Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
PLEASE SUPPORT REVERE RADIO:
SUBSCRIBE to the RSS feed
DONATE to Scholars for 9/11 Truth:
---------
(Right-click on guest name to download mp3)
SUBSCRIBE to the iTunes feed
STREAM premieres on Revere Radio
5pm CST (2300 GMT) M-W-F:
---
Followers
Blog Archive
-
▼
2014
(158)
-
▼
January
(14)
- Jim Fetzer and John Friend vs. Michael Collins Piper
- Dennis Cimino
- Jim Fetzer vs. Keith Johnson
- Wolfgang Halbig / Sofia Smallstorm
- Dennis Cimino
- Michael Masters
- Jasmine Saadat, Tim Anderson
- Clare Kuehn
- Sean Dix
- Art Olivier
- John Friend, Jim Fetzer
- Anthony DeFiore / Clare Kuehn
- Ole Dammegard with Joshua Blakeney
- Bonnie Faulkner, "Guns and Butter"
-
▼
January
(14)
May I say how pleased I am that Professor Fetzer has "gone there" at long last. It was one of the disappointments that I had that he had previously poo-pooed the idea of a Paul double/replacement. It just goes to demonstrate even further the brilliant mind that Fetzer has when he is able to overcome his own prejudices and to actually examine evidence and consider what many people don't let through their mental firewalls.
ReplyDeleteLike Clare says: " A bunch of maybes ".
DeleteNothing more. Nothing less.
Tipster: Great.
DeleteDoug Hendersen: No, until one works through the forensics the items called clues, etc., are tentative. Any case is maybes until the final parts of the proof push them to certainties (in the sense of physical evidence, which always is "tentative in the fallible nature of science", if one wishes to push the philosophical point on it). You miss the point of the reasonable certainties, i.e., forensically proven in the formal sense, and how that interacts with how all proof up to that point is maybes.
Thanks, Tipster. It was the forensic evidence that convinced me Clare was onto something: the difference in their height and the staggering difference in their teeth, which I only noticed as we were doing the show. That Sir Paul should wear fake ears is very telling. I think those who resist this are not willing to look at the evidence, where Clare has done a very good job of putting all this together, especially with John's otherwise extremely strange drawing of a dead Paul.
DeleteJim, yes, all lines of evidence more naturally (when taken together) point toward replacement, and some definitely do: the outer ears are radically different, even if they did some adjusting of inner-ear shapes, and as for teeth:
Deleteaccording to the forensics people, the types of tooth work required would have been long-term, bloody, require palatal surgery and long-term braces.
Even without palatal surgery, the extensive work would have left him out of commission for long periods and he's smiling just fine in early 1967 with straight teeth already.
Thanks, though. I do regret the bad editing and compilation on the blog right now; the bugs got so bad I can't press edit anymore, so I will have to completely rewrite it and, notwithstanding my love of John in spirit, I don't have the gumption to do the rewrite right now.
Jim, be logical, at best the forensic evidence demonstrates that there was a person who looked very much like Paul McCartney and that this person may have been used as part of a hoax. There is no possible inference from a look-alike in pictures that the real Paul died and that the look-alike could also sing with the same voice.
DeleteYou are jumping to a conclusion well beyond what is contained in the evidence.
Listen to all of the music and then say with a straight face that there are two Paul McCartney voices.
Stooy44 - I have listened to all the music, as a life-long Beatle enthusiast, and I can hear a definite difference. I think Jim is being logical, examining all the evidence as a good scientist would (and sadly there aren't very many of those any more). Furthermore, have any of the Beatles admitted that there was a look-alike? I don't think so, yet it's obvious that there was a look-alike. The group probably had look-alikes for all the Beatles and the guy who replaced James Paul was already in the wings (ha ha) waiting to take over.
DeleteI will keep listening.
DeleteBut the only reasonable conclusion from a look-alike is that we have a hoax. To conclude death and replacement goes beyond what the evidence supports.
These people -- they are so worried it will discredit their other work.
DeleteMay they be reminded that we know many things, and even if one talks 9/11 with some JFK researchers, or Sandy Hook, we get that reaction.
The height difference is, as Teresa says (see way below!), is not easy to formally show, but he is CONSISTENTLY taller, and that is the thing.
The funny business with the ears -- well, so many want to believe, now, that that otherwise shocking fact is known, that it, too, has the nice-feeling ad hoc explanation of "hoax".
Some even think the bass playing matters or the sound. But once the people ARE DIFFERENT, impressions and skill and doctoring (depending on what the issue is) have to account for a lot of the other similarities. It is not the other way around.
Or Stooy44's ad hoc explanation -- that Paul is fine for the music, that his listening keeps him safe, but there was a replacement (Sir Paul) for all else -- comes into discussion.
What are we to make of the grief, then? All hoax? What of the accurate and private drawing of head injuries on what has to be a Paul figure, by all reasonable standards? Hoax in private? And what of the ordinary situation here, that this is a very very bizarre thing, I'll grant that, not usually done -- so it has to have been motivated by something strong.
Hence, Stooy44 might do well to consider that those who hear many differences in ability and style are in fact correct.
But once the people ARE DIFFERENT, impressions and skill and doctoring (depending on what the issue is) have to account for a lot of the other similarities. It is not the other way around. Not with the grief involved.
OUTER ear difference -- done.
DeleteWIDTH of mouth when resting difference -- done.
CRUNCH of teeth difference -- done.
Each one sufficient to bust sameness of person.
Most people don't realize that. But any one of these SHOWS A TRICK on you, not a hoax by them about replacement.
ALL OTHER objections, without raising the idea that Paul survived to write/sing but was visually replaced, are insufficient to overturn the three above points.
If ALL things seemed the same except any ONE of the following, you'd been tricked:
Delete- OUTER EAR difference. Yes.
- TEETH CRUNCHED from palate difference. Yes.
- WIDER MOUTH when resting. Yes.
Done. Replaced. All else which SEEMS same or close (by age alone changed) cannot be.
I have read the recent questions about the Italia article -- calling it bunk, etc.
DeleteI have worked through the article carefully and MANY photos with the same items, however FORMAL COMPS in science use LIMITED CASES, the BEST EXAMPLES, not fuzzy ones, etc.
- "Paul" (if one fellow) HAS CRUNCHED TEETH in most photos (not all: sometimes light doesn't catch it) when "younger", and NEVER when older.
- "Paul" (if one fellow) HAS A NARROW MOUTH IN ALL RELAXED PHOTOS when "younger" and a much wider mouth in all photos when relaxed and "older". -- This, by the way, is a MEDICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.
- All "natural ear" photos have a VERY DIFFERENT OUTER ANGLE TO THE EAR in the "older" photos, the one used in the Italia article AND in "Spies Like Us" clip. -- A medical impossibility.
Let us understand all this. Thank you and wake up.
You can measure photos of the RELAXED MOUTHS yourself.
DeleteAlways, Sir Paul ranges from very wide to about as wide as the widest Paul, and Paul ranges from relatively small to very small without pursing.
Never mind the scientists on that one.
Don Fox says:
Delete"Clare,
"I quickly scanned through that show’s thread. WOW a lot of bile. I’ve been busy with comments at VT and on another show here. Part of this Clare is that you’re trying to make all of these subtle points on a message board – it’s getting lost.
"And what is all of this Sir Paul bullshit? Call him Faul. [I don't call him that, because I don't want to show mere distaste for the man. -- added by Clare] That’s what he is. A fake, fraud and a phony. Stick to points like 'Faul has bigger feet, chest, shoulders and is taller. His jaw has a 6% difference from Paul. They are different people.' [Actually, the photo comps of height are not perfectly done, but yes, Sir Paul is somewhat taller always. -- added by Clare]
"Don’t get too bogged down in minutia[e]. Most people have nowhere near your level of research/interest [or openness -- added by Clare] in the PID issue."
wonder when he will give Ed of wellaware1 an apology and give him another interview. Very strange that Jim would say that the first interview with him was a must listen too. and then in the comments says he will never have him on again.
Deletethe original paul was replaced and lived on, as per the script. he worked on behind the scenes. rumours of his death/replacement were spread deliberately and this 'conspiracy' was the equivalent of the nukes did 9/11 'conspiracy' that was crafted into the narrative of the hoax of our times. same old, same old regarding the jfk fassassination, sadaam Hussein, ghaddafi, elvis, Michael jackson etc. etc. (you think sandyhook and bostom began with sandyhook and boston? don't make me laugh!)
ReplyDelete(I won't even mention the titanic.)
Sir Paul,,,,MY ARSE!
The original Paul is not living somewhere sipping on mai tais, if one remembers the indications within reason from the horror and sadness. Again, this is where radical doubt, not careful questioning doubt of everything, but radical doubt, misleads many (such as on Cluesforum, etc.), when there are other indications to be remembered.
DeletePaul is dead, though technically speaking the proof is only of replacement with a strong flavour of death.
As to the cases you mention -- they are varied.
DeleteAnd for example, the Titanic went down, but was likely the Olympic, compromised in many ways, and the intention to rescue people was botched due to several reasons.
Gaddhafi was murdered, but it was under false pretext that he was awful, not that others wanted him out of the way anyway.
Boston was a drill, but several people died for that secret.
Sandy Hook seems not to have had anyone die, or only side suggestions a few may have been taken out for the secret.
JFK died; to claim anything else is to forget common sense (prima facie) reasoning about the mixed faking and real in it.
Elvis and Michael Jackson are different cases, as well. There is a case to be made that Elvis did not die, but it is far from certain (one suggestion is his name is wrong on his gravestone, his insurance was cashed in before his death except one which was partly paid and would have made it illegal, he had asked to help Nixon with his FBI anti-hippie, i.e., drug dealing, investigations and may have wanted to go into hiding, and a witness said the body was found on the bed, then said he found him in the bathroom -- but the body photo of him has a scar in the same place Elvis did).
Jackson seems to have died, but as a sacrifice -- though it sounds weird -- and convenience to others who wanted control of him and his money. The confusion which made it look possibly fake was likely to conceal that fact.
Let us remember that fake things are not always equal: sometimes they are doctoring within real, sometimes incorrect and misleading entirely.
I'm impressed that you know about the Olympic. I do think that's the best solution so far to the Titanic debacle. It was kind of sort of like the WTC debacle where the buildings needed to be scrapped so were spectacularly destroyed by "terrorists."
DeleteI know about many things. Thanks. Glad you do, too.
DeleteWhether the Olympic and Titanic were switched or not has been answered now, thanks to the work of Bob Ballard - they weren't. They have identified features on the wreck that prove it is the Titanic.
DeleteThe really interesting thing about the sinking of the Titanic is that it was almost certainly done deliberately in order to murder three of the richest men in the world - Benjamin Guggenheim, John Jacob Astor and Isador Strauss. This was done because they opposed the formation of the Federal Reserve, as long as they lived, there could be no Fed.
Capt Smith drove the Titanic flat out into a 80 square mile icefield that was well reported,it would have been a minor miracle to have got through without hitting an iceberg. He ignored no less than seven telegrams telling him to slowdown and divert south.
The distress flares fired from the Ttanic were white, they should have been red, passing ships ignored them thinking the titanic was having a party, the lack of lifeboats was a deliberate ploy by JP Morgan, the ship's owner, he had the number reduced during construction because it was his intention to sink her.
Ian and I differ on this question. Here is one of the studies of their differences I have found to be persuasive: http://www.paullee.com/titanic/switch.html
DeleteAnd there is an excellent documentary on the exploration of the sunken ship, where beneath the nameplate "Titanic" at the stern they discovered the original "Olympic".
Conspiracies- Titanic:The Ship That Never Sank - YouTube
Delete► 46:52► 46:52
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdxJp2fVXJ8
Jul 30, 2011 - Uploaded by ConspiracyScope
One of the most controversial and complex theories was put forward by Robin Gardiner in his book, The Great Titanic Conspiracy.
There are lots of links on this issue at the "Let's Roll" Community Forums, http://letsrollforums.com/possible-titanic-vs-olympic-t29196.html
I will have to go and find the info I had looked at on the constructional differences between the Olympic and Titanic, but from memory, Ballard was able to identify the wreck as the Titanic due to the number of portholes on the port side forcastle, a detail change had been made where one or two of them had been blanked off due to the installation of a toilet. That's just from memory, so I will have to verify it.
DeleteHowever, regardless of whether it is the Titanic or the Olympic that is sat at the bottom of the Atlantic, the murder hypothesis could still be true, indeed, they could have killed two birds with one stone - getting rid of the thee men who stood in the way of the foundation of the Fed and also making a nice chunk of change in an insurance fraud.
If you look at the bigger picture of world events of the time, the sinking of the Titanic enabled the foundation of the Fed which lead directly to World War One. The Fed provided a bottomless pit of money to finance the war, which is why it lasted for almost 5 years in contrast to previous European conflicts that lasted a year to 1 months before the treasuries of the combatants were exhausted leading to a peace treaty and the exchange of a province or two. Without the Fed there would not have been a WW1, therefore you can make a case for the sinking of the Titanic having lead to The Great War in the same way 9/1 lead to the Second Gulf War.
The origins and causations of The Great War is a topic I have researched in great depth, the long and short of it is that it was a war that was provoked, initiated and prolonged by the Zionist bankers as a first step towards the attainment of the Zionist state of Israel.
So, are you saying that the official story, that Astor, Strauss and Guggenheim gallantly remained behind so as to allow women and children to take the lifeboats, was a hoax - that these men were kept off the boats? Also, did the Captain deliberately bring about his own death by steering his ship into an ice field and sabotaging the distress signals? Or did he fake his death? This would be a fascinating topic for a show, too!
Deletebut like 9/11, we were always meant to see through the fakery eventually. (September) clues were left everywhere, for bob's sake!
ReplyDeleteAnd people doing mass cover-ups to hide something mess up instead of plant clues they hope you will find (9/11). Don't forget that simple situation. It will help in some cases. For PID, it is a situation of clues planted. It is for revelation, not concealment -- but not to be too obvious; it's an emotionally conflicted purpose. These guys were worried but also mourning. That is different than 9/11 trying to hide crimes by complexity, panic and pre-planning by true nasty perps.
DeleteJust for everyone's information, some ideas we meant to cover and didn't:
ReplyDeleteIF Paul died:
What kind of compromising would be useful, to do to the Beatles by suggesting an impersonator who also would not be announced? What they might witness behind the scenes in the pop industry, political intel interference, crime.
Did anyone die to keep the secret? Mal Evans may have; his tell-all book was taken the night of his murder by LAPD who were led by the "lead investigator" (cover-up artist) on the RFKennedy murder case.
What over-reaching has been done on the PID (Paul is Dead) forums, due to doubt created once they thought Paul dead? Some take 3/4 views, etc., and think the other Beatles were replaced, which can be disproven.
What are three among many interesting and poignant clues which were not mentioned? These three are from Yellow Submarine movie: "P is for good-bye" is stated by Ringo's character as the submarine motors off, leaving the four Beatles in Pepperland; also in that movie is a gravestone saying "No. 49 here lie buried", at the beginning, and 4 & 9 are specifically the two numbers of how many letters are in Paul McCartney's name; and on the submarine at one point a second Paul, in black and white, younger looking, framed in a little window as if it were an old TV, waves at us along with the other four current Beatles.
These are just some thoughts. Have a good day.
Kudos to Jim (and Total?) for the music choices they made.
ReplyDeleteRIP Paul, John, George, Mal, Roby Yonge.
The show is becoming a hangout for the strange
ReplyDeleteNot really. PID is fairly straightforward intelligence assistance, sad, a probable pressure or control on some people (the Beatles in this case), a death, a perceptual error, a double -- all things we consider in other cases with Jim. And it is Beatles, a group he loves.
DeleteThat they ceased touring strikes me as rather important in sorting this out. Why did they make that decision at the time they did? My guess would be that they concluded that comparisons between the earlier and later incarnations would be too risky, at least initially. He is significantly taller, which I suspect would have been obvious to fans, who pay such close attention to them. I would invite Clare to enumerate a list of the forensic proofs, especially from the Italians.
DeleteThey never made money from touring, it went straight into the hands of their management, so that was a major factor. Remember that they suffered from the same one-sided contracts as all the other English groups at that time, most notably The Animals who made nothing from their work, it all going to their management. That is a large part of why The Animals split up and is why Chas Chandler went into management (most notably with Jimi Hendrix) because he wanted to offer artists an alternative to being totally ripped-off. The unfair management situation is why the Beatles formed Apple Records and fought legal battles over their intellectual property. No British band made any money touring the US until Led Zeppelin and that was because Peter Grant forced the promoters and venues to accept a much smaller cut of the takings and to accept strict contracts regarding merchandising. Peter Grant changed everything in favour of the artists, before him the promoters and venues got all the money.
DeleteAlso, the Beatles considered their last American tour a complete disaster - they were trying to transition from a teeny-bopper band with matching suits, mop-tops and songs like Love Me Do and I Wanna Hold Your Hand into more mature, serious artists; but on the tour, they found themselves playing to crowds of screaming over-emotional teenage girls, which was not the audience they now wished to reach, they wanted to be taken seriously as artists. You couldn't hear the band playing and the band couldn't hear each other, such were the volume of the screams, check out the Shea Stadium gig where all you can hear is teenage girls screaming and the band are clearly getting very frustrated.
So there are several reasons to consider when asking why the Beatles stopped touring.
The stopping of touring itself temporarily is one thing; permanently is another; but this item is one point in favour of the general case by showing lack of alibi: they were out of the public eye and things changed more radically than they might have if Paul had still been there. They might have still done some concerts, if Paul were around, but not necessarily the heavy tours.
DeletePaul was a live performer in a very strong way, a real crowd-pleaser.
But there are other reasons they took a break and also moved to more studio work. This is where arguments serve both purposes at the same time.
For PID, the lack of touring was not JUST because Paul died, but heightened the condition needed for replacement as well, and made more possible for PID than otherwise.
Same thing with psychedelic sounds: if PID is true (it is), then psychedelic weirdness would otherwise have come increasingly into the music but not as much, as fast, in as "gravestone"-influenced, risky (new band name), sad and macabre a way as Sergeant Pepper cover and music.
It is a matter of degree, specifics, etc. It is not that some things were not already changing for the Beatles.
I find it hard to decipher cogent points from that in order to form a rebuttal, but I'll try.
DeleteThe introduction of a psychedelic flavour to the Beatle's work has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with PID. It is the result of multiple influences. George Harrison was beginning to grow interesting in Eastern myticism in 1965, part of that began when he saw a Sitar in the window of a music shop in London and thought 'hey man, that's one crazy looking guitar'. Anyways, he bought it and you can hear him playing it on 'Norwegian Wood' a track on 1965's 'Rubber Soul' LP. George then met Ravi Shankar and became a devotee.
A second influence was that of LSD, which wasn't illegal at the time and was experimented with by all the Beatles, George has spoken very candidly about this.
Another influence, and a fascinating example of cross-pollinaton of inspiration was The Byrds and other West Coast bands. The Byrds were inspired by The Beatles but conversely, also inspired The Beatles, some of that West Coast psychedelic sound rubbed off on The Beatles.
A further influence, and a particularly significant one when it comes to Paul McCartney was The Beach Boy's groundbreaking album Pet Sounds which featured all kinds of wierd noises and psychedelic tones. Paul was blown away when he first heard it and said that Pet Sounds, more than anything else inspired him to come up with the concept for Sgt Pepper. Pet Sounds was an early example of a 'concept' album and you can argue that if there was no Pet Sounds there could never have been a Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.
Another factor was the advance of technology, 1965-66 saw the arrival of several new pieces of electronic equipment such as the tape reverb unit, some early guitar effects pedals etc. George Martin has written at length about how the Beatles were fascinated by this new kit and spent huge amounts of time experimenting with it. This is also a major factor in their spending most of their time in the studio.
Why the Beatles stopped touring is an interesting question. And the fact that they stopped is consistent with the possibility of Paul no longer being around. But this is nothing more than very modest corroboration of the theory that Paul died.
DeleteMy personal opinion as to why they stopped touring is the fact that their newer music, from Sargent Pepper on, could not have been properly played live due to all of the overdubs, added instruments and complexity that it possessed.
They were tired of people screaming as well, there can be no doubt.
All these things, Ian (who thinks there was no replacement) and Stooy44 (who thinks there was, but not for the songs themselves), are moot historical arguments.
DeleteOf course there was growing psychedelic flavour in the works of the Beatles; of course they were also sick of touring.
But the SPECIFIC forms their changes took get corrected from some general "everything was changing" argument to a more poignant and literal history (1. no concerts ever again for anyone, even of something without the perfect representation of their new recording style changes, except far away on the rooftop, 2. grieving themed THREE-stringed bass guitar in flowers at a funeral for their LITERALLY new band, which is not mere "general newness and general psychedelia").
Not everything about Beatles' history changes because one knows PID; just as not everything about modern political history changes because of 9/11. But many things have different overtones, a few things have different reasons, and some things would not have happened at all or would have happened differently without it. Same thing about PID.
Now, Ian:
what about the outer ears? the teeth? Have you tried to see the overall differences in case it is true? If you do that, go back to not seeing the differences. Go back and forth. And also learn about the ears, teeth, overall proportion arguments with bone positions.
Stooy44 would have to do something comparable that way with the audio, for his ad hoc explanation of replacement without audial replacement. But for the audio, we do not have formal studies of the appropriate kind -- we have some song comparisons, with Dr Henry Truby saying in 1970 that he found 3 different Paul singers (which might be partly morphs) but I was told that songs are not used in formal voice analysis protocols anyway.
The intense and complex use of numerology and other occult/Masonic/Kabbalistic symbology in the 9/11 "terror" pageant DOES intertwine with Beatles lore, as Clare knows (about a lot of things).
ReplyDeleteFaul the OTO/Crowley devotee has been the port of entry for many of us who have ventured into this "White Rabbit" warren -- only to come up gasping for air (and sunlight) all too soon.
I had composed a nice reply when my battery ran out. Damn. Here goes again.
DeleteYes, Andy, I do know, as you do, that the things you mention circle around and through the Beatles' acquaintences and into their work at times.
Crowley and alternative free-will thinking (not always bad New Agism) is Sir Paul's preferred New Age general social and religious scene; top crime (money, power, other murder) was around them all (Jimmy Saville as procurer and participant) in pedophilia and Satanism (several witnesses to this have come forward as regards even Saville himself); intelligence circles of propagandists and utopian dreamers (always with control in mind, however) were also around them.
The pseudo-religious things are likely to have been dabbling, in the end, for John (he admits knowing religion from Jesus to [sir] Paul, and for George (less so) and Ringo (The Magic Christian movie is one place he expressed this; Yellow Submarine contains references as well, as in Ringo's giving the two-fingered horned god salute to a devil on the outside of the Submarine in "When I'm Sixty-Four").
But compromising them for what they may see or know, and throwing them off-base emotionally, would be reasons to have a secret, rather than open, even Paul-like replacement. It would also be reason to arrange a death (murder) on 9/11/1966 (getting lucky with the year, for 966 is like 666), as a propitious magic[k]al date.
The problem with some thinking now about the general "Satanism" or "cultic-intel" aspects around the Beatles, is that some thinking gets too confused between the Beatles as affected by PID (and they were) and their natural interest in alternative religion, versus claiming they were completely absorbed in that. They were not. Sir Paul is more into it, and also, interestingly, Paulie's (original Paul's) brother, which might tie him to liking Sir Paul and not revealing the secret even more. John referenced how "[Sir] Paul and his brother are into Crowley".
Dude. Paul McCartney theories? Really? Who freaking cares???
ReplyDeleteThis is answered in many ways in the broadcast and in these comments above and below. Of course, to some, this issue is less important -- while to some it is more important emotionally -- than 9/11, etc.
DeleteIt was a major band, a major source of art in the general sense, for the world.
If Mozart was murdered for the political-social reality his operas sometimes represented, and his deeply moving aesthetic music (and he seems indeed to have been, but that is another story), then it would be very important, but more important emotionally for some than for others.
But it is also important as a replacement (in Paul's case) because this raises the point of how we perceive or misperceive things in our life and in our supposedly all-aware political conspiracy research communities.
As posted above:
PID is on topic at this forum as far as PID relates to fairly straightforward intelligence assistance, is sad, a probable pressure or control on some people (the Beatles in this case), a death, a perceptual error, a double -- all things we consider in other cases with Jim. And it is Beatles, a group he loves.
Some people only care to skim along the surface of life, while others of us prefer to dig deep. I understand that not everybody cares about the deep stuff, but why they feel it necessary to comment on it in disparaging ways (as if this show has somehow wasted their time or offended them) is beyond my comprehension. Unless... deep down they know a disturbing truth is being uncovered and they can't handle it and don't want anyone "going there." It's perhaps a case of "protesting too much."
DeleteSome also are upset by having impressions they hold so personally, so audially and visually, being challenged.
DeleteUsually, "Hey, they are different, so bugger off," actually is a good instinct.
But when there IS a trick, it is of course not the way to know that there is a trick.
:)
Good night, Tipster.
I'm still far from convinced at all about PID. I looked at all the pictures of he supposed fake ears, don't look like fake ears to me.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that what we have is a large number of intriguing 'clues' that might add up to something or might just be the Scouse humour of The Beatles playing on a rumour for their own amusement.
Who was the replacement Paul? He had to be from Liverpool, and he had to be either a skilled vocal impersonator or share the same exact accent as Paul. There is no such thing as a 'Scouse accent' there are in fact several similar but not identical accents spoken within the city of Liverpool, you can here three different ones in the voices of The Beatles - John and Paul were from Woolton in the southern suburbs of the city and shared the same accent, George was from Wavertree and had a different accent, Ringo was from Dingle in the heart of the city and had a different accent again. Maybe you have to be English to be able to discern the differences, you can hear the warm Lancashire sound in the voice of Paul and John and George, Ringo lacks that, which is typical of someone from the inner city of Liverpool, John, Paul and George all being from the suburbs.
Vocal analysis of Paul before and after Nov 1966 would be one avenue of further research.
Most tellingly against the PID theory is that you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in Liverpool who would believe it for a second. By far the hardest people to fool would be the people of Liverpool and having a lot of friends from that city, I can tell you that the PID idea isn't taken at all seriously there.
So in all, it remains an intriguing hypothesis but still has a very long way to go before it can really be taken seriously, much more research and cross-checking of data needs to be done.
I like this analysis very much. My contention has always been that LISTENING is the key to solving this riddle.
DeleteIf Paul McCartney had been replaced, we would HEAR differences.
But we do not.
There are plenty of differences to hear, Stooy44. Just as with visuals, you have to reattune (pun intended) to hear them.
DeleteAs to Ian, the false ears are knowable by flaps (some are obvious; surely you got to those?), and some are knowable by a line of shadow in full light along the tragus and lobe (you don't have a shadow there, do you, in a deep undulating line? no, you don't), and one is bent completely forward under a headset (do your ears do that? are they made of foam? no).
Have another look.
But anyway, Ian and Stooy44:
You have to TRY TO SEE THEM AS DIFFERENT first. Really try. Feel crazy, if you have to. See them as actually different, instead of the same. Then go compare what impressions you find. Go back and forth. Until you know they are or are not different.
Remember, a friendly smile can be on two different people. Filler can flesh out cheeks. Just note the similarities and differences. Pretend.
Do it audially, too, Stooy44, if you wish. Paul has a sweeter voice, but gets lower (a little husky); Sir Paul has a slightly higher voice and pushes it more.
Or just learn the general cases. Or the outer ear angles. Or the teeth arguments. Or ... whatever.
Clare, perhaps you should try to hear the singer of Michelle, Yesterday, Hey Jude and Let it Be as the same voice and see what your ears tell you, rather than telling yourself that the voices are of different people and searching for differences.
DeleteI am old enough to have been alive at the time this happened. I was a Beatles fanatic like almost everyone else was. The newspapers, the music magazines and the television shows started the rumour that Paul McCartney had died. They used photos back then of an apparent look-alike to try to make the argument. Then people back then started pointing out the subliminal messages in the music from Sargent Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour. They suggested that the Paul in the photo of Magical Mystery Tour was some guy from Ontario, Canada, because of the crest on the left arm of his uniform. This sort of stuff went on and on for a long time.
None of this is new to the modern internet age. Lots of us feared that Paul really was dead. But the voice of Paul continued to be heard in the music. And in public a person who certainly looked like Paul was showing up, and we all breathed a sigh of relief believing that it had all been just a publicity stunt.
If it had been real, we would hear a different voice. We do not. It was a hoax, a publicity stunt.
As I point out to Ian below:
DeleteThere are no formal proofs available for you yet on the voices; as such, we are talking pure IMPRESSION either way, on the voices, except some general arguments to remind you you may be wrong.
One thing is that they stretch and push for different emotional reasons at different times (this is an emotional style with voice).
Also, Sir Paul (if he is different, let's say), is NOT PERFORMING EXACT COPIES of original songs, unlike normal impersonators, so any differences of vocal tones come across (maybe) as just the same person doing it differently.
We cannot go further about your IMPRESSION on the voices, however. Voice comps formally would be required to discuss styles and voices further with more technical information.
Suffice to say, I know what you're hearing as similar, and I know what is different, and instead of those differences being from mere age and change in the same person, it is determinable IN OTHER WAYS that the voices are different from different people.
Get the difference in argument here?
No sigh of relief. Paul is dead as a doornail -- or sipping mai tais, according to pshea, whose point about the technical replacement being all we can prove is fine, but actually, it is far more likely, given the replacement and grief, that Paul died.
You make a second point:
Deletethat somehow Paul's music continued THE SAME in the voice:
we know there was voice morphing done on early Sir Paul songs, i.e., 1967 onward (the admission was made several times). This would help the early transition.
But Sir Paul remains having a slightly different voice, different style except some natural similarity and some posed similarity.
All of this is confusing you.
Go with the outer ear, the small-palate teeth vs fine teeth positions in early 1867, the proportions to the base of the nose, the wider mouth, those sort of thing. Those things cannot be changed in the way they have to have been to have the changes we see.
And you make a third point I am going to reply to, though it came up first in your post:
DeleteI DO try to hear them as the same. I DID. I am saying that you have to go back and forth to test your own perceptions of hearing.
I DO KNOW what similarities you are hearing. Sometimes the overall impression IS the same audially. But there are certain KINDS of changes, which are not mere age, which one can FERRET OUT, and then notice better when one TRIES TO HEAR THEM AS DIFFERENT PEOPLE as well.
It's like putting together two silhouettes. Fill them in as if they are different people. Then do so as if they are the same. If they are different, then the things you noticed on one will not be able to fit properly when you do the other. You thought they did, but you were squishing and stretching to make them fit before and didn't know.
Same audially. There are differences. However, I will not argue with you further. When you are ready, you can take the sigh of relief on this one and bury it. Six feet under.
There are other claims like this which are FALSE. The other Beatles, for instance, are claimed as replaced. Same thing for Doris Day (who was linked to intel, as a patriot, in her day, but was not replaced). People have tried to find differences in the photos of the other Beatles or for Doris (because John mentions her in a song about intel, and they assume that this song, "Dig It" refers only to the PID situation). But for Doris it is camera angles and lighting. Same for the other Beatles -- and weight loss and gain. But for Paul, the features have IMPOSSIBLE DIFFERENCES.
Width of mouth, outer ear shape, teeth radically different IN PALATE (not mere cosmetic changes), nose thinner and in different proportion to eyes.
These do not have to be conceived, seen, re-impressed in your mind. They are isolated proofs.
We do not have such things ready yet for the voices; and spoken voice, as I discussed, is the ONLY FORM of such proof acceptable to forensic voice analysts,
so even if we had a pro bono forensic voice analyst ready to forego the $15-25 K it would otherwise be to do the work,
you would have to accept from spoken voice (if they found those different) that your sense that the songs "sound the same" cannot be true, not literally, aside from morphing, copying and any natural similarities.
Hi Clare,
ReplyDeleteI spent this past weekend listening to the entire Beatles repertoire. I did my best to do so with an open mind. To my ears, and in my opinion, there is one person singing the voice of Paul throughout all of the music. Not two. The person singing Michelle, Yesterday and others is the same person singing Hey Jude, Let it Be and others. In my opinion and to my ears there can be no doubt about this.
Therefore I do not believe that Paul McCartney died in 1966 or thereabouts. I continue to believe that a hoax, admittedly a very elaborate hoax, was and continues to be perpetrated.
Photographs can be faked, films can be faked, all sorts of disingenuously created letters, drawing and so forth can be created. A look-alike (with different teeth) can be used, and probably was used as part of the hoax.
The only convincing evidence that a second Paul appeared (this would still not prove that the first one died) would be a different voice singing the part of Paul. But this is simply not the case. Paul is Paul throughout.
As we know, from about the time of the alleged death of Paul McCartney the Beatles never played another concert, with the sole exception of their performance on the roof of their studio.
Do you think it possible that even this performance was designed in part to continue to perpetrate the hoax? Paul wore a beard, and he sang in unusual voices. And what did he sing?
"Get back to where you once belonged."
Here's another clue for you all, Sweet Loretta Martin is Paul. A final wink, a last devious smile before the lads from Liverpool parted and went their own separate ways?
The alleged death of Paul McCartney was a hoax, a very sophisticated and elaborate hoax to be sure, but a hoax nonetheless. When all evidence is considered this is the only possible conclusion that can be rationally reached.
All one need do is listen. Not look, not read, not even speculate or think, but listen.
Too many things didn't change, the sense of humour remained the same, the phraseology of how he spoke, the musical ability and song writing, thosethings would be next to impossible to fake. Even in the Wings andsolo years, he retained the musical ability and song writing, okay the material wasn't as strong as with the Beatles, but his strengths - the whimsical humour and the musical arrangements are still the same.
DeleteAnother thing that gives me doubts is the legal wranglings in the wake of the death of Brian Epstein. The feelings were running so very high and the whole Alan Klein affair was very bitter indeed, Peter Asher left Apple and there were intense legal battles in and out of the courts. If Paul had been replaced, then it would have been very difficult to keep that fact out of the legal wranglings, particularly when determining the issue of songwriting royalties.
The much-touted Italian forensic analysis leaves me far from convinced too, they were only able to obtain 4 photographs, which strikes me as far too narrow a base for proper analysis.
All in all, I remain unconvinced and would need to see a lot more evidence to alter my view.
The photos are representative of the general look of the guys.
DeleteThey chose the best samples of mouth-closed, straight on.
The impression you have must be worked on: you have to practice SEEING A DIFFERENCE as if it were true, in your mind, and that will isolate any differences in photos (even if it were of the same person).
Then you will really get a conception of the types of difference (they will visualize, as if the people were radically different). Then go back to the impression they are the same.
Then keep working at it. Eventually, the fact they are never the same, but in the odd head-swing they give a nice similarity (as impersonators who are actually a bit similar will), will show you emotionally-visually what's going on.
But for arguments:
The outside of the ear is radically different.
The teeth are crunched in the palate of the original (with certain light showing it more clearly), while the other has definitely straight teeth in all photos, except a crown or distorted single tooth (which can be a fake if done in a non-crunched palate to mimic a crunched palate, but not vice versa).
Have a good day.
So what you're saying is I have to believe before I can see the differences? Sounds like rubbish to me.
DeleteFour photos isn't enough, and they didn't manage to obtain the originals, I shouldn't need to tell you how all kinds of differences can be introduced by reproduction. A direct print from the original negative should be used, any further reproduction would introduce the possibility of skewing the results.
Seems to me Clare, you are falling into the same category as Simon Shack - basing far, far too much of your theories on analysis of imagery and failing to consider ALL available data.
Paul still plays left handed, so the replacement must be left handed too, it is close to impossible, if not altogether impossible to retrain oneself to play left handed if you are a right handed person.
Still a LONG way to go before you have a convincing case I'm afraid Clare, too much info and data still to be considered.
No, Ian, I said you have to PRETEND YOU DO BELIEVE; try it on, to conceive the differences.
DeleteThat is true of any idea -- visual or audial or intellectual.
If there are enough differences, you will then be able to go back and study properly. If there are not, you can remain unsure or contrarily sure of the opposite.
That is how thinking goes.
Especially with visual tricks.
If he were not different, there would be differences in photos, but not marked ones, and the indicators such as outer ear, teeth, etc., would be close. They're not.
Clare, even if everything you say about the photos is true (along with all other evidence), and it may well all be true, this is NOT convincing evidence of anything but a hoax.
DeleteIn order to have any reasonable case at all to suggest that Paul was replaced you need to demonstrate a different voice. Only this could persuasively suggest that a second Paul came along in the actual music.
In fact, if the voice was different, then this would prove that a second Paul did come along, even if there was NO other evidence such as photographs, films and the like to corroborate the notion.
Music is something you listen to. I have tried very carefully to analyse the singing throughout the entire Beatles discography. I hear the same voice.
The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn, therefore, is that the alleged death of Paul McCartney was a hoax.
To be sure, it was an elaborate hoax. They probably did find an incredible look-alike and use him as part of the hoax.
But Paul McCartney's voice is Paul McCartney's voice.
Do you REALLY here a different person, or have you convinced yourself that you want to?
The same question goes out to Mr. Fetzer.
Oh, you really have a different person. In this case, you are worried about "doppelganger similarities", i.e., certain tossing of the head (which with Sir Paul is more poseur style), longer nose and thinner nose, flatter eyebrow ridge (but they over-arch the hair of his brows in some doctored photos), longer face related to his features (but they squish his face to a round, even sometimes back-of-jawboneless effect, in doctored photos).
DeleteThe voice is not that similar, but it is close. He does different things with it. But they are similar, and forcing his voice at times to sound that way.
Note that he is not doing impersonations of the EXACT EARLY PAUL. So any differences will be more easily excusable by age and style changes.
Avoid the voices for now. We do not have the formal tests in on that to point you to.
Go with the faces, teeth, outer ear.
Yes, the faces, teeth and outer ear are different people, yes, for sure, I do not deny this. BUT, this is part of the hoax.
DeleteI simply do not believe that this other person was also singing. I think the real Paul was doing it.
There cannot be a hoax on the teeth and longer lips and ear.
DeleteUnless you posit that the real Paul is sipping mai tais and singing; and the replacement is visual only and did Wings.
As such, however, you would be denying the likelihood of death, given the trouble for all this worry and sadness and grisliness ...
and you would be denying that you could be wrong audially as Ian is wrong impressionally visually in spite of the mouths, ears, bottom of nose, overall proportions.
Clare, I did not make myself clear. I agree that teeth, lips and ears cannot be a hoax. These teeth, lips and ears were almost certainly those of another person, not Paul McCartney, but a look-alike. A look-alike who was used as part of the hoax.
DeleteI do not deny two different people. But I do not believe that the look-alike, who was used for photos and so on was also used for singing. I believe that the original Paul continued to sing. The look-alike was used as part of the hoax. This is all that the different teeth and so forth prove, at best.
I do not know what the truth is, nor do you. Maybe the original Paul was indeed replaced by someone who not only looked the same, but sounded the same as well.
You believe this, I do not.
All is well, and it is nice to debate. :)
Dear Sooy44:
Deletelest others misunderstand:
YOU ACTUALLY DO BELIEVE THE REPLACEMENT, just not audially.
And for the audio, you do not have the mini-proofs available yet as you do have them (outer ears, teeth, etc.) for the visuals.
Just as Ian is missing how to SEE the overall differences, you are missing how to HEAR them, but at least visually you have RECOGNIZED the proofs within the visual overall material.
And interestingly you then make a "he survived to sing but is not shown" ad hoc explanation where Paul is somewhere sipping mai tais and singing, but not a live Beatle on film after 1966.
Anyway, within the visuals are formal proofs.
Within the audio are informal proofs as also within the visuals. One day someone may pay someone to do (or pro bono someone may do) a comp audially for formal proofs within that.
But then you'd probably do what Ian is: that you don't hear it, in the songs, so the voices are still the same, or just the songs are.
Sorry, typo made Sooy44 not Stooy44. Oops.
DeleteClare, we knew in the 1960s that there was a look-alike. This is not new. The imposter is pictured in Magical Mystery Tour with an Ontario logo on the left arm oh his uniform.
DeleteBut yes, for now I still believe that the real Paul is singing.
Well, tell your "friend" Ian and those accusing me of being an agent that you know and see a difference.
DeleteAs to the singing: it is irrational to hold the hypothesis, though it is positable in the beginning; it is plenty obvious on Lady Madonna, Helter Skelter, Let it Be, Hey Jude, Why Don't We Do It In the Road, that the singing is strained and though lovely in Blackbird, and there are similar tones at times, sometimes the differences are clear between Paul and Sir Paul -- plus, the Beatles grieved intensely and grisly and privately (drawing is an example of all of those, but there are many others of some of those).
You can measure photos of the RELAXED MOUTHS yourself.
DeleteAlways, Sir Paul ranges from very wide to about as wide as the widest Paul, and Paul ranges from relatively small to very small without pursing.
Never mind the scientists on that one.
Watch this video of Paul performing Day Tripper in 2009, there's no denying that this is a left-handed man playing bass left-handed. Take note of the shapes he forms with his right hand, particularly the positioning of the thumb which he holds parallel to the fretboard rather than perpendicular with the flat of the thumb against the back of the neck, that is a quite distinctive playing style.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZacSRcdN88
Then watch the Beatles back in 1963:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGk1F3T8BFY
Exactly the same playing style on display, exactly the same distinctive hand shapes with the thumb parallel and often placed on top of the fretboard.
So, not only did the replacement have to learn to play left-handed but also had to learn to copy exactly Paul's distinctive playing style. Sorry, not buying that for one second.
No, he did not.
ReplyDeleteHe does not play an "exact style"; modern impersonators do that. He would learn to do some things like Paul -- fretboard included, yes, as a major item.
He had to learn (over 2-3 years until the rooftop concert) to play left-handed better, and do his own music, and later did some of Paul's in concerts, with his own style.
What he does mimic is some of the note choices sometimes, but not the bluesy original.
Anyway, none of this is a discussion which will show the two are or are not the same -- though it is clear even here, when one knows the difference, like minor similarities in 9/11 to legitimate collapse moments, that these similarities cannot be from actual non-conspiracy.
In other words, the objections you raise are not close to "absolute" (or, as Jim would prefer, strong regular forensic proofs). They are debates on things which could be argued either way until the context changes. They are not only ad hoc, they are in fact misinterpreted but subtly.
Better, as with 9/11, to stick to the major indications, so the minor ones can be seen more clearly.
I can see it's pointless debating with you on PID because you have already made up your mind that you are right and will just explain away anything that might refute your mindset.
DeleteOne suggestion, try consulting some musicians about subjects such as Paul's playing style, the differences or lack of in his performances etc.
Until you adopt a different mindset where you retain an open mind and accept that PID is a HYPOTHESIS rather than a FACT you will never come close to building a cast-iron case.
Actually, I do both: that it is an hypothesis, and that it is now also a formal cast-iron case.
DeleteBut to personally see the trick, hear the trick, knowledge helps, as well as pretending it is more than an hypothesis (just in case it is) and going back and forth.
That is how to see IF there is a trick. And in this case, there is.
For fun:
Sir Paul McCartney in Spies Like Us:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27ATt3FXAUY&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Note the three for Abbey Road at the end. :)
DeleteAnd the headlights, the car crash implication. (Probably the other actors think it's a joke.)
DeleteI'm going to get screen grabs of this adjusted "real ear". In fact, he seems to have had some cartilaginous adjustments made; the overall shape cannot be changed, but small padding can be done to real cartilage inside; not major changes but enough to give a closer impression.
DeleteBy the way, Ian:
DeleteIt is not that my "mind is made up". I am saying that the kinds of evidence you are discussing is stuff which is PURELY impression on your part, and for which we do not have formal arguments available yet.
We do have some arguments to open your mind to the possibility you are wrong on the voices, playing, however.
As such, just in case, remember:
When Sir Paul does Day Tripper, he is not performing an exact copy of "his" (Paulie's) original.
Clare, I'm not going to bother debating with you, I don't think your work on PID is strong enough to really spend my time on anymore. Maybe in future, you can expand on it and take into account more information and form more cogent points, but as it is, it's far too incoherent and lacking in real substance, I can see holes the size of the Titanic in it so I'm going to use my time on other things.
ReplyDeleteYou are wrong. But until you try to understand what an outer ear or strongly wrong teeth and longer lips mean, in spite of your overall impression (like DNA or fingerprints, they prove it, even if you don't see a difference), you will think so, Ian.
DeleteLook, find it mentally exhausting to try to debate with you, largely because it is difficult and time-consuming to work out what you're trying to say, i's often incoherent at first glance and requires a good deal of mental work to make sense of. Secondly, you don't have ANY debating skills, you just keep telling people they are wrong and don't even consider points people make.
DeleteNo, I make many points.
DeleteRe-read.
I have answered your objections.
You do not need to SEE the trick to KNOW it's there if you know teeth, width of mouth when relaxed, outer ears, proportions to base of nose.
I consider every point you make, Ian. Go back through. Or don't. But they are there.
You can measure photos of the RELAXED MOUTHS yourself.
DeleteAlways, Sir Paul ranges from very wide to about as wide as the widest Paul, and Paul ranges from relatively small to very small without pursing.
Never mind the scientists on that one.
If youre right then all the musicians around the Beatles must know and be a part of this conspiracy. Hundreds of them. I say this is the most silly theory I have ever heard. Im sorry but this is so sad to hear on this radio blog.
ReplyDeleteNot to mention the late Linda McCartney.
DeleteI think one of the reasons that a conspiracy theory such as this is given so much play is the fact that it tends to make all conspiracy theories sound ridiculous and gives conspiracy theorists and theories in general a bad name.
It is part of the psy-op to be sure. Tell someone that 911 was an inside job and they might just respond by saying "I suppose you think Paul McCartney is dead too?"
I do not mean to suggest that Mr. Fetzer is pushing this particular conspiracy theory for that particular reason. I think he is an honest inquirer into the debate, since he is a huge Beatles fan. I think that the same is probably true of Clare.
But huge amounts of Paul is Dead propaganda have appeared on the internet, and I strongly suspect that the vast majority of it did not exist before the internet did. Most of it, I strongly believe, was faked since the advent of the internet for the purpose of adding as you say, silly conspiracy theories to the mix with true ones, such as 911, in an attempt to discredit all of them.
With respect to the Paul is Dead theory, it truly amazes me that anyone believes it when all one need do is listen to the music to determine that the theory is certainly false.
It also seems to me that PID is a theory that has never been taken very seriously in the UK. It seems to be far more popular in the US.
DeleteThis, Ian, is highly interesting indeed.
DeleteThings are a little different in Canada though, some people up here, such as Clare, believe that Paul is dead, others such as myself do not.
And yet both of us are from the city where John Lennon recorded his live masterpiece Give Peace a Chance. :)
I don't know any way of verifying that the PID theory has had less acceptance in the UK, but that is certainly the impression I have always had.
DeleteUs Brits tend t be a far more cynical bunch than out US cousins so it might just be due to that.
Staffan, Stooy44, Ian:
DeleteThese objections are moot in the following ways:
- Who takes it seriously where is moot.
- Staffan, many musicians would not know (Stones would, some others would). Same with journalists. Some would guess, some initially know maybe and be asked for silence, but few. Remember, Stalin's double fooled his closest aides, if there had been a bit of time.
Stooy44 has suggested the hoax is real, just that the sound is Paul from elsewhere.
Why is the audio seeming the same? I covered the ways they are different audially, and similar audially.
Stooy44 is confused since there is morphing, and no exact copying of songs -- since he isn't trying to do older songs exactly, and not at all for years.
Stooy44 is doing with the audio what Ian is doing with the visuals; but in the case of the visuals, which Stooy44 at least acknowledged, we have proof of replacement formally whether you see the overall difference or not. For the audio, we do not yet, since spoken-voice comps have not been done, and again, if they were, and Stooy44 didn't hear the difference -- i.e., conceptualize the differences fully and compare why things might be different -- he might still doubt the results as Ian is doubting the visual evidence from teeth, ears, proportions.
Good night, all, and best wishes.
Not proof of replacement, but proof of a look-alike. Something we have known since the 1960s. The look-alike was used as part of the publicity stunt. Again, we knew this in the 1960s.
DeleteStooy44:
DeleteThis is called REPLACEMENT.
You are mucking up the discussion by suggesting no replacement but "a look-alike".
Let us be clear:
YOUR POSITION IS NO AUDIAL REPLACEMENT, BUT A POSEUR VISUALLY. And no, "WE" did not know this in the 1960s. MOST people did not think so really, and still don't.
YOU make the distinction of a "New Paul" for everything EXCEPT songs.
MOST do not.
Let us say you were right: fine, we have no formal proof of death.
But let us say you are wrong: we would be taking into account the severe grief indications in the mentions (various clues) of Paul and death and the constancy of it all.
If he were sipping mai tais but mailing in song reels, the general state of mind for John about this and the others would not be so intense; there would end up being far less worry and sadness. You can believe not, but there would be.
Clare, you wete not alive at the time. I was and remember it all clearly. Admittedly we did not KNOW, but we all believed that the Beatles had faked Paul's death as a publicity stunt. And part of our reasoning at the time was the pic in Magical Mystery Tour of the person with the Ontario on his arm. This appears to be the look-alike.
DeleteYou do need, Clare, to consider the comments of people who were alive and Beatles fans at the time. Do not only rely on internet "research".
When I think "Beatles", I think large cooperative committees. You cannot tell a committee to "go create original music". You CAN tell a committee to re-work bits of past hits from popular culture. The creators of Beatle tunes required an encyclopedic knowledge of pop-culture, because that's from were the music was hacked.
ReplyDeleteThe facial features of "John", "Paul", "George" and "Ringo", all changed, all the time. Photographs of Paul were not consistent with being the same person BEFORE 1966... as were the rest of The Beatles. This also points to a cooperative committee working behind the scenes to manage the wholesale gaslighting of The Beatles' images.
Once the tunes were created, their arrangement and execution would have required another cooperative committee. The songs were too complex to have been created any other way.
The not-so-subtle planted "clues" had to be the job of another cooperative committee... from album artwork to lyrics to the individual antics of the individual Beatles.
Notice also that, subjectively, The Beatles all had anti-establishment personas and often played music with an anti-establishment point-of-view. Yet, for an anti-establishment movement, The Beatles had NO PROBLEM gaining constant main stream media attention. How is that possible?
All the above and more is only possible given The Beatles was a government sponsored psyop. The Beatles, as psyop, had many objectives. I'll mention one here.
Simon Shack and Jayhan gatekeep by pushing the idea that everything is fake... and if everything is fake, how can you know anything is a scam? So, by knowing everything is false, you know nothing true. In a similar fashion, by constantly changing the features of each individual Beatle, you teach the public to disregard what they know is true, i.e., that The Beatles appear to be different people. And if you can't trust your own good judgement in assessing your favorite pop group then you must be a poor judge of other things as well. Bottom line, it makes the target population easier to control.
No, the Beatles were not replaced; PAUL was.
DeleteThe situation, hypothetically speaking, might work with all replaced, but is quickly answered in the negative.
The others are only confused as "different" persons once radical doubt forgets its limits; there is no comp frontal of the later Beatles which does not match basic features.
Also, though the Beatles loved earlier music, theirs is not "hacking" it any more than that is fair to say of any great artist/musician who references, plays with, includes themes and stylistic content from other works.
The only "features" changed on other Beatles was the simple cover-up stuff: new, bright, distracting costumes, moustaches, not playing instruments for 1.5 years on camera (just air guitar, etc., restarted in a tiny stint, a few seconds, Sir Paul included, in India in 1968).
The idea the Beatles were a "government-sponsored psyop" misses the main psyop points by over-reaching.
They became compromised by PID, sure.
Also, they were big and famous business and promoted to others' benefit, even before Paul died. These things do not make THEM a psyop. That is irresponsible shorthand, which leads to a wrong impression.
You're reading too much into what I wrote. Sometimes Lennon has an absolutely straight nose and sometimes he's got a wicked beak nose. Sometimes Lennon has a pointed chin and sometimes a flat broad chin. Sometimes Harrison has wicked long teeth, sometimes not. Sometimes McCartney has a round face, sometimes a rectangular one. All these photos are too dissimilar to be the same people yet they are too similar to be different people (even with plastic surgery). It's not meant to ever be solved. The Beatles are offered as shape-shifters that are 98% identical; yet, they cannot be the same people. It was intended from the beginning as an unsolvable mind-fuck... and that's what it will remain. They are never swapped and all swapped... all at the same time. How can you be certain you've been mind-fucked? Because no matter which side you decide to support (swapped, not swapped), you will NEVER be comfortable with your answer. It's a psy-op.
DeleteNo, Allison, sometimes the lighting on his nose changes; he was anorexic and bulimic near the end of his life and aged, but his nose is the same shape, except when expression pulls it down.
DeleteMust be careful here.
I am sure I was not mind-fucked on John because I DID LOOK CAREFULLY at the suggestion he was replaced, and really looked, compared, tried to see him as different and went back again, and back and forth.
Just as one has to, to test any of these things.
I also looked at frontal comps of bone structure areas.
He's the same.
But Paul is not.
You can measure photos of the RELAXED MOUTHS yourself.
DeleteAlways, Sir Paul ranges from very wide to about as wide as the widest Paul, and Paul ranges from relatively small to very small without pursing.
Never mind the scientists on that one.
the original paul had bow knees and walked like he just got off of a horse. the replacement had no such issues. the replacement is not a natural left hander and strains more at playing the base than the original. clear as day, and that's outside the obvious photographic give-aways. 9/11/1966 replacement date...laugh my arse off! are we getting the game yet? are we?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeletePshea:
DeleteOn this one, you're right.
@ Ian Greehalgh. you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in Liverpool who would believe it for a second. By far the hardest people to fool would be the people of Liverpool
ReplyDeleteYes. And a very very nice woman* in The Peak District.**
*name withheld for all of manner of reazonz.
** A place up t'north.(UK)
Not listened yet.
Waiting for G/F to come round.She has successfully intrigued her 75 yr. old Father with PID( no flyz s on him) and she'll be wanting this one on hot off the net on an encrypted SD.
Does anyone mention Hemel Hempstead*** in this one?
*** A place dahn sarf. (UK)
Remember, "the people of Liverpool" do not see Paul for years, then he comes by and hangs out for a day, and they're agog.
DeleteJust as was Larry Kane, the journalist, for the 10 mins' meeting he had a year and a few months after the replacement.
Some in Liverpool did mention Sir Paul forgot a major pub he'd have known, but these "grumblers" are often shouted down with the resentment, loyalty to Sir Paul as Paulie, and so on, that one would expect; the "explanation" for any "memory lapses" is just that.
Let's remember:
only the father and son would HAVE to know. Maybe a best friend, maybe not even that.
And Jane Asher (with cover story) and Frida Kelly ("Keeper of the Beatles' Secrets", as she is often referred to).
The date of "death" is often late August 66 to 9/11/66 or October 66. But there is a pre-summer 66 clue on the replacement "Yesterday and Today" album cover (June 66) where Paul is inside the trunk (representing a coffin?). Also, the original butcher cover has two headless baby dolls resting on Paul's shoulders. Clues to his death or just a psyop? I dont know.
ReplyDeletesee pics here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yesterday_and_Today
No, that was playing around. It was a trunk.
DeleteAnd they were being avant-garde with the baby dolls.
Not everything in the repertoire about death is about Paul.
But once he died, it must have been on their minds even when songs were about other things, too.
And no, 9/11/66 is not October or August.
The confusion re. August is a claim (with lots of problems in it) that Paul was killed in LA, and a photo of him with his cheeks puffy and an unusual angle and sunlight situation, makes him already Sir Paul. But this is a confusion of the real Sir Paul (who did not get really puffy cheeks until 1968), and Paulie, who does, remember, bear some likeness in some angles!
And the October claim or November claim are unwarranted: not enough time, and not the date of the clue (UK date Sept 11), and without the anniversary and 2nd anniversary support of MMT film start and Glass Onion recording, respectively.
I didn't know that "Glass Onion", was recorded on 9/11/1968. Yikes! Great song.
DeleteLord have Mersey!
ReplyDeleteVery funny.
DeleteYes, RIP.
Gee, I wonder if Mike McCartney (the original Paul's photographer-brother) ever noticed the "great switcheroo"
ReplyDeletehttp://www.blinkx.com/watch-video/mike-mccartney-paul-brother-on-the-beatles-early-years/3L2BLkM_7I1nSJVxENyqHg
Of course he and the father would have to be in on it.
DeleteIt would be loyalty to legacy.
Also, Mike is very into Crowley, too (according to John Lennon) which is a bond between him and Sir Paul.
From the book, A HARD DAYS WRITE by Steven Turner:
ReplyDelete*The bassline for I Saw Her Standing There is a note-for-note copy of Chuck Berry’s I’m Talking About You.
*The “la la la la” outro in Misery alludes to Pat Boone’s Speedy Gonzales, a hit at that time
*The lyrics to Please Please Me were inspired by Bing Crosby’s Please which plays around with the words Please and Pleas. And the harmonica intro is based on Frank Ifield's hit "I Remember You".
*Do You Want To Know A Secret was inspired by a song sung by Snow White in the Disney film Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, which starts out with “Wanna know a secret? Promise not to tell?". George said the inspiration was from the 1961 hit I Really Love You by the Stereos
*Paul claims the inspiration for There’s A Place is from There’s A Place For Us from West Side Story.
*Ask me why is reminiscent of Smokey Robinson’s What’s So Good About Goodbye?
*The title From Me To You was from the "From You To Us" letters’ column in the weekly pop newspaper Music Express.
*The final chord in She Loves You was never used in rock music up to that point, but Glenn Miller often used it in the 1940s.
*I’ll Get You uses a D to A minor chord change used by Joan Baez in her version of All My Trials. (Also note the lyrics, “Imagine I’m in love with you, it’s easy ‘cause I know”. And “Imagine there’s no Heaven, it’s easy if you try”.)
*All I’ve Got To Do is reminiscent of Smokey Robinson’s You Can Depend On Me.
*Little Child has a similar melody the 1950’s Elton Hayes’ song Whistle My Love.
*Music critic William Mann compared part of Not A Second Time to Gustav Mahler’s Song of the Earth.
*The “record-skip” pattern to “I can’t hide – I can’t hide – I can’t hide” in I Want To Hold Your Hand was inspired by a technique used by a French experimental musician introduced to John by the photographer of the With The Beatles album cover.
*I Call Your Name is modeled after the song My Boy Lollipop.
It's not uncommon for musicians to borrow ideas from other musicians. But at this extent, makes them really look like hacks. There's more.
They, like visual artists, musically "quote" elements, styles and sounds within new contexts.
DeleteSometimes it's overdone, sometimes it's comfortable and homey within the genre, and sometimes it's surprising new uses of others' approaches. But almost always, it's recognizably well done and sounds Beatles. Hardly, in those senses, "hacks"; such a word misleads, though at times they would have felt like it, as all artists do who use others' tropes.
Quote from the same book as above...
Delete*In later interviews, John regarded a large portion of The Beatles’ songs (including his own) as “garbage”.
A similar list of 'plagiarisms' could be written for just about any successful band. Oasis, for example lifted a hell of a lot from earlier bands, just listen to 'Cigarettes and Alcohol' and then listen to Bon Jovi's 'Bad medicine' and take note of the very similar guitar tracks. Led Zeppelin copied a hell of a lot from old blues artists, so much so that they ended up in court over 'The Lemon Song' and lost.
DeleteIan is getting at my point.
DeleteAs to the idea of John's comments, though, John would get proud, then get angry at himself.
He swung in moods. None of his statements like that is to be taken as the whole truth. Michelangelo had the same problem.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteClare, find Denny Laine (Brian Hines). He knew Paul prior to and after '66. Last I heard he lives here in LV. He has no reason to protect Paul as Im pretty sure their business is done. Plus they had quite a falling out at one time.
ReplyDeleteI am a 35 year plus bassist who knows a healthy number of Beatle/Wings songs (learned the old fashioned way off an lp), who writes and produces, owns Rickenbacker's and Vox's and originally learned to play because of the Beatles. Im sorry, not buying it for a second. But find Denny, he'll tell you.
As good a researcher as you are you should have no problems finding him
Hi Chris
DeleteAs a bass player, what's your opinion on the playing style of Paul that I posted about earlier? It looks like a highly distinctive way of playing to me that would be unlikely to be replicated exactly by a replacement Paul.
First, Ian, he is not "exactly replaced". Let's keep establishing that. People who actually try to copy exactly are modern impersonators.
DeleteAs to Denny Laine, he has said that Sir Paul is into Crowley (as did Lennon, who also mentioned Mike "McGear" McCartney, Paulie's brother), and Denny has commented that Wings had "a lot in it" -- mystery references, etc.
Denny seems to be one who knows and would not say. Finding him is not the problem. Loyalty and possibly cult-intel awareness are.
I didn't ask your opinion Clare, do you play bass? Let Chris give his opinion without stomping all over it as you do with everyone else's FFS.
DeleteDenny Laine lives in LV, as in Lost Wages, Nevada?
DeleteIan I agree with you completely. Paul has several distinctive ways that he fingers certain riffs that have a certain tone. that sound and look the same to this day
DeleteHaving spoken to several friends of mine who are excellent players and big Beatle fans about playing left handed and maintaining your chops, tone and feel, they simply laughed. You would play differently. Its the wrong hemisphere of your brain. They conceded it not impossible but to find a guy who could do it with bass and guitar and play drums and piano. Sing like a canary. Write the biggest selling song in the bands history with Hey Jude and scold George about his guitar playing in Let it Be? All in18 months? Nah. Not buying it
When Paul got stuck playing bass when Stu died, he flipped Stu's Hohner over and played it lefty. Finally he bought the Hofner because it was cheap. The man played that cheap bass and bought other Hofners but never upgraded till Rickenbacker gave him that 4001c64 years later. He finally bought a couple others later but dude was a notorious cheapskate. Many years later Linda liked to say that Paul wanted a Les Paul. But wouldnt spend the money. Might have to spend $5000 on a really mint old one. She had to buy him he damn thing for his birthday and he still plays that tobacco sunburst LP to this day.
He was cheap when he was 18 and poor and cheaper still when he was 60 and filthy rich.
So what if Denny says Paul is into Crowley?. He also said he and Paul and Linda did enough coke to keep a small army up for a week. So he can tell the truth about the man.
Allison, about two years ago Denny was selling the Gretch that he played on Band on the Run and Londontown in the local Craigs list. Said he lived here at the time
Yes, Ian, let him give his opinion. There are other opinions, no matter what opinion we are dealing with here. Some suggest it's "all the same" and some say "no way". Some say "you can't learn left-handed" and some "of course you can". Some don't recognize that there is no attempt by Sir Paul to mimic Paulie exactly on songs, unlike regular impersonators, who have to do early songs as closely as possible, whereas Sir Paul does not have to, ever. Some recognize this. Some musicians comment that there is a thudding quality to the general playing by Sir Paul, while some say the opposite. Some remember there could have been some unused tracks from Paulie for a few songs, which he could have played to or they could have interpreted. Some do not. Etc. Etc.
DeleteSo, as with facial features, some "see" it and some do not "see" it; some "hear" it and some do not "hear" it.
At some point, Ian, you are going to have to realize that no matter what one bassist or singer says of it's "impossible", others point out it is "possible".
So ...
OUTER EAR, TEETH, PROPORTIONS TO BOTTOM OF NOSE, WIDTH OF MOUTH WHEN RESTING. These are absolute proofs (in the conditional inductive sense, of beyond reasonable doubt, and in fact, physically impossible to change, unless a God came in and did a miracle, and there is where there might be doubt).
And Ian, I am not "stomping all over". In fact, I am answering all your objections, and you are not "getting" that no objection from somewhere else (opinions on sound or face) will do.
DeleteSir Paul has a different face as determinable, like DNA, by the outer ear; and the teeth; and the width of mouth when resting.
Oh Clare, you're just so strident and inflexible. You've just been given the opinion of a highly experienced bass player and you don't even consider it might be right. I've played bass myself for a good few years hence things like the playing style stand out to me.
DeletePaul plays the same way now as he did half a century ago, but you can't/won't accept that fact because it doesn't fit your theory.
This is rapidly becoming a farce.
Ian, I recommend finding 'Got to get you into my life' from the Scottish leg of the aborted '79 Wings tour. If that isnt the real Paul singing that song exactly like he sang with the Beatles, I'll saw up my prized John Lennon Ricky 350 and chuck it into the fire.
DeleteWhat I dont understand is why such a tenacious researcher is fooling about with stuff like this when she could have every Beatle fan in the world hoisting her on their shoulders if she would work as hard on busting out Witchy Poo Yoko for helping to murder the greatest artist of the 20th century
Yoko Ono did not have John murdered; she was likely aware it might have been coming, or maybe was warned it was soon --
DeleteOno was devastated but was also planning to divorce or leave John.
She also would have known, possibly, through the witchy intel scenes.
SIR PAUL knew, however, judging from his involuntary laugh-smile in the one short interview when he's asked when he found out.
The killer was Perdomo, CIA anti-Castro Cuban, by all indications, and it was therefore through the GHW Bush people, but "cultic intel" groups would have informed their friends in MI5, etc., getting approval.
It was also 13 years to the day, of the release of MMT album in the UK, so this was a combo job, people in cultic interests combined with political motives, and possibly PID reasons as well.
As to "GOT TO GET YOU INTO MY LIFE":
Deleteremember,
that song was a particularly strained one, for Paul, and one thing Sir Paul does a lot of is strain, so in an older-man impersonation, years later, the conflation of the two in your minds would be easier.
They DO have similarities, remember. They are just not the same man.
When I read the comments from CK I cant help thinking she is a disinfo person with the purpose of rounding up all JFK researchers, 911 researchers etc into the same silly bucket of bs. I bet its in the CIAs best interest to have the public believe its all the same. Why not add Elvis is alive, JFK never died and so on? If you are a real researcher CK then I suggest you go to Liverpool and start there; ask around, do some real journalism, be a reporter, knock on doors, talk to people about your "theory" and see where it gets you.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that Clare is in on it, Mr Fetzer may or may not be. But certainly there are psy-op attemps going on to discredit real and true conspiracy theories such as 911 with false and unsupportable ones such as Paul is Dead.
DeleteIt seems to me that unless so-called evidence can be traced back to before the internet age it cannot be considered as credible. At least with respect to events that took place before the advent of the internet.
Legitimate "research" is not possible on the internet. The internet is the greatest, most dangerous propaganda tool in history.
Same goes for what is said above about the Titanic. If the evidence cannot be clearly traced to pre-internet times, forget it.
Staffan:
DeleteDear God. Give it a break. Anyone with sense knows I am not likely disinfo., without even knowing me personally.
As to BS: handle the outer ear, the teeth, the proportions of nose to sides of face, etc., or for personally seeing if there is a trick work at "pretending" that he is different, then see what crops up in your mind, then go back to feeling he is not, and compare. Then do it again and again. If he is the same, then are the changes due to age? Angle? Or are they different? And then look again at the outer ear and teeth and so on.
They are different.
Your points about other cases (Elvis, JFK, 9/11, etc.) -- and they are SEPARATE CASES, are mentioned above by pshea (see above at "pshea: January 21, 2014 at 6:58 PM"), in ways you expected me to.
I answered for them (and others he mentions above), below his post. They are not all BS, not all exactly true in the ways people think (JFK's death involves some coverup faking, so does 9/11, in different ways and extents, and Elvis' end, or escape, is inconclusive).
Is PSHEA an agent? No, a radical doubter who believes there is "a script" for all which is all-fake nearly all the time.
One way or another, I am not in that camp. I treat each case separately, as you will recognize from the recent 9/11 broadcasts about OBF and Simon Shack (pointing out they are right that there is no positive evidence and only negative evidence that people died at Sandy Hook, but 9/11 demonstrates some reasonable limits on how much was fake), and my work supporting Jim Fetzer on 9/11 (reasonable limits on JFK's death coverup faking). I have also done broadcasts here about JFK Zapruder and about the victims and vicsims of 9/11 (there are definite fake photos, which would not have been done if all were real victims, and not done for boosting numbers by 50 or 100 only, though not all have to be fake victims).
It would be better if you:
- Do not LUMP CASES together as BS before you know each one.
- Do not ACCUSE RESEARCHERS before knowing the full extent of their work.
- Do not assume that if a person did get one case wrong or over-stated, that all their claims are wrong (for instance, PSHEA is right about Sandy Hook and Paul McCartney's death, parts of 9/11 and so on, but not the whole and not all other cases he mentions).
Paul was replaced: outer ear, teeth, proportions, etc. formally prove it; but he is probably NOT fine, sipping mai tais, as pshea suggests he is and as does, also, Stooy44, who cannot hear (fathom) the audial differences but does understand the visual ones, so he says.
I should correct: "sipping mai tais" is my expression, not pshea's or Stooy44's, but it captures the gist of "survived a real replacement scenario", which they say they hold. Pshea's reason is that he advocates the same kind of blanket "almost all is fake" position you accuse of me, but Stooy44's reason is that he cannot hear, but can see the difference in the claimed single figure "Paul" over time.
Deleteelvis is alive. he now goes by the name jon cotner. look it up!
ReplyDeletewe have been psy-op'd all our lives and there is virtually nothing that escapes the net. it truly is the matrix.
paul was replaced. he didn't die but worked on behind the scenes. 'they' wanted to convince you that he died, hence all the 'nuke' clues.
john lennon was also replaced (and he also continued behind the scenes), and the replacement was the one involved in the faked/staged assassination in 1981.
I can see jim's head reeling (but it realdealed also when he was asked to consider no-planes on 9/11!)
clare calls it radical doubt. I call it more like truth.
all mofackery* psy-ops are formulaic.
now, what if only one 'huge investment first of it's kind in the world' ship was built in Belfast in 1912 (the Olympia (home of the gods)), and the rest was just a (titan) fiction?
impossible say you?...
Spoon boy: Do not try and bend the spoon - that's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth.
Neo: What truth?
Spoon boy: There is no spoon.
Neo: There is no spoon?
Spoon boy: Then you will see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself.
someone has been bending us for a long time, spoon boy. it's high time we straightened our selves out. (btw, tell Neo he needs to get a new passport. his last one ran out on 9/11/2001!)
i'll ask any interested to read through Cyprian Crawford's 4 or 5 excellent posts towards the beginning of the comments at jim/don/ian's Shack bashing article over at VT.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/01/18/simon-shack-obf-and-the-911-september-clueless-distractors/
do yourself a huge favour!
* =MotherFuckingFakery (thanks to VidereLicet@fakeologist.com)
I've looked at all of that. Elvis, if he survived, is not that man.
DeleteAs to "John Lennon was replaced," etc., NO. This can be shown formally not to be the case, and is patently absurd from general impression, as well.
Not ALL IS FAKE.
However, there are LIES AROUND these events, lies INSIDE events, and SOME are all-fake (Sandy Hook is a rare example, as is the Boston Bombing, but there, people have died for the secret, whereas none are known to have died for Sandy Hook yet, unless Adam did exist and was dead in the other state the day before, which is a big if, but it is something which may be a mess-up from a real death, since deaths get reported locally, and there is no reason to have him dead in another state if, maybe, he was not an agent's kid who was bumped off or something).
You are being over-credulous in your radical doubt (yes, that is possible: credulity the OPPOSITE way of people who don't understand there is any faking, cover-up, conspiracy of the big kind).
Just as DallasGoldbug (EdChiarini) has little sense of faces and thinks he has a great one, so, too, beware of thinking you are "sorry to have to let us know" things which are not, in fact, supportable.
There were no planes on 9/11, and this is tellable by the footage AND other methods, such as physics and unusability of physical planes for the purpose of the visual shock and awe they managed using plane images and claims of planes elsewhere (such as at Shanksville).
Clare, some comments.
ReplyDeleteFirst, forget about the internet as a tool for research. Lots of what you will find is garbage, lies, fakers, disinformation and so on. You should only pay attention to evidence that existed before the internet age.
You need to go back and search archives of newspapers, magazines, television and radio news broadcasts, radio talk shows and the like.
You also need to listen to people like myself and others who were alive at the time, Beatles FANATICS, and remember it all well.
It started with rumours in newspaper articles and magazines, television news clips, and radio broadcasts. At first it suggested that Paul had not been seen in a while. Then suggestions that Paul might be dead. Then "evidence" appeared. Photos of someone who looked very much like Paul McCartney, but was purported not to be if you looked very closely. Then the subliminal messages appeared in the music, despite the fact that it certainly sounded like Paul doing some of the singing. Eventually it all went away when a person assumed by most of us to be Paul began appearing in public again.
Now, do you have any idea how BIG the Beatles were at the time? They were bigger than Michael Jackson, Madonna, U2, Metallica, and a hundred other bands you would care to name, all rolled into one. The four of them were the most important, biggest, most influential and famous people on the planet. Elvis was a midget by comparison. The Beatles were like Gods descended from Olympus.
And so when rumours of Paul's death began circulating, it was a HUGE front page new item for a long time. As it was happening there were many who did believe that Paul had died. But most of us believed it to be a publicity stunt once we heart what we believed to be Paul singing on new music, and once the person we believed to be Paul again appeared in public.
One of the most talked about clues in Toronto, and no doubt everywhere else, was the picture I have mentioned that will in the middle of the fold-out Magical Mystery Tour album. The person looks like McCartney, but is probably just a look-alike. One his left arm is an Ontario logo, with the letter OPD under the Ontario flag. It was speculated that the letters had a double meaning: Ontario Paul Double, and Our Paul (is) Dead.
The entire planet was worried when rumours circulated that one of the Beatles might have died. And the entire planet breathed a huge sigh of relief when it came to be generally presumed that it had all been a stunt, with the use of a person who looked very much like Paul.
To be sure, there were people at the time who insisted that Paul really did die and that he really was replaced by someone else. But the vast majority believed that it was a stunt, and moved on.
Again Clare, FORGET the nonsense you will find on the internet. Do real historical research. Go into the archives of old newspapers, magazines and broadcasts. Get a feel for the historical times by thinking about what I have written, and communicating with others who were there.
And above all else, listen.
Of course it is logically possible that Paul did die and that some amazing double replaced him. But it is FAR more likely that it was all the stunt that we all believed it to be at the time, once more music seemed to have Paul's voice, and once the person who seemed to be Paul again began appearing in public.
Nice to debate, have a great day!
Now Stooy44, you are falling for the same idea that CluesForum and LetsRollForums members tend to:
Deletethat your version of what is "more likely" is in fact what is likely, and that, despite contrary indications.
For them, it is "all is fake because it might have been easy", but it is actually against the nature of pre-planning to be quite so simple, when dealing with a belief in most humans that something real would have to be given. And we have, in fact, indications to that conclusion. These things are in fact the more simple human real-world (complex result) answer.
In PID situation, for you, it is "more likely" that the Beatles would just, ad hoc, allow Paul out, take his music, do an elaborate "hoax" of replacing a bandmate and take songs from Paul from afar.
But such a scenario belies the grief, not to mention the actual simpler human (real-world complex result) answer.
All you need is love...
DeleteYes. Too bad sometimes it comes too late.
DeleteAs to Paul:
You can measure photos of the RELAXED MOUTHS yourself.
Always, Sir Paul ranges from very wide to about as wide as the widest Paul, and Paul ranges from relatively small to very small without pursing.
Never mind the scientists on that one.
Posted for Theresa, who is having problems posting:
ReplyDeleteHi Jim!
Sorry about bothering you via e-mail but I'm having problems posting to
your blog (can't log on), so I will send you a short piece of info.
I find the discussion of Paul McCartney's supposed death fascinating. I
have looked into it somewhat, and I'm not at all decided on the matter. But
I believe some of the evidence used in the discussion is misinterpreted.
I heard Clare saying that focal length of the lens matters only marginally.
I do not at all agree. I used to teach photography at high school, and I
know it matters a lot. The differences they detect in photos of McCartney
can easily be deplaned by different lenses. It's even quite probable when
you look at the surroundings in many of the photos. Here I add a link to a
portrait comparison of a boy shot with different lenses. Not very different
size of head compared to the face/width of eyes.
http://www.itsalwaysautumn.com/2012/09/28/get-better-photos-by-understanding-focal-length.html
Here's 2 photos of the same girl with different lenses. Note shape of chin
difference.
http://www.ontakingpictures.com/postImages/Mary_focallength1.jpg
Or this lady. She doesn't even look like the same person.
http://johncarnessali.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Portrait-Focal-Length-II.jpg
With regard to the body height difference in some of the photos They seem
to have compared Paul to the length of his bass guitar. But in one photo,
the guitar is angled slightly towards the camera, which distorts its length
to make it look shorter. With a short focal length, even holding the guitar
a very short distance from the body (towards the camera) and the guitar
will look much larger (compare the nose sizes in earlier links, and that's
just an inch or two closer.) The height of the camera can also make a
difference.
In some photos (with his girlfriend) you don't even see the feet for whole
body comparison. And with the right lens, just being a tad closer to the
camera can make a huge difference in length (much bigger difference that in
photos of Paul and the band) Band photos are commonly shot from a slightly
from-above vantage. Leaning ever so slightly towards the camera will make a
person look a lot taller. There's a lot of options that can make 3D
(reality) look very different in 2D (flat photo).
Here are 2 group photos where you can compare the apparent body length of
the persons. Compare the man in striped shirt with the man in the white
shirt. In this photo they look the same size:
http://www.jsteele.co.uk/Friends%20&%20Family/Barbara%2080th%20Birthday%20Party%2016-08-08/Group%20Shots/slides/IMG_2261.html
But in this photo, white-shirt-man looks a lot taller:
http://www.jsteele.co.uk/Friends%20&%20Family/Barbara%2080th%20Birthday%20Party%2016-08-08/Group%20Shots/slides/IMG_2256.html
with only slight changes in angle.
I fond that McCartney actually looks much more like his younger self than a
lot of other people that you can find high resolution photos of, probably
partly due to his keeping healthy and fit through the years. The few things
that are likely/sure to happen are that all cartilage keeps growing all of
our lives. The older you get, the longer the nose and ear lobes. In 10-15%
of the population eye colour gets lighter with age, and this is normal and
sound.
To conclude, forensic scientists possibly use photos to exclude a victim
from an identity when it is reasonably clear what focal length was used.
What the italian scientist concluded is quite unscientific, if you consider
what I have explained above.
I hope this helps somewhat in the discussion.
Theresa
Theresa, you are right about faces and focal length, but consistently Sir Paul has a longer aspect to his face except when all people are also shortened. The aspects you show in your link are not only 3/4 view, but also demonstrate exactly why (along with other doctoring), in some photos, such as the glossies for the White Album, Sir Paul looks positively rounded with big eyes (not only from close cropping); but his features, such as his mouth's extension, still go in wrong places without the distortion.
DeleteSir Paul's mouth always extends beyond his nose quite a bit more, when resting. This cannot be changed with surgery in the ordinary sense; however, one can do a hack job and change skin, but that is noticeable.
Yes, he tries to still look babyish in his movements sometimes now, though they are and always have been poseur-awkward, where Paul was lively immediately, even when previously resting.
They also have kept him "filled" in his cheeks, etc., but in all shots (no matter how the stretching goes), his face does not become WHAT Paul's does when stretched.
We had different focal lengths on Paul, too.
Paul had different teeth FROM a smaller palate, very crushed space for growth of teeth, or they would not be this kind of different.
And also, the LOBES keep growing on ears, but OUTER EAR does not radically change.
They have seemingly also padded some areas of the inner cartilage to make the "shapes" of inner cartilage a little closer to Paul's, but the placement of the inner sections is still different: further forward, or angling back at a different angle.
I completely agree about the height comparisons; and how the guitar must be accounted for when used. I do not go to the height comparisons as formally, for that reason. I merely present them. I was trying to tell Jim this.
However, in all images, Sir Paul comes across as generally taller whenever there is a comparison which can be done.
For example:
there is much lens distortion in different ways, for the Paulie vs. Sir Paul height with Mal Evans next to them. But given that Paulie AND Sir Paul, in both, are at the same FOOT placement and HIP direction to Mal, on one side, the slightly even-shorter image of Paulie shows that it would in no way reach the closer to Mal height (and closer to body distance) in the other image, if Paulie were moved a bit closer to Mal in body distance in the older photo.
Paul is dead. Or, as Stooy44 says, he is fine and wrote the music, but there is a double for everything else (not!).
:)
Thank you for your thoughts!
Nono, Paul Mccartney is a WOMAN!!!
DeleteMr Fetzer, maybe it is time to bring back psyop agent Dallas Goldbug for some interesting photo-analysis.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/e3749b187df2dff6a99c66e01e191e1b/tumblr_mqyg0jlLmR1soj2lbo1_500.jpg
Check out the image, LOL.
Seriously, are you serious about this Paul is dead nonsense? Really?
Good solid stuff, Theresa!
DeleteSo much better than Kuehn's vacuous twaddle and drivel!
Kuehn has refined her "photo analysis" of pictures of Paul McCartney!! Kuehn can now tell us how Paul was trying to look!!
" He tries to look babyish..." LOL
Have you ever read such utter bullshit as that written by this hoser Kuehn!!?? Uri Geller must be green with envy. Kuehn can now read the mind of a person by
"analysing" a picture of that person!!!
Enough is enough, Kuehn!!
Take your PID shit elsewhere!!!
Thanks for your insightful and incisive comments, Theresa.
Clare, please be fair.
DeleteI have stated repeatedly that it is possible that Paul did die and was replaced. We cannot know for sure.
But it is my opinion that the Beatles perpetrated a hoax, a publicity stunt, by suggesting in various ways that Paul had died.
It is my belief that they used a look-alike as part of the hoax/publicity stunt. This was the general consensus of public opinion back when all of this happened.
Oh I am patient, Stooy44.
DeleteAnd Pierre is simply resisting the obvious facts -- he would not be chosen for jury duty.
If a person cannot face that an outer ear is determinative; or where the mouth rests (if there is massive difference in width); or teeth from palatal lack of space versus teeth without serious surgery becoming not merely straight but having the ROOM for it, they cannot reason with their own impressions in the way.
I know what your position is, Stooy44. It is as irresponsible as the all-fake stuff in 9/11, since in both instances, we have counterindications.
Most clues (references) are extremely sad and gory. The drawing is, too, and was private. The indication is sad and missing; and the anatomical accuracy to the head injuries also indicates real death. It is irresponsible radical doubt, therefore, not careful hypothesis-making to construe this as Paul's being somewhere sending songs in -- until we have formal proof for you that the songs indeed or at least the spoken voices, which the tests can be done on, are by different persons.
Motorfot:
DeleteTHE MISTAKES MADE ON THE FORUMS ARE TYPICAL OF THE KINDS OF THINGS ON FORUMS WHERE ANYONE CAN POST A THOUGHT OR IMPRESSION. Forums, such as CluesForum and LetsRollForums have the same problem that PID forums do:
some people go with any idea (brainstorm) and some other fall for it after, too.
The woman, and Neil Aspinall, and Denny Laine claims for the replacement are all -- even though I respect people trying to locate someone who might have been Paul after the death -- so wildly off from the consistent Sir Paul (even with doctoring, it's Sir Paul), and provably off, that we can discount the claims it was a woman, Neil Aspinall or Denny Laine.
Aspinall did admit he picked up the phone sometimes pretending to be Paul for intense fan interactions, though, in high-stress times, for fans and to handle some initial PR questions. So did Derek Taylor, I believe. That is a different thing.
Motorfot: so, yes, this is quite serious.
DeleteThe outer ear, position of mouth when resting (much wider on Sir Paul), and radical palatal space difference giving the reason for Paul's crunched teeth are not things which are IMPRESSIONAL.
They already prove the replacement, like DNA, without DNA.
After that, the question becomes, what happened, etc.
motorfot wrote:
Delete"Seriously, are you serious about this Paul is dead nonsense? Really?"
Yes, motorfot. They are serious about it - but not because they MEAN what they say.
They are serious about it because the mission given to cointelpro clowns such as "Dallas Goldbug" and "Clare Kuehn" is to make their casual, frustrated readers ( aka - the masses) eventually burst out :
"OMG! Those conspiracy-troofers are ALL out of their minds!"
That's all. They have a job.
Fetzer's job is the same. He has perpetuated the longest and most unsuccessful investigation of all times - his JFK " research" - and has managed to confuse just about EVERYONE interested in the subject. "Mission accomplished", one might say.
Simon Shack
Det er så sant.
DeleteKuehn = psyop
What a load of hypocrisy from Simon Hytten.
DeleteThe man who talks about nukes being fake, the earth being flat, the sun orbiting the earth, satellites not existing, rockets not being able to leave the atmosphere and other ludicrous insanities is claiming that Jim Fetzer is out to discredit the truth movement.
No Simon, that's YOUR job.
For you to claim that Jim's JFK work is unsuccessful is utterly ludicrous and just shows you have zero knowledge of Jim's work. Jim has advanced our understanding of the case a good deal, you would know that if you were familiar with his work.
I notice you have a long BS thread on your forum that tries to claim that JFK wasn't even assassinated!
You're a ludicrous hypocrite Simon.
I am no agent.
DeleteThat's ludicrous.
As to Paul:
You can measure photos of the RELAXED MOUTHS yourself.
Always, Sir Paul ranges from very wide to about as wide as the widest Paul, and Paul ranges from relatively small to very small without pursing.
Never mind the scientists on that one.
Ian said - 'The man who talks about nukes being fake, the earth being flat'
DeleteIan please show me where Simon has said the earth is flat. Don Fox has repeated this many times, however he has never once provided any link to any text or sound where Simon has said the earth is flat.
In fact I have only ever heard say the Earth is NOT flat.
"All items are answered" ??! LMFAO
ReplyDeleteYou're a deluded psychopathic bumbaclot, Kuehn.
Why don't you do something for the deprived children and seniors in your local area of Toronto instead of wasting your time and everyone else's time with your insane delusional crap??
"All items are answered" !!! LOL
You da bloodclot, Kuehn!!
ll items Ian raised are ADDRESSED, Pierre Bumbaclot.
DeleteIf he wishes to doubt, he is doubting where other things already prove the case.
This is true in all situations. For instance, even if we knew NOTHING about JFK's death, if we already know the back shot went 5 1/2 inches below the collarbone near the spine, and another wound was at centre front neck, we would know that NO MATTER WHAT, there were at least two shooters, since the bullet would have to transit within the body THROUGH SPINY PROCESSES, or deflect up and away, down and away, or get embedded.
We would NO LONGER be able to wonder if somehow two shooters was challengable. Other things might be. Not two shooters from somewhere.
People involved, motivations, where people stood or sat, all that would be still unknown. But two shooters would be known.
WITH PID THE SITUATION IS THE FOLLOWING:
- The outer mouth extends far further when resting, in Sir Paul than it did in Paulie. Proof of different people.
- The outer ear shape (not counting lobe growth) is radically different. Proof of different people.
- The teeth are different in a radical way, that is, due to palatal crunching of space for teeth, which would require palatal surgery to correct to the point Sir Paul has in different straight teeth. Proof of different people.
Beyond that, one can feel the music is similar or not, or the people seem similar, or whatever. But the physical double is proven.
It is also proven in the more general, tentative, circumstantial case in a strong way, if not a near-absolute way.
So how about you approach this with less emotion, more awareness that what you were trying to do here was to suggest that SOME OBJECTION SOMEWHERE could overturn what we have.
But the mouth, teeth, outer ear are not overturnable. Hence, the basic question is answered, Pierre (music aside, if Stooy44's proposition that Paulie did the music and Sir Paul did the visuals were true).
Irresponsible radical doubt Clare? My goodness! :)
DeleteI do agree with you that the sadness, the gore and the private drawings do tend to corroborate your side of this debate rather than mine. Though all of it could have been disingenuous.
As you now realize, all of the photographic evidence proves only that a second Paul did appear. Whether or not the first one died is an entirely different matter.
I will continue to listen for the differences that your ears are able to ascertain but that mine are not. For it seems to me that this remains the crux of the issue. And I think that you now realize this too.
There is evidence to support the Paul is dead theory. But there is no smoking gun. Of course the onus is upon you to prove that Paul did die and was replaced, it is not upon me to prove that he lived and was not replaced.
I do also believe, and I think you do too, that a proper scientific voice analysis would solve this debate once and for all.
You say that it is expensive. Well, money can't be me love either.
Bon soiree Clare, ce soir j'assisterai un match de hockey des Olympiques de Gatineau contre les Rempart de Quebec.
Et j'apporterai mon chandaille Stooy44.
Go Hull Go!!!
And ...
DeleteBonne chance, Hull.
:)
" All items are answered" !!! LOL
ReplyDeleteLMFAO
All items Ian raised are ADDRESSED, Pierre Bumbaclot.
DeleteIf he wishes to doubt, he is doubting where other things already prove the case.
This is true in all situations. For instance, even if we knew NOTHING about JFK's death, if we already know the back shot went 5 1/2 inches below the collarbone near the spine, and another wound was at centre front neck, we would know that NO MATTER WHAT, there were at least two shooters, since the bullet would have to transit within the body THROUGH SPINY PROCESSES, or deflect up and away, down and away, or get embedded.
We would NO LONGER be able to wonder if somehow two shooters was challengable. Other things might be. Not two shooters from somewhere.
People involved, motivations, where people stood or sat, all that would be still unknown. But two shooters would be known.
WITH PID THE SITUATION IS THE FOLLOWING:
- The outer mouth extends far further when resting, in Sir Paul than it did in Paulie. Proof of different people.
- The outer ear shape (not counting lobe growth) is radically different. Proof of different people.
- The teeth are different in a radical way, that is, due to palatal crunching of space for teeth, which would require palatal surgery to correct to the point Sir Paul has in different straight teeth. Proof of different people.
Beyond that, one can feel the music is similar or not, or the people seem similar, or whatever. But the physical double is proven.
It is also proven in the more general, tentative, circumstantial case in a strong way, if not a near-absolute way.
So how about you approach this with less emotion, more awareness that what you were trying to do here was to suggest that SOME OBJECTION SOMEWHERE could overturn what we have.
But the mouth, teeth, outer ear are not overturnable. Hence, the basic question is answered, Pierre (music aside, if Stooy44's proposition that Paulie did the music and Sir Paul did the visuals were true).
I think Clare needs to learn the difference between addressing a point and dismissing it.
ReplyDeleteIt's almost impossible to debate with this woman because she has her opinion, which is right, and nothing anyone else says matters, she remains right.
Ah, Ian, but is that not what attracts us to the fairer sex?
ReplyDeleteYou are missing the point. Kuehn's verbal acrobatics are a deliberate ploy to deceive, obfuscate and obscure the truth. The truth being that Kuehn is a psyop and agent provocateur.
DeleteIt's really that simple.
Hardly.
DeleteIf ALL things seemed the same except any ONE of the following, you'd been tricked:
- OUTER EAR difference. Yes.
- TEETH CRUNCHED from palate difference. Yes.
- WIDER MOUTH when resting. Yes.
Done. Replaced. All else which SEEMS same or close (by age alone changed) cannot be.
" All items are answered "??!! LOL
ReplyDelete"Mission accomplished" ??!! GWB LOL
Kuehn is George W Bush on speed on a bad day....LMFAO
Watch out for those " careful lines of combined thinking ", folks!!
LOL
Hardly.
DeleteIf ALL things seemed the same except any ONE of the following, you'd been tricked:
- OUTER EAR difference. Yes.
- TEETH CRUNCHED from palate difference. Yes.
- WIDER MOUTH when resting. Yes.
Done. Replaced. All else which SEEMS same or close (by age alone changed) cannot be.
Yes, I believe its the same Paul McCartney. But he is a part of the culture weapon called The Beatle's.
ReplyDeleteThe PID stuff is conspiracy candy just like building 7 and the grassy kno11.
Hardly.
DeleteIf ALL things seemed the same except any ONE of the following, you'd been tricked:
- OUTER EAR difference. Yes.
- TEETH CRUNCHED from palate difference. Yes.
- WIDER MOUTH when resting. Yes.
Done. Replaced. All else which SEEMS same or close (by age alone changed) cannot be.
You're assuming the Italian study is correct, which is a dangerous assumption.
DeleteThe possibility remains that said study is flawed and given the difficulty in finding photos they encountered and the use of only 4 photos, it's hardly a cast-iron study.
I have read the recent questions about the Italia article -- calling it bunk, etc.
DeleteI have worked through the article carefully and MANY photos with the same items, however FORMAL COMPS in science use LIMITED CASES, the BEST EXAMPLES, not fuzzy ones, etc.
- "Paul" (if one fellow) HAS CRUNCHED TEETH in most photos (not all: sometimes light doesn't catch it) when "younger", and NEVER when older.
- "Paul" (if one fellow) HAS A NARROW MOUTH IN ALL RELAXED PHOTOS when "younger" and a much wider mouth in all photos when relaxed and "older". -- This, by the way, is a MEDICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.
- All "natural ear" photos have a VERY DIFFERENT OUTER ANGLE TO THE EAR in the "older" photos, the one used in the Italia article AND in "Spies Like Us" clip. -- A medical impossibility.
Let us understand all this. Thank you and wake up.
Hardly.
ReplyDeleteIf ALL things seemed the same except any ONE of the following, you'd been tricked:
- OUTER EAR difference. Yes.
- TEETH CRUNCHED from palate difference. Yes.
- WIDER MOUTH when resting. Yes.
Done. Replaced. All else which SEEMS same or close (by age alone changed) cannot be.
Well, turns out the Italian Wired article is a load of baloney:
ReplyDeletehttp://invanddis.proboards.com/thread/5767
They just took some comparisons from a PID website run by an Italian guy called Sunking.
So it's very far from being a proper scientific study, they didn't use original photos, they didn't use enough photos, they didn't have any peer review.
The Italian article is a farce.
Ian,
DeleteSunking? Great Italian name!!
Just One Sunkingo! Give it to me! Delicious ice cream from Italy.......
Give me Sunkingo from.........
Eeeetaaaaleee!!!
Geez, Ian. Italian scientist called Sunking??!! You couldn't make this up. I bet Sunking was on the Titanic!!
I have read the recent questions about the Italia article -- calling it bunk, etc.
DeleteI have worked through the article carefully and MANY photos with the same items, however FORMAL COMPS in science use LIMITED CASES, the BEST EXAMPLES, not fuzzy ones, etc.
- "Paul" (if one fellow) HAS CRUNCHED TEETH in most photos (not all: sometimes light doesn't catch it) when "younger", and NEVER when older.
- "Paul" (if one fellow) HAS A NARROW MOUTH IN ALL RELAXED PHOTOS when "younger" and a much wider mouth in all photos when relaxed and "older". -- This, by the way, is a MEDICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.
- All "natural ear" photos have a VERY DIFFERENT OUTER ANGLE TO THE EAR in the "older" photos, the one used in the Italia article AND in "Spies Like Us" clip. -- A medical impossibility.
Let us understand all this. Thank you and wake up.
You can measure photos of the RELAXED MOUTHS yourself.
DeleteAlways, Sir Paul ranges from very wide to about as wide as the widest Paul, and Paul ranges from relatively small to very small without pursing.
Never mind the scientists on that one.
Ian,
ReplyDeleteCheck out this YouTube video.
It may help you decipher
Clare Kuehn's comments.
Video Title:
Stanley Unwin Baffles The Carry On Team
I feel it may help you decipher Clare Kuehn's comments.
I have read the recent questions about the Italia article -- calling it bunk, etc.
DeleteI have worked through the article carefully and MANY photos with the same items, however FORMAL COMPS in science use LIMITED CASES, the BEST EXAMPLES, not fuzzy ones, etc.
- "Paul" (if one fellow) HAS CRUNCHED TEETH in most photos (not all: sometimes light doesn't catch it) when "younger", and NEVER when older.
- "Paul" (if one fellow) HAS A NARROW MOUTH IN ALL RELAXED PHOTOS when "younger" and a much wider mouth in all photos when relaxed and "older". -- This, by the way, is a MEDICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.
- All "natural ear" photos have a VERY DIFFERENT OUTER ANGLE TO THE EAR in the "older" photos, the one used in the Italia article AND in "Spies Like Us" clip. -- A medical impossibility.
Let us understand all this. Thank you and wake up.
You can measure photos of the RELAXED MOUTHS yourself.
DeleteAlways, Sir Paul ranges from very wide to about as wide as the widest Paul, and Paul ranges from relatively small to very small without pursing.
Never mind the scientists on that one.
I have read the recent questions about the Italia article -- calling it bunk, etc.
ReplyDeleteI have worked through the article carefully and MANY photos with the same items, however FORMAL COMPS in science use LIMITED CASES, the BEST EXAMPLES, not fuzzy ones, etc.
- "Paul" (if one fellow) HAS CRUNCHED TEETH in most photos (not all: sometimes light doesn't catch it) when "younger", and NEVER when older.
- "Paul" (if one fellow) HAS A NARROW MOUTH IN ALL RELAXED PHOTOS when "younger" and a much wider mouth in all photos when relaxed and "older". -- This, by the way, is a MEDICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.
- All "natural ear" photos have a VERY DIFFERENT OUTER ANGLE TO THE EAR in the "older" photos, the one used in the Italia article AND in "Spies Like Us" clip. -- A medical impossibility.
Let us understand all this. Thank you and wake up.
BLOWING A BIG FAT HOLE IN YOUR THEORY...
Delete1) Can we agree that Faul only appeared in late 1966? Ergo, there would be absolutely NO need for the real Paul to wear any disguises before late 1966, right?
2) Can we agree The Beatles played live in Japan on 6/30/66, 7/1/66 and 7/2/66? Further, can we agree that these three concert dates are well before the McCartney switcheroo?
3) Here at the 17:57 min mark is "real" Paul singing Yesterday, You can see the fake ear over his real ear. Why is "real" Paul wearing a set of fake ears in mid 1966?????
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x10h1ms_1-the-beatles-live-in-japan-1966-hq_music
Dayum....and Allison steps up to the plate and she blasts the first pitch right out of the park.
DeleteGuess he took them out for a test drive...
Nice bit of debunking right there
Clare -
ReplyDeleteYou and your Italian "scientist(s)" :
VAFFANCULO!!!
You can measure photos of the RELAXED MOUTHS yourself.
DeleteAlways, Sir Paul ranges from very wide to about as wide as the widest Paul, and Paul ranges from relatively small to very small without pursing.
Never mind the scientists on that one.
You can measure photos of the RELAXED MOUTHS yourself.
DeleteAlways, Sir Paul ranges from very wide to about as wide as the widest Paul, and Paul ranges from relatively small to very small without pursing.
Never mind the scientists on that one.
I have taken to repeating myself, because people are going round robin with nonsense, just as on 9/11 "debunker" sites.
DeleteYou're the one who's going round and round and not making much sense!
DeleteThe Italian article is, at best deeply flawed, it may even be a complete fake. Have you bothered to trace the backgrounds of the two authors? Are they really who they claim to be and qualified in biometrics? Have you bothered to familiarise yourself with Biometric assessment so that you can judge the validity of a study such as this one?
You simply haven't done the depth and quality of research to justify being so strident and inflexible in your views. Therefore, your theory of PID is punctured with many holes and doesn't hold much water. Instead of shouting down anyone who points these out you should go away and do further research to plug those holes and come back when you have a more water-tight theory to present.
Doing things in a proper way would also minimise the damage done to this site, just look at all the negative comments and outright derision you've garnered, this doesn't reflect well on the show.
You've got a lot of work to do before you have a strong case Clare and all the negative comments should make you realise that.
No, Ian.
DeleteTry the mouths at rest.
The commisura, the width of the mouth at rest, is much wider for Sir Paul.
I don't care how much derision happens; Paul died. When the conspiracy crew here realizes this, they can add it to the repertoire of what lies we are told and what intelligence circles are doing.
As to Gabriella Carlesi:
DeleteHer work on Mussolini is catalogued here:
http://www.ilduce.net/specialemorteduce.htm
And she is pictured here: http://www.ilduce.net/speciale%20morte%20duce/gruppo%20Pierucci.JPG
L'equipe medica che ha provveduto a esaminare al computer le foto di Piazzale Loreto. I risultati della ricerca sono riportati in questo articolo.
(Machine translation: "The medical team who proceeded to examine the photos to the computer Piazzale Loreto. The research findings are reported in this article.")
Her points about Paul are well argued, and perfectly understandable if one is willing to notice how they did it. I know proportion; I know what she is talking about from an artist's point of view, adding her medical terminology. Call it "making a study of" her discipline if you want, it is another approach into understanding what she is saying.
As to the mouth and the shape of the bone structure (width of temple and cheekbones compared to length toward jawbone -- making more square or rectangle -- and width of jawbone -- making more triangular or right-angle effect), you could notice this comp: http://www.davidparcerisapuig.com.ar/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/B2DBA4423.jpg
DeleteWhat happens in some photos is they light Sir Paul differently, or have him with open mouth so it's narrower, or rounded out his cheeks with filler or with lens distortion (such as the very rounded face in the gatefold of Sgt P or in the glossy closeup babyface look with huge eyes in the White Album insert).
But the basic shapes are all here for Sir Paul, consistent with later bone structure images. Be not fooled by filler; it does not change basic proportions.
You can measure photos of the RELAXED MOUTHS yourself.
ReplyDeleteAlways, Sir Paul ranges from very wide to about as wide as the widest Paul, and Paul ranges from relatively small to very small without pursing.
Never mind the scientists on that one.
You know Clare,m you've done more to make people turn against PID than believe it.
ReplyDeleteThat's a real shame because I genuinely think there is something to it, but only because I've begun to do my own research.
If you want to convince more people about PID, you need to take a different approach to the one you have which has done nothing other than upset a lot of people.
At this point, I think it's too late, you've gone too far down the road of derision to be listened to by most.
You should try to learn something from this experience about demeanour, debating skills and how to get a point across without pissing people off.
Ian,
Deleteyou people were being obtuse. You would have been pissed off or ignored it with any other approach -- I tried the other way, too.
Honestly.
Go to 9/11 debunker sites. Same stuff there from debunkers; eventually exasperation and repetition sink in.
fuck 'em all clare. you are right about the replacement but wrong about the original's death. mofackery and faked deaths were and still are all the rage among these 'icons' of culture offered up to us. all part of the tavistock social engineering program. (did you know that Aldous Huxley 'died' the same day as jfk 'died'?!)
ReplyDeletehave a look through here to see the allegorical significance of the beatle throughout the history of the movies;
http://subliminalsynchrosphere.blogspot.ie/
(it takes a while to load up, but offers up mindblowing considerations)
do you think bob Dylan was replaced? would you believe that he was, and on more than one occasion? his latest (and last) book was called 'the many lives of bob Dylan'!
I think we are very close to a time when all things are categorically exposed.
Oh dear, you know you're in trouble when lunatics like this idiot agree with you.
DeleteJFK died in Dealey Plaza, trying to claim otherwise is ludicrous. What do you base your counterclaim on? Some BS photo 'analysis' by the SeptClues hive of insanity no doubt.
The most important thing to categorically expose are all the shills, disinfo agents and outright lunatics that are disrupting the truth movement. Once we have accomplished that, we can move forward with serious research and uncovering truths.
Pshea is right about the double but wrong about the lack of death.
DeleteThere is no formal proof of death, but is shown in the grieving and also by prima facie reasoning about the replacement, after realizing there was one (after the real prima facie impression there was not even replacement). What I mean is: if pshea were right, then Paul was sipping mai tais somewhere.
Stooy44 has the same reasoning, but for him, Paul was piping in music.
I've been looking into things a bit deeper. Part of the problem the Italian scientists had was finding pre-1966 photos of McCartney. Seems Faul was busy buying them up so they were tough to come by.
ReplyDeleteWhat really intrigues me are these interviews I found on YouTube.
Check out Paul from 1965: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-Q-5BnWhbA .
Then check out Faul from 1967: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q87_QjYqbMY .
Faul has a bad wig on and his speech pattern is completely different from Paul. Also, his accent sounds a bit more inner city Scouse than suburban Scouse, a little thicker, more like Ringo than Paul. The Faul clip is like someone doing an impersonation.
There are still many questions to be answered and many blanks to be filled in, but there's definitely something to this PID thing.
As for the clues the Beatles put into the records and artwork, that is intriguing, it makes me think that they were being tightly controlled by the Tavistock people (which is really a branch of the British SIS/MI5/MI6) and putting the clues in is the Beatle's way of rebelling against the controllers.
I see Paul, with slightly bad audio, talking slowly, doing his 'educated' Beatle bit. Right at this time he's the swinging bachelor, taking music lessons, reading and generally doing everything he can to dump the mop top image.
DeleteI wouldnt underestimate the amount of coke he's doing at this time. (According to the unauthorized biographies and lots of rumors in the industry) You want something to change your appearance? Start pounding that crap into yourself for a couple of years and you'll change too
I agree that coke can change a person's appearance a good deal. However, I don't think there would have been any coke around in England in 65-66. LSD, cannabis, all sorts of pills such as amphetamines and barbiturates, but coke is something that came along later I think. When they were making Easy Rider in 1969 they couldn't actually find any coke to use in the initial scene with Phil Spector, I forget what substitute they used now.
DeleteIan, those guys could get anything they wanted from anywhere at anytime...and for your reading enjoyment:
Deletehttp://www.today.com/id/5121163#.UuKdXvuIaUk
and just the punch line:
“I did cocaine for about a year around the time of Sgt. Pepper,” he said, referring to The Beatles’ 1967 album.
Around a year, sure
Cheers Chris, I'll take a look at that.
DeleteI just did a little reading about coke in the UK and it appears that until 1967, it wasn't hard to get the pharmaceutical version from crooked doctors and pharmacists so I stand corrected. I was thinking of the black market trade which came a bit later, there was no black market until the late 60s apparently because of the availability through pharmaceutical channels.
The clues, Ian, are all about Paul and death. They are not from Tavistock. Tavistock was using the situation, if at all, to push Sir Paul into Crowley more. Intel was compromising the Beatles, if at all, to stay quiet about some of the music deaths and corruption around them. Let's be realistic about all that. I know about the scene they were surrounded in.
DeleteYes, as stated in the article, the scientists had a hard time getting FORMALLY DATED images of McCartney from before 1966. There are plenty of them, but they do not have formal dates always.
Yes, Sir Paul wears bad wigs and so on. Those are, as you are realizing, I hope?, not a proof of replacement, but are in the general case proof of replacement, i.e., would be necessary for replacement in the early years.
Ian and Chris:
Coke does NOT change your outer ear,
Your mouth width when resting,
Your palate crunch on your teeth.
Also, coke does not make any of even your general claimed changes within 6 months to a year.
Damn, you really haven't paid any attention at all to my advice to be less unpleasant and less eager to tell people they are wrong and you know everything.
DeleteYou really need to develop some inter-personal debating skills Clare and try to be less unpleasant.
I hope Jim Fetzer is taking note of Clare Kuehn's gutter language, intellectual depravity and complete disregard and disrespect for this blog.
ReplyDeleteI hope and pray that Professor Fetzer NEVER has this maniacal schizoid and obviously autistically
challenged individual Clare Kuehn
back on his blog podcasts EVER again. I sincerely hope Professor
Fetzer has at last seen Kuehn's
true psyop colors.
Clare's not a psyop I'm pretty sure, she just has to learn to debate in a better fashion and not rub people up the wrong way by being so strident and inflexible in how she presents her opinions and theories.
DeleteDon Welson:
DeleteGutter language?
What? Can you read a thread?
I was called a CUNT AND REPLIED with the word dick (not even as nasty to men as cunt is for women).
If others present bile usually I do not even reply in kind.
Drop it.
As to "strident and inflexible": I presented many subtle and kind points, flexibly.
But OUTER EARS, MOUTH AT REST, TOOTH AND PALATE differences do not change.
That is simply the way it is. Same thing with when Fetzer says: JFK had a backbone; the bullet couldn't get there from here inside the body; there were at least 2 shooters from that argument alone; so get it or don't, at some point.
Three definite areas for serious researcherz,
ReplyDeleteDodge cavendish place. Busy bee cafe Hertfordshire.jan/feb.67. A41/.Rockers n drugz, Roman Empire/A5, The Zombies moms shop,Y- stations, If, Cafe, Mcdowell. Kodak(not Eastman).Hemel Hempstead, Elstree, Magic roundabout... Stanley Kubrick.Linda Epstein. ATV.BBC.live and let die.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tauNWkDWsMw 1.min 30.Crafty editing in evidence + plenty of ear shotz..
There are tons of things about the general scene -- and some overeager (radical doubt form in this case being "all is Tavistock) researchers.
DeleteThere was a corrupt scene, there was pressure on Epstein (he was protected for his homosexuality and likely compromised, perhaps even killed, while also depressed).
There was pedophilia, murder, corrupt money, you name it, around the Beatles as now in music scenes -- clubs, etc.
But there was also general innocence of the Beatles themselves, non-interest in such things personally, except in an experimental, ad hoc way, in Hamburg and hotel rooms of Beatlemania.
Not until Paul died, was there more "hanging out in the scene" of the weird people of the true avant-garde and intel.
And even then, within reason, there was far less interest from George and John and Ringo in the nastier stuff. But others could get to them, at them, enough to keep them quiet.
As to the "ear shots": he's wearing the huge black wig with the huge black sideburns, to cover false ears. There was a period where he did that. We got lucky with the early 1968 video with Larry Kane, because there the sideburns hadn't been made AS huge yet on the wigs, and the line of demarcation through the tragus and lobe from the false ear is visible. It would have to be specifically looked for, maybe even MORESO in person, while one is distracted trying to say hi and ask questions, and Kane would not have been looking.
Please explain to me why a set of false ears would ever be a part of McCartney's act in mid 1966? Was it the large protruding Alfred E. Newman ears that the girls so swooned over? If so, I'm not aware of this. Please list your references.
DeleteWe've all been gas-lit. For those unfamiliar with gaslighting, look it up.
ReplyDelete