for a minute about it, is that this cover-up not only entailed infiltration at one time, but is also that it wakes people up to infiltration, if it's true that Paul died and there was not only an imposter-replacement, but there would have been quite a cover-up as well."Well said Clare. The proof of the intelligence community's involvement is the long lasting cover up and media complicity. As Col. Prouty said it doesn't take much to kill someone but it takes power to run the the coverup ever after. In Paul McCartney's case the coverup has been going strong for 45 years. The US and English media have barely said boo about it. Although when the replacement Faul was on tour last summer the Chicago paper did mention briefly that some believe Paul died in 1966.
To Frederico (and the rest):The body's exact whereabouts is unknown. This case is one where relatively few people were let in on the switch at the time (40? 50?), and because most people do keep tragedies and weird things to themselves or comment to people who won't believe them, yes, a rumour seems to have leaked late in 1966, but the actual body's whereabouts is not known by any of us yet.There is some hint that there is a man buried under a suggestively similar alias (admitted to be an alias, but no more information) on the side of Liverpool Paul loved --- I'm not an expert in this tidbit, so I don't recall the geography.But as I said in the show:In Yellow Submarine movie, the gravestone shows "No. 49 ... Here lie buried" would seem to be "Numbers 4,9 Here lie buried": Paul=4 letters, McCartney=9 letters. This follows a search to find Paul by Ringo at the beginning, where on the wall behind Ringo is a cut off plaque saying "Late Of ..."This is strange material, considering later Ringo says, "P is for goodbye".The body is not there, but the signs of mourning and direct references, only slightly obscured are.Nevertheless, I contend they DID show the body ----- once.In Magical Mystery Tour.Superimposed in 2 positions: face (right side of frame) and bodybag with bottom of head (left side of frame). The composite image fades in; this combination of 2 images is composited over the moving image of the "Aunt" character for one second or so, in turn.The identification with Paul is the following:It is the only dead body shown in all Beatles repertoire. It is Paul about whom many serious clues were laid, some of them so interlocking and obvious that those who know the clues, even those who deny Paul died, say some of the clues have to have been deliberate and are about Paul.Those who admit that much though, do, as I pointed out just now, sometimes claim it was a FAKE death, a METAPHOR, or something like a publicity stunt for money (3.5 years in the making, ha ha).So: the serious clues are there, most who know the clues would agree.Given that, many have asked for the body. You are not alone.I contend they didn't shirk from showing it -- once, during a "food-pleasure-turned-nightmare" dream sequence, followed by a more symbolic nightmare sequence in the "restaurant spaghtetti shovelling" scene involving "Mr Buster [bust a] Bloodvessel", the Aunt, and finally John Lennon as "MC [on jacket]" (McCartney) busting guts (spaghetti shovelling).They showed Paul dead once, then. And later hid behind denials.That's what seems to have happened. The families may have been so loyal to Paul and the Beatles as a whole, or scared, that they clammed up and were paid off or something.As to murder: the situation is sinister because of the Cream of the Beatles suggestions of murder, Lennon's complaints about and connections to Kenneth Anger/Roman Polanski ... and "Paul"'s (i.e., Paul #2's) enamoured attitude to Crowley ...why would those things be a problem? Because in the serious Crowleyite crowds in the 60s and now, around the arts scene, especially the wealthy and powerful arts scene, were more dangerous cultists/intel. sicko types than mere "mystically curious" Crowley readers.So yes, Paul may well have been murdered. One way or another, however, the cover-up would have brought in some shady figures if it was done. And it was.Please try UNDERSTANDING the case before you comment on the forensics without comprehending them; and please try to think out the IMPLICATIONS in the POTENTIAL it's true, so you understand why it MIGHT be important enough to SPEND A LOT OF TIME to find out whether it is true.Best wishes in spite of your previous attitude, of course.Clare
Frederico:Finally, I should add: all your posts about how Hussein had doubles but wasn't "replaced" by them are wrong in direction.Don (and I at times) was raising the fact that publics can be fooled. Each example was not meant to be an exact copy of the Paul death case in entirety -- or are you becoming numbwitted, in your anger?Aside: Hussein MAY WELL have truly been killed and replaced by a double for the purposes of the trial and hanging (of the double). That IS a close parallel: for the double was not only used for safety of Hussein, in that case, it seems.But anyway, your main important issue is the following:Stop assigning stupidity to the FORENSIC SCIENTIST AND COMPUTER FORENSIC ASSISTANT before you know their argument.Or are you one of those people who thinks others MERELY QUOTE science without understanding it, and that you need an expert to interpret the science for you before you'll know if they are right?Read it yourself. Work at it. You'll find you will understand some -- at least -- of the science.I don't quote and use them merely prima facie.I use them with understanding. Read them. Ask if you need to, what they mean. But don't malign them as if you can:a) ignore them (hoping their science was bad)b) ignore those of us who reference them as if we don't know what's right or wrong in what they'd say.I know you're hoping ALL of us simply use them as authorities without understanding the arguments -- some of us may do that, but I don't.Several people on the Web (including Don, here) understand some or most of the forensic arguments; I get most of their arguments.Work at it -- just in case, Frederico. But work. Then comment about it. Until then, you're spouting off and not worth replying to anymore. Show you've understood some of it, and then at least you could argue either way effectively.
Oh and Frederico:>>>Clare:-^ [Quoting Clare] " Frederico: Using ONLY the testimony of friend of the imposter and original who would be -- if the thesis is correct -- in on the replacement, a friend who says that his friend is not an imposter ... priceless, "**Could you possibly try to communicate in a coherent and intelligible way? I haven't a clue what you are trying to say.>>>Then you're a dunce, man. You quote a man who would have motivation to LIE, Frederico, IF this were true. You'll have to do better than that to counter the PID case. Sure, if the PID case is not true, then your person's testimony would be a supportive part of that. But it is not sufficient proof in itself, and in fact has a sinister possibility which you have not considered.What a friggin' mess you'd make as a DA or jury member. Think through what potentials your evidence has. Link. Connect. Sift. And then argue the opposite. See where that leads.
Part 1Clare:" What Don obviously meant to ask...."So now you can read Don's "mind" and you can tell us what Don "meant" to ask? How arrogant!! Is Don incapable of expressing himself without your assistance? You then continue, as usual, on your insane and incoherent rant." I can make the argument he didn't die. Unfortunately, it holds less water than that he did. He died. Deal with it. The rest of your questions I'll answer in a second post."How vulgar and insensitive toward Paul!! " it holds less water than that he did "? You are sick in the head!!
Frederico:"Don:-As always you are missing the point. Clare was right in what she said about you."I said nothing negative about Don which would be so negative, unless it was a mere statement of the moment, where he was missing one point I made.It could not be generalized like that.And you also refuse to discuss the photos and forensics -- as if the case is made without them. It's not.So if you'd debate JFK's death without the work of Fetzer, Costella, Lifton, Mantik, Livingston, Horne ...(odd as their work sounds at first, it's scientific in method and often in subject as well) ...only then would a person also dare debate Paul's death in as disingenuous a manner, leaving out any evidence or possible evidence, such as possible or actual forensics on the two men, compared.Would you leave out Mantik, Costella, etc.?No?Then you would not leave out forensics (photo, body comps) -- even if they're wrong, you must handle them -- in Paul's putative death case. Yet you are. How pathetic.
Frederico: Finally, I should add: all your posts about how Hussein had doubles but wasn't "replaced" by them are wrong in direction. Don (and I at times) was raising the fact that publics can be fooled. Each example was not meant to be an exact copy of the Paul death case in entirety -- or are you becoming numbwitted, in your anger?Forgive me for laughing. Your English is priceless Aside: Hussein MAY WELL have truly been killed and replaced by a double for the purposes of the trial and hanging (of the double). That IS a close parallel: for the double was not only used for safety of Hussein, in that case, it seems. But anyway, your main important issue is the following: Stop assigning stupidity to the FORENSIC SCIENTIST AND COMPUTER FORENSIC ASSISTANT before you know their argument. Or are you one of those people who thinks others MERELY QUOTE science without understanding it, and that you need an expert to interpret the science for you before you'll know if they are right?What sort of a question is that? Are you one of those nut cases who believe the "Paul is dead hoax" ? Remember it is called the "Paul is dead HOAX" for a very good reason. Because it is a hoax. Deal with it!! Read it yourself. Work at it. You'll find you will understand some -- at least -- of the science. I don't quote and use them merely prima facie.Your bogus use of "prima facie" has been noted. "I use them with understanding. Read them. Ask if you need to, what they mean. But don't malign them as if you can:" a) ignore them (hoping their science was bad) b) ignore those of us who reference them as if we don't know what's right or wrong in what they'd say. I know you're hoping ALL of us simply use them as authorities without understanding the arguments -- some of us may do that, but I don't. Several people on the Web (including Don, here) understand some or most of the forensic arguments; I get most of their arguments. Work at it -- just in case, Frederico. But work. Then comment about it. Until then, you're spouting off and not worth replying to anymore. Show you've understood some of it, and then at least you could argue either way effectively.Where are the FACTS!!! The FACTS!!
Frederico wants to leave out the facts as we have them, and then claim we have no facts!!!!!!!!DUNCE so far! And stupid enough to quote a long passage unnecessarily. You say nothing except your usual disingenuous "gimme facts, facts" etc., after dismissing the content of facts; it was at least unnecessary to quote my passage, in order to say that. Note how rarely I have to quote you to reply to your points; you needn't have quoted my logic in order to write "bullshit". :)Get better at your brain's products, Frederico. Stretch a bit now to LEARN the facts, or at least the CLAIMS before you claim anything about them ... or continue stewing within your own crap. Which will it be? ;)Best wishes, again.
My English is fine. It's punctuated with pithy timing (in the passages you took issue with). Sometimes it's rounded and complex. Other times it is really a mess, but those times I'm tired.Your THINKING is a problem. Your EMOTIONS run too wild; they don't respond to the problems, or with them, keeping pace. No, they're not feeling shocked in one moment, open in the next, dejected, hopeful and so on ... learning different emotional viewpoints with which to handle the variegated mosaic of facts and potentials of the PID case.I doubt you are able with other cases; but maybe you are and only let this one case get your goat. A shame.
As to Total: he tends to be busy and sometimes distant.I take issue with several things he said in the broadcast but he did raise something of the Mal Evans problem, some of the stronger song-lyric clues (but some very weak ones, too), and the forensic team obliquely, if I recall.Now you? What do you know of the case? You have yet to learn even the PUTATIVE forensics elements ... since you thought you need a dead body to do a forensic analysis of a person, it seems ...And you have not handled the Magical Mystery Tour body's occurrence in a movie filled with Paul connected to resurrection, wizardry, etc. ... a body's appearance twice in a frame, a still photo composite in a dream using all moving images except one other (of religious regalia), and right before the spaghetti horror scene with Mr Buster Bloodvessel.Do you even UNDERSTAND artistic treatments of a subject?Do you even UNDERSTAND forensic analysis of photos and medical comparison points of planes and distances on a face (or whatever)?Do you even UNDERSTAND the complexity of a case relating to Crowley and intelligence circles? I highly doubt you'd make a comparison between TYPES of magic(k) and be sympathetic to people who are interested in such things vs. people who do evil with them.You have not demonstrated a rational temperament ... for any case which even MIGHT involve cover-up chicanery, evildoing, and artistic representations of grief.Paul died. This has implications. But even if he only MAYBE died, and you didn't know the case yet ... find out!Or you lose. More than the "fight" with me, you lose the truth one way or the other, by not even really knowing the position you claim is untrue.
Where are the FACTS!!! The FACTS!!" My English is fine. It's punctuated with pithy timing (in the passages you took issue with). Sometimes it's rounded and complex. Other times it is really a mess, but those times I'm tired.Your THINKING is a problem. Your EMOTIONS run too wild; they don't respond to the problems, or with them, keeping pace. No, they're not feeling shocked in one moment, open in the next, dejected, hopeful and so on ... learning different emotional viewpoints with which to handle the variegated mosaic of facts and potentials of the PID case.I doubt you are able with other cases; but maybe you are and only let this one case get your goat. A shame."I luv it when you talk dirty.Seriously, Clare. Let's have some facts.I am amazed a nice convent school girl like you writes so badly!! I think those nuns were just too lenient. Then,of course, there were the illegal drugs.
I still think you talk funny.
Talk dirty? Where's YOUR English?I was not in a convent school. I chose to take Latin, if that's where you got that idea.You have the facts of the position. STUDY THEM. Learn what photo forensics should and shouldn't entail, in order to be scientific studies.Learn what people who know of the "clues" have to say about each one, and which are serious and which not or seem to be but might not be. Learn what the different positions are: hoax, serious but not solemn (a gag, a joke), publicity stunt, money ploy, real.Learn why each hypothesis about the clues is good or not good. Learn why they're incomplete without understanding the forensics. Learn if the forensic scientists did what they should have; learn about the cultists and the 1960s infiltration of the music industry in the USA (implicitly also in Britain, especially with the special symbols in use by Crowley and less well known then, but which the Beatles used, and Paul#2 loves).Learn about the real probable PID timelines, to compare with the CLAIMED PID timeline on the sites you use, which have a mish-mash of misrepresented or out-of-context truths, with outright wrong facts.Learn about the dead body (and why it's likely Paul) from the internal evidence in the MMT film.Learn about Mal's death and book vs diary.These are facts. I posted above --- waaay up there now --- enough to get anyone started who wished to know the facts of THIS POSITION. If you want to make the OPPOSITE POSITION then you can do so well (even though it's wrong) only when you know THIS position.If you need a death certificate, you are looking for a desirable but unnecessary fact; we have enough to understand the "bare bones" of the case. There were shenanigans, Paul died, he was replaced; the replacement loves Crowley and may have brought in some nastier influences closer around the Beatles, but also was their friend and admirer and co-Beatle; Mal died after speaking to him about royalties and Mal's lost book seems now to be found and tells what happened.Best wishes.And why do I "talk funny"? I read a lot and think complex thoughts. Apologies both serious and tongue-in-cheek (since sometimes I can speak awkwardly, as I have many things to fit into a sentence).Study Cicero or Jane Austen; they do what I do (use complex sentences sometimes), but of course, they're way better, because I also listen to modern crap. :)
Clare:"Study Cicero or Jane Austen; they do what I do (use complex sentences sometimes), but of course, they're way better, because I also listen to modern crap. :)" I have studied and read Cicero's and Caesar's works in the original Latin and Jane Austen's work, too and I can state categorically that you are talking rubbish or "crap" as you would call it.Back to the business in hand - "The Paul is dead hoax ":-Can you explain the term "prima facie" in the context in which you have used it here.---> " I don't quote and use them merely prima facie."
I don't use the forensics merely because I heard of them, superficially: "on the face", the claims of the forensics. I understand their argument -- they make it well -- so I'm not merely parroting a surface impression, their conclusion.The rest of your nonsense is answerable again, along with Jacob: the facts are above. Read 'em.And I don't know how to speak Latin; I was not a seminarian, unlike my adopted uncle who can and is a Latin scholar.
I was referring to your question about "prima facie" when I answered just above -- i.e., that I don't take the forensics as a pat, "on the face of it" answer; I understand their points of argument. They lay it out well, overall.Also, you asked in Latin (below) where I come from. As Jim mentioned that in every show I've been on with him. I'm from Toronto.The rest I'll leave. Vale. And since you've made Catholic-derived comments (convent schools and suchlike, and my adoptive uncle is a Catholic): Pax et bonum ... a Franciscan good wish. Now do your research (it's up above, Frederico). Good luck. Signing off.
Clare:Salve et bonum diem!! Unde venis et scisne loqui Latine? Quot annos nata es?Vale!
@D-Wil -- Paul opened the Indica in early 1966, before he died.
TotalJan 16, 2012 11:27 AM @D-Wil -- " Paul opened the Indica in early 1966, before he died."How about some proof?Where are YOUR facts?
That was off the top of my head, since as i believe I mentioned on the show, Lennon spoke in the first half of 1966 about buying Nietzsche from the Indica. According to wikipedia, the Indica was opened in late 1965. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indica_Bookshop
Thank God you're here, Total.Maybe you could give us the facts that Clare was unable to supply. Personally, I think there's a bit of the "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds" about Clare - if you get my meaning. Too many magic mushrooms. See what I'm saying? I just don't understand what a joint is doing in a nice girl like that. Anyhow, to the facts!!Can we have the facts now, please?Let's start as we mean to go on.Fact Number One - Over to you, Total.
And Jakob: you have the facts. Read the material I've posted. I've sifted the strong aspects of the case from the completely untenable or merely suggestive.Until you do that, you're going to still be not worth replying to anymore, as you know.I am not a drug user.
Liebe Clare!!Ihre Mutter war Irländerin und Ihr Vater war Deutscher! Du lieber Gott! Das ist so schön! Das habe ich nicht gewußt! Ach.... so schön!! Sprechen Sie deutsch oder irisch?
Clare:I have NO facts. You have failed miserably to provide any evidence or proof or FACTS. Show us your "sifting" then. Let us see the quality of your "sifting" and then let us see the FACTS!!" I am not a drug user."You are not a drug user? I cannot see the relevance of that statement but thanks anyway for letting me know. Again, your private life is your own business and has no bearing on the debate.Best regards. Jakob.P.S. You may call me Jaco, if you wish.
Jaco, if you wish me to call you that, then fine.You recall not, nor bother re-read your own statements directly above my post saying I don't do drugs?You mentioned I might be on LSD, Mushrooms or a joint........My father never spoke German and my mother was 2 generations American, so no, I speak neither German nor Irish. I understand a tiny bit of German, a little more French, and studied -- but have forgotten most forms in -- Latin. Thank you for asking. I have a friend who is an Old Irish, Welsh, Scottish scholar. I was a mediaeval scholar undergrad myself, and arts college attendee..........Now, as to the facts:I have given you all relevant facts to build the case.We have Mal's book pages, it seems. If so, they give facts.We have photos, and forensic analysis, both of which provide facts. Some of them are conclusive: such as the change in the under-nose position where the nose meets the upper lip, which cannot be moved up the face due to lack of bony structure in the nasal cavity, yet is in a different height relationship on the putatively 2nd Paul; and such as the teeth requirements (they are different and the changes would require for a man with a small palate like Paul, to have had massive surgery). These are facts.The the Sgt P drum-skin suggests Sept 11 as date for a death. And Derek Taylor added once that this scene was of a grave (metaphorically). The date fits when Paul was not heard from: he was not photographed from the Melody Maker awards to the mid-Sept-Oct Kenya trip movies). These are facts.We have the singular demonstration of a dead body in a movie with much Paul-is-dead reference, including a song, Blue Jay Way, where the background singing has clearly, forwards, "Paul ... Died ... Paul ... is Bloody." Whether to create a hoax or reveal a truth, these are facts.And in context with the forensics, the MMT clear references show themselves to be not a mere hoax, but to reveal a truth. This is a fact.In total, with or without MMT references, it is a fact that Paul died. The conclusive evidence is the forensics -- medical evidence from photos (teeth changes impossible without major surgery, which was not done, and base of nose height), plus shape-of-face evidence from photos.You have the facts. Re-read them. If you continue to ask for facts now, you are just resisting hearing the facts, and that is merely a prejudicial flaw in the potential juror, not the case made in court, and disqualifies a person from sitting as a juror.READ dear Jaco. READ.
Clare:I listened to your interview with Jim Fetzer and I must say I was impressed by your performance. As for your facts and case, Clare, I regret to say that you have nothing but hearsay, conjecture, gossip, rumor - whatever you want to call it but sadly, no facts and no case. Perhaps a definition of the word "fact" might help. According to Chambers concise dictionary a fact is: " a truth, truth: reality, a real state of things as distinguished from a mere statement or belief". What you keep serving up, Clare, are mere statements of belief. To believe "something" does not make that "something" a fact.To say you believe in God does not make God a fact. We must distinguish here between belief and knowledge. To believe does not mean to know. I may believe there is a God but I cannot know that there is a God. To say I believe "something" merely means that I am accepting the possibility that, that " something "that I believe, may, indeed, be a fact. In your interview there is the reference to the "sign of the horns" or "double horns" as you call it and which you seem to suggest is some sort of "salute" to the Devil. It means nothing of the sort. The "sign of the horns" is used to ward off the Devil or evil. The use of the "sign of the horns" is very popular in Italy and Sicily where it is very prevalent. Italians have it painted on their houses to ward off evil and Sicilians paint it on their boats (those who have boats) and on other pieces of property for the same reason and many carry little "sign of the horns" around on a keyring as a good luck charm." We have photos, and forensic analysis, both of which provide facts. Some of them are conclusive:..."Out of your own mouth you condemn yourself. .How can some facts be conclusive and others not conclusive? By its very definition a fact MUST be conclusive - otherwise it is not a fact." The the Sgt P drum-skin suggests Sept 11 as date for a death. And Derek Taylor added once that this scene was of a grave (metaphorically) "To "hearsay, conjecture, gossip, rumor" we can now add "suggestion" and "metaphor". Still no facts, Clare.
" We have the singular demonstration of a dead body in a movie with much Paul-is-dead reference, including a song, Blue Jay Way, where the background singing has clearly, forwards, "Paul ... Died ... Paul ... is Bloody." Whether to create a hoax or reveal a truth, these are facts."Whether the demonstration of a dead body in a movie is singular and by singular I take it you mean extraordinary, unique or strange , does not make the demonstration of a dead body in a movie a fact. What would the judicial system in the USA be like if photos of criminals were put on trial and the real criminals allowed to escape justice? Photographs of a dead body are not the same or anything approaching the reality of a real dead body."....a song, Blue Jay Way, where the background singing has clearly, forwards, "Paul ... Died ... Paul ... is Bloody." Whether to create a hoax or reveal a truth, these are facts. "These are not facts! Someone singing forwards in a song reveals nothing more than someone singing forwards in a song. Nothing more." And in context with the forensics, the MMT clear references show themselves to be not a mere hoax, but to reveal a truth. This is a fact.Again this is empty, shallow nonsense of no probative value and simply not facts. It means zilch, zero, sweet FA.
They are facts, dear Jaco, whether or not they prove Paul died.The forensics are the proof on their own; the others are part of the proof as a case, a context.It means much, lotsa, sweet TT (truth telling). :)
" In total, with or without MMT references, it is a fact that Paul died. The conclusive evidence is the forensics -- medical evidence from photos (teeth changes impossible without major surgery, which was not done, and base of nose height), plus shape-of-face evidence from photos. "In total, Clare, you have very little if anything to offer. It is not a fact that Paul died.You may believe it to be a fact butyour believing it to be a fact does not make it a fact. Photos cannot tell us the truth or the facts about Paul's teeth etc., etc., etc.This is just insane rot, wind and bilge." You have the facts. Re-read them. If you continue to ask for facts now, you are just resisting hearing the facts, and that is merely a prejudicial flaw in the potential juror, not the case made in court, and disqualifies a person from sitting as a juror."I have not read the facts and therefore cannot re-read the facts. You have given me nothing to work with, here. All I have read is your ranting meanderings and prattle. As for being a juror, Clare, you should pray that someone like me is on the jury if you're ever hauled up in court on some charge or other. I will certainly do my best to seek out the facts and will not be bewildered, baffled or conned by a load of junk. Let Justice be done though the heavens fall!Fiat justitia ruat caelum!!Also please note that the Greek root of the English word "apology" is "apologia" which means "defense".
For someone who keeps trying to correct me but gets me wrong, you have no self awareness on this fact, Jaco.Of course the ACTUAL GREEK is "apologia" which is "defense" or, by extension, explanation of a deep kind. I used the English, referring to the Greek, you pedant. You might have realized by now that though anyone makes mistakes, I am highly cultured and not merely speaking in "duncery", shall we say.Your insistence on there being no facts is obviously vapid, as anyone will see, for forensics well done, and case history IS WHAT A CASE IS in such an instance.Stop bothering with your requests for facts. If you want DNA go get it yourself, but as a non-thinker on the issue, you won't realize that you don't need it to prove the disappearance of a man where you have the facts we do.Is it DNA and a death cert which YOU require? Because the law, with an unprejudiced jury, would not, if you have forensics arguments well made, and Mal's book, and the references elsewhere (clues) and Emilio Lari's testimony.
Clare:Your words were: "....my apology...my...my...I should say "apology" in almost the Greek sense - my "explanation" of why I think this is a very political case..."You are clearly implying that the Greek sense of the word "apology" is "explanation" when it is clearly not "explanation". The English word "apology" is derived from the Greek word "apologia" which means "defense" in Greek and not "explanation" IN GREEK!! Can I make it any clearer? Or perhaps it's all Greek to you?The trouble with you, Clare, is that words mean what you want them to mean at any specific time and this is the root of your problem. For you "facts" does not mean "facts". For you "proof" does not mean "proof". For you "evidence" does not mean "evidence". These verbal acrobatics, juggling and legerdemain undermine even further your so-called non-existent "Paul is dead" "case". You are like Houdini on speed wriggling and gyrating like a whirling dervish while you attempt in vain to make your escape with your linguistic maneuvers and somersaults.Say what you mean and mean what you say! For a change!! Gimme a break!! One PID trick pony!!"Of course the ACTUAL GREEK is "apologia" which is "defense" or, by extension, explanation of a deep kind. I used the English, referring to the Of course the ACTUAL GREEK is "apologia" which is "defense" or, by extension, explanation of a deep kind. I used the English, referring to the Greek, you pedant. "" You now say that "apologia" is "defense" or, by extension, explanation of a deep kind. "By extension.. explanation of a deep kind? What a pile of poppycock! Why don't you admit you got it wrong and stop your backtracking!? " Stop bothering with your requests for facts. If you want DNA go get it yourself, but as a non-thinker on the issue, you won't realize that you don't need it to prove the disappearance of a man where you have the facts we do."DIY DNA? A nice idea which will certainly catch on but not really feasible right now - unless you have any bright ideas on the matter. Sorry. But very funny.What I want is the FACTS!!NOT clues. NOT hearsay. NOT rumor, NOT metaphor. NOT suggestion. NOT hunches.F.A.C.T.S.
So what facts help you know a man replaces another?Forensics on photos of the two. How about that?That's not a "clue" and not "hearsay", not "rumor", not "metaphor", not "suggestion", not "hunches".And we have Mal's TESTIMONY and Emilio Lari's TESTIMONY and Roby Yonge's TESTIMONY and specialist, Dr. Henry Truby's voice analysis TESTIMONY.Also not "rumor" ... etc. IDIOT!
" Stop bothering with your requests for facts. If you want DNA go get it yourself, but as a non-thinker on the issue, you won't realize that you don't need it to prove the disappearance of a man where you have the facts we do."Now you are saying that Paul has simply disappeared. Is that what you mean by "disappearance" - just so I understand you properly. So Paul is not dead - he has simply disappeared. Is that what you are saying? I assumed all along we were talking about the DEATH of a man.Give me the facts you say you have and REMEMBER!! NO clues. NO hearsay. NO rumor, NO metaphor. NO suggestion. NO hunches and NO photos!!
No, dummy. You really do try to distort people's statements, eh?He's not NOT dead; the disappearance and replacement is provable. That's forensically provable -- if you'd read and think. The photos ARE the proof, dumbass, when properly understood.The clues are part of the suggestion he died rather than disappeared. So they're facts of the case, part of the argument. Are you actually stupid?You want a death cert? Is that your idea of proof?If you were rich and powerful and disappeared and your friends knew you died, and someone wanted to keep your company going, so you were replaced. And your friends tried to tell with direct references to your death, would you not want people to a) use your photos for forensic proof of your replacement, and to b) make direct references to your death in ways which kept them safe?No, Paul did not simply disappear; but if you want to leave it there, where he DISAPPEARED AND WAS REPLACED but might not have died then fine:use NO clues, NO rumour, etc.But you HAVE TO USE THE PHOTOS for the proof of the REPLACEMENT.Doofus.
Clare:Darn it!! First it was "Paul is dead" PID, then all of a sudden it was "Paul was murdered" PWM and then out of the blue it's "Paul has disappeared" PHD.So which is "PID, PWM or PHD? You tell me. The story keeps changing!!" He's not NOT dead; the disappearance and replacement is provable. That's forensically provable -- if you'd read and think. The photos ARE the proof, dumbass, when properly understood. "So Paul is NOT dead?!! So who is this f***wad Faul? So Paul did not die - he disappeared and was replaced by Faul? So where is the real, original Paul.By the way did you know that "faul" means 'lazy' in German? I think that's a sort of CLUE to this whole " Paul is dead" fiasco. " The clues are part of the suggestion he died rather than disappeared. So they're facts of the case, part of the argument. Are you actually stupid? "Now we not only have clues we have a subdivision called " clues that are part of suggestions. " This is getting weirder by the minute." You want a death cert? Is that your idea of proof? "Yep. A death certificate would be nice - not "nice" in good way - nice as in useful/helpful/crucial. Also an autopsy report and the body itself and where it is buried." If you were rich and powerful and disappeared and your friends knew you died, and someone wanted to keep your company going, so you were replaced. And your friends tried to tell with direct references to your death, would you not want people to a) use your photos for forensic proof of your replacement, and to b) make direct references to your death in ways which kept them safe? "No. I wouldn't want a bunch of busy bodies sorting thru photos and videos. I'd want my family and relations and the police to get the SOBs who did it and put them in jail and get the impostor/imposter and throw him in jail, too. " No, Paul did not simply disappear; but if you want to leave it there, where he DISAPPEARED AND WAS REPLACED but might not have died then fine:use NO clues, NO rumour, etc. "So Paul did not disappear? Why did you use the word "disappearance"?Clues are good but clues if they were real clues would lead to facts. there are no facts. rumors are okay but they're just rumors. Facts are the main thing. We need facts.You have to use photos provided you have proof/evidence and facts that there has been a replacement. First provide proof of a replacement. Sorting and sifting thru photos and videos is a total waste of time.
Jaco said: "First provide proof of a replacement. Sorting and sifting thru photos and videos is a total waste of time."The photos are a proof and are not merely sifted: they have been scientifically studied in depth by experts who, further, explain their methods clearly and their reasoning.You will deal with this or not; if not, you have no more place in the courtroom, whatever conclusions one should draw from the arguments of the scientists, for you won't work to understand them so far.You can't argue the murder of someone by ignoring the potential weapon evidence, or argue the existence of a chemical compound by ignoring the potential heat signature evidence, Jaco.What say you to the forensic work? Do you understand it? Have you looked?What evidence other than photos would you like? Do you need other evidence? Only if the photo evidence were inconclusive, scientifically, and it's not. Read.
" He's not NOT dead; the disappearance and replacement is provable. That's forensically provable -- if you'd read and think. The photos ARE the proof, dumb***, when properly understood. "I just noticed there are two "nots" in "He's not NOT dead ". Two negatives make a positive in English ( but not in German or Russian ). Are you now saying Paul is alive? Were the two "nots" a sort of a cryptic clue to your real views on the "Paul is dead" hoax?You can tell me, Clare.Or maybe it was just a typo...?Can we now assume you believe Paul is alive?
Number one, we have facts:forensic. You cannot in fact deny these things except for yourself. There are not merely rumours; there are medico-forensic photo facts.Number two, about his being alive or not:You are being simply obstructionist. Paul died (from clues added to the photo forensics). It is currently possible to insist upon truly stretched reasoning that he's holed away somewhere alive, since he disappeared from the Beatles and was replaced, but we have no known body found (except, it seems logically, in the MMT movie image, which I pointed out).Though the conditions around his replacement, which is forensically certain, whether you think this is certain or not, it would be completely unreasonable EVEN IF he was replaced, that he would be still alive somewhere.Handle the forensics one way or another. Those are your main facts to grasp. The "clues" were the original case and merely suggestive, not conclusive; we now have forensic work, so the "clues" become the supportive case. Grow up please.The facts now ARE the forensics. You have not dealt with those in any way. So you are an agent or an idiot fanatic for not even looking at the key elements of the case, to see if it is good forensic work or not.Your lack of wit and insight is boring and demonstrates your idiocy. You are a discredit to the idea that Paul is alive.
Number one, we have facts:forensic. You cannot in fact deny these things except for yourself. There are not merely rumours; there are medico-forensic photo facts." medico-forensic photo facts " ?You just made that up. It sounds impressive but it is just inflated and pompous jargon. Double talk. Have you read George Orwell's 1984?" Number two, about his being alive or not:You are being simply obstructionist. Paul died (from clues added to the photo forensics). It is currently possible to insist upon truly stretched reasoning that he's holed away somewhere alive, since he disappeared from the Beatles and was replaced, but we have no known body found (except, it seems logically, in the MMT movie image, which I pointed out). "I am being simply practical, rational and empirical. Paul McCartney did not die but if he had died, his body would be somewhere. There must be evidence somewhere of what happened to his dead body and where it is.A dead body in a movie is not proof. You are being totally illogical. " Though the conditions around his replacement, which is forensically certain, whether you think this is certain or not, it would be completely unreasonable EVEN IF he was replaced, that he would be still alive somewhere. "There can be no certainty with your so-called photo and movie forensics. Such photo and movie forensics is useless as well you know and "medico-forensics" as you blithely refer to it is sheer mumbo-jumbo. Hocus-pocus!!DNA is, of course, another matter entirely. Where is your DNA evidence that Paul is dead? PID??" Handle the forensics one way or another. Those are your main facts to grasp. The "clues" were the original case and merely suggestive, not conclusive; we now have forensic work, so the "clues" become the supportive case. Grow up please. "There are no true "forensics" to handle (?).All you have is movies and photographs which are not admissible in evidence. Your so-called photo and movie " forensic facts " are subjective nonsense" The facts now ARE the forensics. You have not dealt with those in any way. So you are an agent or an idiot fanatic for not even looking at the key elements of the case, to see if it is good forensic work or not. "Your photo and movie facts are neither forensic nor are they facts. The definition of the word "forensic" is: " belonging to the courts of law, held by Romans in the forum "(Latin forensis - forum). The so-called photos and movie "forensic facts" of yours wouldn't even make it to a court of law. Photo and movie nonsense!! Your "forensic facts" would be laughed out of court assuming they ever made it that far!!" Your lack of wit and insight is boring and demonstrates your idiocy. You are a discredit to the idea that Paul is alive."I am very happy to be a fly in your ointment and very happy to be a discredit to your insane so-called clues, suggestions, hunches,metaphors et cetera et al!!So you are now saying once more that Paul is alive? Make up your mind!! PID or not PID? That is the question.
Jakob,Answer this: how does a man grow 2 inches, get a larger head, nose, ears and mouth in less than 6 months time?
Don wrote:" Answer this: how does a man grow 2 inches, get a larger head, nose, ears and mouth in less than 6 months time?"Hey man! I'm really sorry to hear about your accident but don't look at me. I had nothing to do with it. I wasn't even there. Go to your nearest hospital and ask there if they can put you back together again. All the best, pal. I hope everything works out okay for you. Cheers.
From the forensic analyses we know that this was a 2nd man with these characteristics. This has nothing to do with Don, despite your sarcastic emotions.You are no fly in an ointment. That has a value, metaphorically: that it brings a truth.The only truth you bring is that some people can't separate forensics from rumour.The case is twofold:One: forensics, which you must address properly or you show yourself unfit to think about a case, either way its truth might be.Two: reasonable people would conclude that even hypothetically speaking, if a Paul McCartney, replacement occurred, it would almost certainly not occur without an actual death of Paul. And if he died, the Beatles would actually LIKELY not tell directly what had occurred, but might leave clues.It is in the 2nd part, mentioned above, that the death clues themselves fit. They are a strong fit with what would already be a reasonable assumption.That the man was replaced one way or another is forensic fact now (which you do not even care to argue against); what remains is the issue of whether he died or lived somewhere in an alternate life, but it is far more likely he died AND we have the evidence of circumstance in the case -- what the Beatles themselves said in the clues, particularly in Blue Jay Way most clearly, and in Sgt Pepper cover as a grave admitted by Derek Taylor.Thus for reason alone, Paul died before he was replaced.And the circumstantial evidence supports this. As would be admitted in a law case, the clues are evidence.But one way or another, Paul was replaced. Start there. You are no fly in any ointment until you use reason, not mere flourish of emotion, and handle the forensics on the basics.Then you could admit that there is no direct evidence of death itself, except the MMT image of the dead man (probably Paul, given its own circumstance); but that there is directly circumstantial evidence, i.e., evidence closely tied to the issue of Paul's death, in clues.Deal with the replacement first.Until then, you are no fly at all.
And the joining of medical and forensic into a hyphenated construction ("medico-forensic") is merely a creative use of language. Anyone would know what it meant if not blocked by emotional resistance as you are.You offered no argument against the forensics yet.The photo forensics argument -- if you'd read it properly, i.e., with a view to at least understand the claims, even if they're wrong -- would reveal that there are TWO problems they handle:The overall complicated proportional shapes of the men's faces and features (based on medical knowledge in turn)andThe impossibility of certain surgeries and dental procedures to change certain features.But you admit you don't read this material. You don't pre-approve in this case, so far, which is no excuse and you would not be allowed on a jury if it came to court if you took that attitude.Even if the forensics team was wrong, you should familiarize yourself with their claims before spouting off.Of course. And that's why you're no fly in any ointment, and boring.
"And the joining of medical and forensic into a hyphenated construction ("medico-forensic") is merely a creative use of language. Anyone would know what it meant if not blocked by emotional resistance as you are."The usual terms are either "forensic medicine" or " medical jurisprudence".These are perfectly adequate and we have no need for your silly " medico-forensic " gobbledegook."You offered no argument against the forensics yet".You have no forensics. Photos or movies are not forensics.No argument is necessary." The photo forensics argument -- if you'd read it properly, i.e., with a view to at least understand the claims, even if they're wrong -- would reveal that there are TWO problems they handle:"How many times to you have to be told? You have no forensics therefore you have no forensics argument." The overall complicated proportional shapes of the men's faces and features (based on medical knowledge in turn)andThe impossibility of certain surgeries and dental procedures to change certain features."Are you a qualified doctor or qualified surgeon? If not, you are in no position to offer a valid opinion on these matters. Are you a qualified doctor or qualified surgeon?" But you admit you don't read this material. You don't pre-approve in this case, so far, which is no excuse and you would not be allowed on a jury if it came to court if you took that attitude."You are hallucinating again. I admitted nothing. Read what I write.You seem to have a fixation with courts, juries and jurors. Can I assume that you have been in court at some stage in your life to date?"Pre-approve"? Is that another of your nonsense words along with "medico-forensic(s)" ? There is no such word as "pre-approve".Please write in English!!!" Even if the forensics team was wrong, you should familiarize yourself with their claims before spouting off.""Forensics team" ? Laughable nonsense. You mean a bunch of deadbeats who have nothing better to do with their time. Don't you? "Forensics team"!!!!" Of course. And that's why you're no fly in any ointment, and boring."I shall continue to rain on your parade. Think of me as the t*rd in your punch-bowl. I am sorry to have bored you but people of limited intelligence like you are often easily bored.I cannot help you.
For the sake of hypothesis, whether or not Paul was replaced in fact, a man who wants to ignore forensic (medical and shape-of-face) arguments and the photos they come from and why ... even if the forensic arguments are wrong ...needs my help, not the other way around.He (you, of course) has not studied a case both ways and wishes to comment one way. Pathetic.
And by the way, Jaco, for a man who treats top forensics experts of Italy as a bunch of weirdos not for their arguments, but in ignorance of those arguments and the backgrounds of the team, you are really of limited intelligence!Paul, let's say, for sake of your claims, wasn't replaced. All right, handle the "false" forensics arguments. Show they're false. Don't claim. Go ahead. Do some homework on them to start. I'm open. Prove the forensics are flawed.
Photographic Evidence:Everyone knows that you can't tell 2 people apart using photos. Say for instance I was looking a 2 pictures: 1 of Magic Johnson and the other Larry Bird. No way you could tell which was which just by looking at those pictures. DUH! Morons.....
If your brain can't generally tell people apart, from photos, you should get that looked at.As to forensic rigour about photos: it is possible to do proper forensic comparison ... even rigourously, not generally ... with photos, if the photos provide certain comparison points and you can cross-reference over many photos.
Clare Kuehn and her boyfriend Don:-Two of the saddest f*** knuckles and fruit flies on the Internet. Probably. Your baloney didn't wash with Jim Fetzer who, in his Beatles Tribute show, professed his "profound skepticism" about your crock of hooey. You didn't convince Jim Fetzer. You won't convince anybody - except yourselves.What's good enough for Jim Fetzer is good enough for me. Your baloney is not going to wash with anybody. Get over it and move on!!
I'm over it. I know what the forensics mean. I'm sure, given the reasonableness of the arguments. However, if someone had a surprising argument against the forensics, instead of claims and outrage, in their ignorance, I'd listen.Don is not my boyfriend. Oh -- was that sarcasm on your part? Oh, sorry.
Not that it's anyone's business but FYI: Clare is not my girlfriend. I have never met Clare in person. We do not even live in the same country. I'm glad that George decided post again as he always brings tremendous insight to the discussion.
Hi, Don. At least you look at forensics. Maybe we SHOULD date and speak about dead people -- ha ha ha! Icch. :)
Jim Fetzer was just being polite when he said he professed his 'profound skepticism'. Jim is a master of the understatement. Strange that virtually his first words on the Beatles tribute program were to declare his 'profound skepticism' about the Paul is dead thing. I guess Jim was concerned about his reputation in the JFK and 9 11 conspiracy communities being tarnished by association with Clare's Paul is dead fiction and illusion. Can you blame him?
No, I know Jim. He's confirmed his interest and how I did a great job.His own interest in the case is blocked somewhat by his fear that if Paul was replaced, he'd feel sad and angry; that much is obvious and he basically said as much at the beginning of my interview.His own interest is also somewhat blocked because of his constant difficulty in finding enough interest in the ways religious ideas work, to actually proactively search out cultic ideas behind crime cases he studies. And sometimes he ignores whole crime cases: when they're particularly grisly or involve cultic aspects too obviously for him.He has waited to look at even the Franklin child procurement/ killing case (which may have also involved mind control/ cults). The case centred on Oklahoma, but was a national US ring, and the connections went to the White House and into Congress as well as through many corporations.It was exposed in a good way in the "Conspiracy of Silence" film.It's just taken a while for Jim to have the stomach to have on the show someone who knows the case well, and can discuss the different lines including the forensics. He paid me a compliment in having me on, and I complimented him with a full assessment of the main lines of the case as it stands now.How much have you looked into the case? What do you take issue with it? Or are you one of those who merely "thinks" it's illusion and, ipso facto, "it is" illusion!Dear magician who doesn't argue against or for the forensics, but merely makes claims -- do you have a magic lamp to make claims come true willy nilly, without argument?
To all naysayers:Jim is more open to this now than you think. Open, though not emotionally sure, and rationally dedicated to find out yet.Also:Most of you confuse two issues here:The issue of his replacement vs. his death.This is what Jaco was getting mixed up on.The forensics (photographic evidence carefully considered on the facial structure shapes & positions, medical considerations, dental, and voice harmonics tests) prove he was replaced. Period. Start at least arguing against them, not CLAIMING against them.As well, considerations purely rational, even "if" he was replaced, lean to the idea he died rather than escaped to a new life. But also the Beatles' clues come in here: they say he died (directly in Blue Jay Way, stereo not re-issue mono, and MMT movie version, played forward, in the background of the first verse).Since you confuse fruit bats with people who look into cases you don't like, I don't mind being called a fruit bat by you, as it means nothing.When you've at least LEARNED the case, then if you disagree, you may at least argue with me on par. We would be discussing the evidence for and against. Right now, all you people do is make claims easily refuted, then refuse the refutation -- or even to read the sources.God help you as regards the complexities of the JFK case; or perhaps you are selective in your carefulness? Do you think this JUST HAS to be BAD SCIENCE in the forensics, so you WON'T READ IT?Not all people claiming something "weird" are wrong. In this case, at least you must do due diligence. Then if you disagree, tell me why.
Clare Kuehn: Fundraiser Strategic Communications Inc.One wonders what your employers at Strategic Communications Inc. would make of your activities and behavior on the internet. Your vile obscene, threatening and insulting language for example: What would your boss and fellow workers at Strategic Communications Inc. have to say about you? Would they be surprised? Shocked? Appalled? Disgusted? Enraged? Or all of the above?Interesting questions.You need to answer them quickly.
What vile language?A person here used horrible language; I don't. I've called people dufuses, when they won't look something up. It's called respectful anger.And I don't need to answer anything quickly or by you: I choose to, out of caring for even people who attack me.My employers would approve of righteous anger, by the way, and support their staff in hanging up or being direct -- though not dufus, of course! because we are not slaves to propriety but we also are dealing with real dufuses sometimes and we don't need to lose business.You are being dufus yourself, and inappropriate intellectually: this post place is about the forensics and the Paul replacement case.The others here should answer for their language for it is merely rude, even though we all have free speech. Or are you implying I don't?Ha ha.If these people are being irrational here, I will say so: irrationality is in NOT performing due diligence. Whatever they would end up concluding about PID issues, they have to do their homework or they're intellectually blind idiots about the issue until they do.Repeat: Only idiots about the issue. & Only until they do the work.After that, they can agree or disagree with me and argue their case. They have no case yet. I await when they do!The evidence is patient.
How about this, Anne Byrne ...You need to answer this more quickly than I needed to answer you -- for your question I answered out of kindness to your mental state in being so combative, but you need to answer my questions not to please me but to help yourself to knowing truly facts the case, if not also agreeing on the truth of the replacement.The questions for YOU are:What arguments do you have against the forensics? Of course, provide examples of forensics which are relevant and similar and would display incompetence of the forensics team here; or at least argue from universal forensic principles, if you have no specific examples.And what do you make of the dead body in MMT? What of its context? What significances COULD it have and what then do you think it DOES have?Join to this the OPD which is now shown to have been a full-frontal OPD (on an early ad or printing of the album cover)? Would you subscribe to a hoax idea, a money ploy? Or a possibility Paul was replaced and maybe died?What do you know of Mal's book? Do you know the difference in how it's being released vs. how the diary was released? Does the page putatively from the book look authentic? If it does, then what interpretations could and could not be possible? Could Paul have not died and Mal still say the things he does? What other explanations for Mal's explanations could you think up?What do you think of the forensics first, in detail, and next the rest.Good luck.
"And the joining of medical and forensic into a hyphenated construction ("medico-forensic") is merely a creative use of language. Anyone would know what it meant if not blocked by emotional resistance as you are."The usual terms are either "forensic medicine" or " medical jurisprudence".These are perfectly adequate and we have no need for your silly " medico-forensic " gobbledegook."You offered no argument against the forensics yet".You have no forensics. Photos or movies are not forensics.No argument is necessary." The photo forensics argument -- if you'd read it properly, i.e., with aview to at least understand the claims, even if they're wrong -- wouldreveal that there are TWO problems they handle:"How many times to you have to be told? You have no forensics therefore youhave no forensics argument." The overall complicated proportional shapes of the men's faces andfeatures (based on medical knowledge in turn)andThe impossibility of certain surgeries and dental procedures to changecertain features."Are you a qualified doctor or qualified surgeon? If not, you are in no position to offer a valid opinion on these matters. Are you a qualified doctor or qualified surgeon?" But you admit you don't read this material. You don't pre-approve in this case, so far, which is no excuse and you would not be allowed on a jury if it came to court if you took that attitude."You are hallucinating again. I admitted nothing. Read what I write.You seem to have a fixation with courts, juries and jurors. Can I assume that you have been in court at some stage in your life to date?"Pre-approve"? Is that another of your nonsense words along with"medico-forensic(s)" ? There is no such word as "pre-approve".Please write in English!!!" Even if the forensics team was wrong, you should familiarize yourself with their claims before spouting off.""Forensics team" ? Laughable nonsense. You mean a bunch of deadbeats who have nothing better to do with their time. Don't you?"Forensics team"!!!!" Of course. And that's why you're no fly in any ointment, and boring."I shall continue to rain on your parade. Think of me as the t*rd in your punch-bowl. I am sorry to have bored you but people of limited intelligence like you are often easily bored.I cannot help you.Please reply to my posts immediately. I have posted this again so you may reply now.The truth will out!!!
You don't deserve my replies. Here's the last one. The one thing I am is intelligent, Jaco. And the truth will not "out" for you if you do not handle forensics arguments, whether they're right or wrong.When you've read them, and understand them, then you can comment on them for others to maybe listen; until then, you do not do your homework."pre-approved":You really are a loser. Convention used a hyphen quite properly, when a dierisis is unavailable (that's the umlaut-like symbol used to indicate when two vowels side by side must be pronounced in two syllables, whereas an umlaut is the name for a vowel shift into a diphthong, but the symbols look the same).So, for example: "co-operation" rather than "cooperation", though people now have lost the sense of syllabic accuracy in writing for many things, including thus writing "cooperation" (which actually reads "coop" and "eration" when seen by a tired eye). We call "cooperation" a correct spelling now, but really it's not accurate. Hence: "pre-approved" is fine."No-one" or "no one" are still the only correct spellings, thank goodness, for the same reason, though "cooperation" has become accepted due to a dumbing down. ("Noone" is never correct or accepted in knowledgeable circles. "No-one" became "none" rather than "noone". -- And a side note: note that the "e" in "knowledgeable" is silent, thus not requiring one to write knowledge-able.)If one has a dierisis available, one ought to use it. Thus, co-operation WOULD be written "cooperation" but with two dots over the 2nd "o".The dierisis is used to emphasize the last "e" in Bronte, by the way.As the dierisis and other diacritical marks (pronunciation emphasis marks, including accents) fell out of use in English in the last century, words such as "pre-empt" and "co-operation" and "pre-approved" tended to be spelled the same way as if they had a dierisis, but now became less readable to the literalist: "preempt", "coopt", etc., are spelled now as is they were "PREEMpt" and "COOPpt".Next point coming.Hope you enjoyed my little spelling & history lesson and can get something out of it.
As to ALL the rest of your points ...they derive from the following thinking:That Paul could not have been replaced, and you build a circumstantial case (which is fine to do) to try to rebut the idea.The problem is that anyone could be replaced if the circumstances allowed, and your idea of the circumstances might not be air-tight -- yes, I can hyphenate two words or combine them and be writing English -- against an event where replacement actually occurred.Just in case your idea of circumstances is inaccurate, and Paul was replaced, you have to do homework on the forensics arguments.I realize you think only dunces would fall for Paul's having been replaced, and so you assume the forensics arguments they use must be flawed.However, a non-dunce may make a mistake (in which case, the forensics arguments would be flawed but a non-dunce fall for them),or a non-dunce may bring you accurate forensics arguments (in which case you must know those in order to discover your idea of circumstances had a flaw).Thus:Until you ARGUE AGAINST THE FORENSICS APPROPRIATE TO THE ACTUAL FORENSICS ARGUMENTS, not with assumptions a priori, and with not doing your homework ...You CANNOT ACTUALLY KNOW.Nor could you correct me if I'm wrong.So:Find out what the forensics case involves. Then we'd talk.However, I won't be monitoring this site in future; so you're on your own to do your work or not.Your idiocy in suggesting I'm not intelligent, and your idiocy in not doing your own work are wasting my time ... even if I were wrong about th forensics.You've -- deliberately? or are you that emotionally blinded and are thus become stupid over this issue? -- misinterpreted the issues around what forensics, IF correct, would have to say about Paul, and focussed on what you thought were my language mistakes, again and again (an ad hominem fallacy argument, even if you'd been correct about my languaging incapacity in general).So, dear Jaco:Learn the forensics.If they're incorrect, prove it by forensics principles. Circumstantial evidence would have to FOLLOW the forensics case, not LEAD it, in this case. (In Kennedy's death, the forensics were sorted out partly BY SOME circumstantial evidence, so that's a different type of case.)
Finally, then, you've shown no facility yet with the forensics either way, and rely only on circumstances to suggest there was no replacement. This is never okay to do, since you must look at all or all possible evidence, including photos, in order to be sure. However, you might end up being right if your circumstances are air tight.So far you've just griped away in ignorance of whether your ideas are correct. Without forensics, you won't know; and thus without understanding if these forensics results are correct, you can't be sure yet. You haven't handled them, so you don't know whether they are right; you just think you do and you might be right or wrong.Your own reliance on circumstantial evidence alone, is lamentably dangerous in this case, in particular. For your circumstantial evidence is not air tight (there is a period in late 1966 when a switch could physically have been made, and we not know for some time, for few people would have known).Also, we have the claim that there is a good forensics argument done.You must do due diligence on the claim, even if you think I'm not right, just in case I'm right, no matter who I am.Scientists, rightly or wrongly, came to the conclusion Paul was replaced; you must find out whether their argument works or not.You have not done so.If the forensics show the photos are of 2 different men, and are in principle correct, then Paul was replaced.And at that point circumstantial evidence would come into play again, even if the forensics were correct. For the circumstantial evidence would give some idea of how the man was replaced.Your circumstances are not air-tight against a replacement;the forensics use the potential your circumstances leave;the forensics may be right or wrong but there is enough room for them to have been right, so you have to find out if they are.If they're right, then your idea of circumstances is wrong, and Paul was replaced.After that, one might say it's highly likely a person would be dead, not just missing in this kind of case; but the circumstances of the clues would become relevant and make it even more likely -- though not certain -- Paul is not hiding somewhere after his replacement.Find out if he was replaced, using the forensics. Then your idea of circumstances will show its accuracy or inaccuracy, and if the forensics show he was replaced, the real circumstances will also show if he likely died or is merely in hiding.Good luck, Jaco. Hope you do your homework and show me wrong or find you can't. So far you've done NEITHER.You would otherwise be a worthy interloquitor, either way. But now you're not, no matter whether I'm correct or not about Paul's replacement and likely death.Or just gripe away in ignorance of whether your ideas are correct. Without forensics, you won't know.
As to the following, Jaco:..................." The overall complicated proportional shapes of the men's faces andfeatures (based on medical knowledge in turn)andThe impossibility of certain surgeries and dental procedures to changecertain features."Are you a qualified doctor or qualified surgeon? If not, you are in no position to offer a valid opinion on these matters. Are you a qualified doctor or qualified surgeon?...................THE FORENSICS TEAM EXPLAINS WHY THESE THINGS CANNOT BE DONE. IT DOESN'T TAKE A SURGEON TO UNDERSTAND THEIR ARGUMENTS. IF THEY ARE WRONG, SHOW ME THEY'VE LEFT SOMETHING OUT. THE REASON I MENTION JURIES IS THAT JURIES ARE TRUSTED TO BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND ARGUMENTS. YOU ARE NOT TRUSTING THAT A PERSON CAN, WITHOUT BEING AN EXPERT TO START.OF COURSE, IF THE EXPERTS GET THEIR ARGUMENTS WRONG, I WOULD BE WRONG TOO, NOT BECAUSE I AM A MERE FOLLOWER OF OTHERS, AS YOU ASSUME HERE DEEP DOWN IN THIS CASE, BUT BECAUSE THE OTHERS WHO MADE A REASONED ARGUMENT LEFT SOMETHING OUT I AND THEY COULD NOT SEE, which is not evil, but could be a mistake.LEARN the forensics before you comment. Do they make sense, to you as a fellow human, a "jury member", a rational mind?Until you do that, you are NOT being rational. Good luck, Jaco.
PICTURES ARE FORENSIC EVIDENCE about a person or of a scene, though they can be misleading and thus inaccurate forensically, which is also evidence.If treated rigorously, and if there are certain kinds of photos, we can do rigorous comps.
So:the case used to be all clues, and some initial impressions of the photo forensics of the case, done in a none rudimentary fashion.We now have what seem to be rigourous photo forensics done. Find out if they are rigourous. They make or break the current state of the case for replacement ...If they were not rigourous we would be back to circumstantial arguments on both sides, until someone could prove rigourously that he is the same man forensically.(I should mention that photo analysis is not the only claimed rigourous analysis of forensics we have: we have a professional voice harmonics analyst -- Dr Henry Truby -- who did bother to look at the case and came up with the claim that the voice harmonics are different for the early and later recordings, which modern voice tests using computers seem to confirm. Do they?)Is the science good? Was it done right, either on the photos or the voices?You have not shown either way. Thus, I must side with my own assessment of the science, since I've looked and thought about it, at least, and found the arguments well laid out, not merely falling for them because I wanted to.
(By the way, when I said, "the case used to be all clues," I meant the putative clues from the Beatles themselves, in symbols and voice-track lyrics hidden forwards and backwards.)Anyway:Show me the forensics are wrong. I'm open to that. Go ahead. Since we have them and they seem actually well laid out as ARGUMENTS to me, you must show me the arguments are incorrect. Can you? Will you? Do try. Where did the science go wrong?In even asking the question if Paul was replaced? Well, that begs the question of the results, which, if correct, mean he was replaced.After asking what seems to you a weird and improper question, the forensics scientists seem to have discovered it was a proper and not-so-weird question after all.Are you open to correction? Or can you correct them as to where their results are inaccurate?Good luck to you in your intellectual quests, including when you finally start one in this case.
Photos are part of the evidence about anything, if they're available.Where you're confused is whether that evidence is accurate: if we have further rigiorous tests to ensure the association of a photo with a time, or correcting for wide-angle distortion (if present), etc., then we can use a photo as a proof of certain things.The nature of a man's facial shape is one thing we can tell under some circumstances, and this case involves some of those circumstances.The issue of medical procedures is laid out by the medical expert on the Italian team, who outlines why certain procedures can't alter certain features of the face and teeth, without also requiring other changes which we don't have in the men, as portrayed by their photos.Photos can show whether a person has changes.You idiot. And some changes are rigourously testable by reason -- which includes which, where and why certain facial features can and cannot change under certain conditions.Good luck until you argue properly against or for the forensics arguments from photos, now rigorously assessed. The arguments are on the table. Denying that photos are ever evidence is just stupid. Do better, if you can. Good luck.
" You don't deserve my replies. Here's the last one. The one thing I am is intelligent, Jaco. And the truth will not "out" for you if you do not handle forensics arguments, whether they're right or wrong." When you've read them, and understand them, then you can comment on them for others to maybe listen; until then, you do not do your homework."I certainly hope it's the last one but if you wish to continue posting your nonsense I am morally obligated to reply to and expose your falsehoods and deceptions. I have no intention of reading any of your pathetic and insane ramblings about photos and movies." "pre-approved": "You really are a loser. Convention used a hyphen quite properly, when a dierisis is unavailable (that's the umlaut-like symbol used to indicate when two vowels side by side must be pronounced in two syllables, whereas an umlaut is the name for a vowel shift into a diphthong, but the symbols look the same)."There is no word "pre-approved" or "preapproved" in the English language.We are writing English here. English does not use nor has English ever used diacritics such as the umlaut or diaeresis (dieresis). We are not writing German here!! " So, for example: "co-operation" rather than "cooperation", though people now have lost the sense of syllabic accuracy in writing for many things, including thus writing "cooperation" (which actually reads "coop" and "eration" when seen by a tired eye). We call "cooperation" a correct spelling now, but really it's not accurate. Hence: "pre-approved" is fine. "The word "co-operation" may also be written without the hyphen as "cooperation " Both spellings are perfectly correct. " Pre=approved " and " preapproved" are not English words. Hence , you are talking- and writing rubbish.
I blame your atavistic urge to revert to your German ancestry for your inability to spell English words properly. Your manic desire to manufacture bogus words such as "medico-forensics" and " pre-approve " shows clear signs of your Teutonic linguistic roots. " "No-one" or "no one" are still the only correct spellings, thank goodness, for the same reason, though "cooperation" has become accepted due to a dumbing down. ("Noone" is never correct or accepted in knowledgeable circles. "No-one" became "none" rather than "noone". -- And a side note: note that the "e" in "knowledgeable" is silent, thus not requiring one to write knowledge-able.) ""No educated and literate English speaker would ever write "noone" for "no-one" or "no one" (without the hyphen). The "e" in "knowledgeable" is not silent!! Are you insane? The "e" in "knowledgeable" is there to keep the soften the "g" of "knowledge" before the broad "a" of "able". Without the "e" idiots like you would, no doubt, pronounce knowledgeable" as "knowledgable". You know nothing about linguistics or orthography! " If one has a dierisis available, one ought to use it. Thus, co-operation WOULD be written "cooperation" but with two dots over the 2nd The dierisis is used to emphasize the last "e" in Bronte, by the way."Are you seriously suggesting that the English word "cooperation" should be written as "coöperation" ? Brontë is a proper name and proper names may be written however one wishes to write them. Brontë may be written or Bronte. Kühn may be written as "Kuehn". Note that in German the umlaut means that a following "e" has been omitted. Just as German "Küche" can be written as " Kueche ". " As the dierisis and other diacritical marks (pronunciation emphasis marks, including accents) fell out of use in English in the last century, words such as "pre-empt" and "co-operation" and pre-approved " tended to be spelled the same way as if they had a dierisis, but now became less readable to the literalist: "preempt", "coopt", etc., are spelled now as is they were "PREEMpt" and "COOPpt"." English has never used diacritics and therefore they certainly could not have fallen out of use in the last century!! This is pure drivel. You know nothing about the English language as can be seen by reading your posts which are invariably full of bad spelling, bad grammar and bad syntax.
" Next point coming.Hope you enjoyed my little spelling & history lesson and can get something out of it."I enjoyed exposing you and your fantasy. As for being a lesson, it was a "lesson" in nonsense and deceit. Not recommended to any serious student of linguistics. NOT recommenced.Just like your " pre-approved" " medico-forensics " rubbish.
For: "NOT recommenced.Just like your " pre-approved" " medico-forensics " rubbish.Read: NOT recommended.Just like your " pre-approved" " medico-forensics " rubbish.NOT RECOMMENDED!!!
Can you now give us the facts?Please address these questions which were posed earlier and which you have not yet answered.1/When was Paul McCartney declared dead and who declared him dead? A doctor? A surgeon?2/When was the autopsy (post mortem) carried out? Who carried it out? What was/were the cause/s of death? Who signed the death certificate? 3/When was he buried? Paul was a Catholic - a non-practicing Catholic. His mother was a Catholic and father a Protestant turned agnostic. It is very unlikely Paul was cremated. 4/When was the inquest held? What was the name of the coroner presiding over the inquest? Was the death announced - as is usual in the local papers? Who attended the funeral? John, Ringo, George? Family? Of course. Friends? Relations? Was the funeral private? Note private does not mean secret.Where is Paul buried?
The "e" in "knowledgeable" is not silent!! Are you insane? The "e" in "knowledgeable" is there to keep the soft "g" of "knowledge" before the broad hard "a" of "able".
" As to ALL the rest of your points ...they derive from the following thinking:That Paul could not have been replaced, and you build a circumstantial case (which is fine to do) to try to rebut the idea."Laughable!! Are you serious? You don't EVEN have a circumstantial case never. You have ZILCH!!YOU have NO case!You have NOTHING but photographs and movies!!
Laughable!! Are you serious? You don't EVEN have a circumstantial case. You have never had a "case"!You have ZILCH!!Old photos! Old movies!!
JakobYou don't get it. It isn't our job to prove how, when and where and why Paul McCartney was killed. What we are saying is that the individual who claims to be Paul McCartney today IS NOT. And this IS provable. Forensic science proves that the Paul McCartney seen from 1967 to the present is NOT the original James Paul McCartney born in 1942. The replacement has a different mouth, teeth, jaw, ears, nose. It's not even close. Why don't you provide us with some EVIDENCE that supports your position. You have offered NONE to this point.
SUBSCRIBE to the iTunes feed
STREAM premieres on Revere Radio
5pm CST (2300 GMT) M-W-F:
DONATE to Scholars for 9/11 Truth: