Friday, December 26, 2014

Ole Dammegard

The Mysteries of Laurel Canyon

182 comments:

  1. Beginning Monday, 5 January 2015, my show will be broadcast by Media Broadcasting Center, which you can access via http://www.webookyourshow.com. I have had a great run with revereradio.net and will be posting links to the new show here, so you can access them as before. The show runs two hours later (from 7-9 PM/CT) than before. MBC enables me to use Powerpoint by creating a video broadcast. For an example, see "911 Talks with Bev Collins - Jim Fetzer's Powerpoint on Sandy Hook and the Boston bombing", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPt6UNUAZqM I am tremendously in debt to Total (my producer) and Robb Revere (the channel's founder) for many years and some 800 two-hour shows. It has been terrific!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's been amazing. I've listened to every show for the last 5 years and can't wait to see them with video going forward.. Thanks Jim and happy new year.

      Delete
    2. Jim, that is great that you are going to be able to incorporate a power point, makes things much clearer. Get that Ronald White character on for some more political theory talk too!

      Delete
    3. Congratulations Jim. Will we be able to download the audio file only, or will the show only be available in video format?

      Delete
  2. So glad to have you aboard the network Jim!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Happy to have you as part of the MBC family Jim. 2015 is going to be an awesome year of awaking.

    ReplyDelete
  4. We're gonna miss you on revereradio.net, Jim!

    Oh! The memories!! The memories!!

    All the very best on MBC, Professor!!

    You will be forever in our hearts and minds........and ears!!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Coleridge, I will be posting the links to the new shows right here where you have found them in the past. So my new shows will continue to be available to you here!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Muchas gracias, señor Profesor.

    Hasta la vista!!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jim, will the shows air also on Revereradio?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for telling me they will not. I am posting that info here right now. If they do begin to play the audio there, let us know. Thanks.

      Delete
  8. IMO, I think it is very perverted that after Ole Dammegard speaks of the Beatles being a product of the Travistock and the Shannon Tate murder. Where the words Helter Skelter where written in blood on the wall. Then at the break your producer has the nerve play the song Helter Skelter. What sick taste.

    In my memory that is the 1st time. I've heard that particular Beatle song played on your show.
    Your obsession to continually play Beatles songs on every show is simply immature and unprofessional.
    In my mind it undermines your efforts. Grow up Jim Fetzer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it's totally appropriate to be real: to talk of Tate murders & play Helter by Bill (your "Paul").

      That *is* maturity -- to know, to integrate information in more than one form.

      It also is poignant to hear the Beatles (who were NOT Tavistock, but were manipulated a bit through the grief after Paul died, with a man beholden to intel-cultic attitude).

      Delete
    2. What is your perspective on John Lennon's likely alleged murder? I think it's more valid than the dead Paul business. We could say that the Manson Show put a cap on the blooming flower power around the same time the Beetles disbanded. Then, you have Lennon, allegedly of course, buying an apartment where Rosemary's Baby was filmed. Lots of intersections.

      Delete
    3. Paul died; Lennon was offed through CIA (Bush) & Mi5 approval (& on an anniversary related to Paul's death -- the 13 years to the day of MMT album UK release, for MMT was partly eulogistic about Paul & partly an exploration into Crowleyite mysticism of soul transfer, etc.); George was stabbed over 40 times & died of complications (incl. cancer spread) last night of old millennium at "Masonic" 3:30 a.m. by 33-year-old, claiming he was fighting satanism, probably a disturbed assassin); Eppie (Epstein) died murdered (all pill bottles capped, full & only 1/2 bottle wine drunk with no indication of trauma vomit on bed); Tara (Dec 1966) killed most likely for Paul issue; Mal killed (1976) for tell-all book (now lost).

      Who knows who else, too.

      But yes, Paul is long gone: 48 years & Bill is not even as like him in manner as some look-alikes in tribute acts.

      Of course Lennon bought an apartment (two, actually) in the building where Rosemary's Baby was filmed -- though regarding the apartment itself, I don't know if it was used for the film -- & in a terrible rage in the early 1970s, blaming Polanski for troubles (which made no sense to May Pang, who reported it).

      Delete
    4. I see that someone has already linked Miles Mathis (on Lennon). He also has a lengthy piece on the faking of the Tate murders... http://mileswmathis.com/tate.pdf -Part 5 deals with the Lookout Mountain Air Force Station that Ole discusses in the first part.

      I can't say I'm entirely convinced by Mathis's arguments, but the police photos of Sharon Tate's alleged corpse aren't entirely convincing either. Frankly, it looks like something out of a contemporaneous Herschel Gordon Lewis gore flick.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. There are careful arguments which show how the Tate-LaBianca corpses are most likely what they are claimed to be (in that sense, an official version, i.e., where they died). The conspiracy is a different one there, than whether corpses were not really the right people as claimed.

      However, impressions can mislead. It is the claim of -- too -- many that mistaken impressions lead to people's thinking or knowing more deeply that Paul died, when in fact the impression error is the other way, rather surprisingly.

      But mistaken impressions also are a feature of arguments which really do fail to show conspiracy or which fail to do proper work within a conspiracy case: Mathis' are one set; uncareful attributions of who crisis actors at Boston Marathon or sandy Hook were are other sets; uncareful claims about who some (some) of the 9/11 victims were are another set; uncareful claims about Beatles as all being replaced or about who Bill (Faul, i.e., False Paul McCartney) is -- i.e., that he was some other historical person we can identify -- are two more sets.

      We have to be as careful to identify real doubles & real conspiracies as we are not to make up fake ones.

      Delete
  9. Hey Jeff Blog, You were deleted for cursing and how dare you speak to a lady like that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gary:

      Why don't you delete
      "lady" 911truthnc's comment for calling our esteemed
      Professor Fetzer " immature
      and unprofessional " ?
      What kind of a "lady" uses such vile and inappropriate language to Professor Fetzer who knocks his pan out night and day for this blog?
      An ungrateful "lady"
      who should take a hike and shove
      her offensive remarks where
      the sun "don't shine".
      See? I can post without even
      cursing fucking once. Duh!!!

      Delete
  10. That was no lady. That was 911truthnc.

    ReplyDelete
  11. http://mileswmathis.com/lennon.pdf

    "Proof that John Lennon faked his death."

    Very interesting research.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, he didn't. It is, like many things, tenable only with partial research and losing common sense when working it out.

      Common sense is not uninformed common sense; things can seem against common sense to some people & work quite common sensically, in a new way, but one must check TOTAL evidence & common sense, back & forth. Paul died & it works quite unusually but common sensically, but John did not fake his death.

      He'd be around, he'd not have left his boy, he'd not be photographed in the morgue, the grief of Yoko initially & the other two Beatles would not be. (Bill did not grieve by any indication beyond wishing they'd been more friends.)

      Delete
  12. Clare Kuehn is up to her old tricks again with her PID hooey. Slowly but surely she is subverting this " The Mysteries of Laurel Canyon" podcast thread and directing the comments toward her Paul-Is-Dead dead end bullsh. Why is this subterfuge
    allowed on this blog?
    Haven't we all heard enough of
    Clare Kuehn's delusional PID nonsense?
    Why doesn't she take her
    PID hogwash somewhere else?
    She has now added "John Lennon
    faked his own death" to her portfolio of demented drivel.

    Enough is enough!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I never said Johnny faked his fucking death. Paul is very dead, too.

      Delete
    2. appy-staring-too-long-at-your-navel-ian:

      I don't want people to doubt PID; I want them to know Paul died long ago.

      There's no drivel & I represented the other deaths with some detail, tersely, for people to go look into.

      Nor did I ever say John faked his death; with TotalInfo, I'm an authority on the death of John Lennon. We don't have all the facts at our fingertips all the time, & different authorities remember different things offhand when not looking them up again, but we are authorities on it.

      Paul & George (complications) & Eppie & Mal & Tara (likely) & John Asher (maybe) & others were murdered. The connection is Laurel Canyon type of action in London.

      Your anger is unwarranted & repetitive.

      Delete
  13. " http://mileswmathis.com/lennon.pdf

    "Proof that John Lennon faked his death." 

    Very interesting research."


    No. You didn't say John Lennon faked his own death but you did not even acknowledge Lavictoire's post with a rebuttal or any other comment. Your silence on Lavictoire's comment speaks volumes. I suppose you'll soon be claiming George Harrison faked his death too. Where exactly do you stand vis à
    vis John Lennon's death and George Harrison's death, anyway? Please clarify your position on these important issues.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What the f? -- I noticed it only today & replied.

      I never said anyone faked a death. Look up: I answered Lavictoire.

      Your prejudice is showing. I talked of Lennon's & George's (& others') deaths above & have a broadcast here, with TotalInfo, the most comprehensive available anywhere (& on blogtalk by myself) about John's death.

      radiofetzer.blogspot.ca/2012/12/clare-keuhn-total-info.html

      http://www.blogtalkradio.com/reasoning-and-reorientation (show #8)

      Delete
    2. Are you trolling, Dean? It's the first response to the topic and she clearly says "No he didn't." What more do you want her to do? Write it out in blood?

      Delete
    3. Jonass:

      "Are you trolling, Dean? It's the first response to the topic and she clearly says "No he didn't." What more do you want her to do? Write it out in blood?"


      "Write it out in blood?"

      No. In English would be nice.

      I'd settle for that, Mr Peechunka.

      Delete
    4. "Are you trolling, Dean? It's the first response to the topic and she clearly says "No he didn't." What more do you want her to do? Write it out in blood?"

      +


      Why did it take Clare Kuehn so long
      (almost 24 hours) to "clearly" write
      "No he didn't" ?

      Delete
    5. Dean: I don't follow this blog site. I rarely come here now. But now that some are discussing Laurel Canyon, I came & have popped in over the past week.

      Delete
    6. How clever; an "ass" pun on my name! I'll pretend I didn't hear that a million times in primary school, so that it resonates with me just as it did the very first time I heard it. You know, when I was 5 lol

      Why is everything a bloody fight in this forum? I thought we were all here because we were like minded individuals in search of truth? I'm not suggesting that we all sit around the virtual campfire and sing kumbaya, but Christ mate, why is everyone so bloody angry? Are you that emotionally invested in how Clare feels about Paul McCartney that you're willing to let it ruin your day? I may be wrong, but from the outside looking in, this forum is not exactly a happy place.

      Delete
    7. Joinass:

      "How clever; an "ass" pun on my name! I'll pretend I didn't hear that a million times in primary school, so that it resonates with me just as it did the very first time I heard it. You know, when I was 5 lol"


      Clever? Really? You need to get out more.
      As for you in primary school.......
      Now, that IS funny!!

      LMFAO

      Delete
    8. I must've missed something... How did asking why people are so angry convert me to Judaism? Not exactly sure what's funny about primary school either. And you, Apisterian, what the fuck is your problem? Were you molested by a rabbi as a child? You need to get out of that lower natured mindset, and fast. If you're so miserable with Fetzer et alia, why hang around his site trolling for conflict?

      Clare has done her due diligence on PID; if you don't agree, or if you find her condescending, simply move on. It beats behaving like a preteen with a crush. What are you going to do next, put bugs in her hair? Sheesh.

      Delete
    9. I got so excited when you replied that I knocked my menorah over with my gavilta fish. It fell into my matzoh ball soup and splashed all over my Torah and kabbalah! Oy vey!

      Based on deductive reasoning, you feel as if:

      1. Jews are literate
      2. Gentiles like yourself are have difficulty spelling.
      3. Gentiles have no idea how to use punctuation marks, like hyphens.
      4. Gentiles laugh like Santa Claus.
      5. Gentiles lack sentence structure whilst writing comments.
      6. Gentiles have magic powers that permit them to determine a Jew's thought process through the Internet.

      You embarrass me, and every other gentile on earth with your great war "teutonic" rhetoric and hyperbole. What's more, you embarrass yourself. I'm moving on, mate. I hope you get yourself sorted out.

      Delete
  14. Clare Kuehn -

    "Common sense is not uninformed common sense; things can seem against common sense to some people & work quite common sensically, in a new way, but one must check TOTAL evidence & common sense, back & forth."

    What utter nonsense, poppycock and blather!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reread.

      1. some use "common sense" to mean whatever positions they already take, which is prejudice

      2. some recognize that basic life (social, psychological, physical) principles must figure into every case & that is where common sense is informed but comes into play when a seemingly odd thing might have happened: it helps us separate good ideas from bad within a case or between different controversial cases without being prejudiced.

      No "nonsense, poppycock" or "blather".

      You simply don't like high ideas in terse form, so I've spelled it out further for you now.

      Delete
    2. 1/ Some write incoherent, disjointed gibberish...

      and

      2/ Some call it "high ideas in terse form"...

      but

      3/ It's still simply incoherent, disjointed gibberish, nonsense, poppycock and.....blather...

      No matter how it's "spelled out".

      Delete
    3. How about you deal with the implications of the spelled-out version instead of blathering about what you glossed over & thus didn't understand.

      Do try.

      Delete
    4. The point is: when we deal with doubters of coverups with good cases (such as JFK's death, etc.), they will tend to say it's against "common sense".

      But there are ways we have to use common sense (in a less prejudiced sense), to double check all arguments as we proceed. We can keep going, but we have to know the simplest (most ordinary elements) along the way.

      People often forget this sort of common sense during their arguments. For example, then, we can claim John died or John didn't. Putting aside the idea it's just too weird (the prejudiced form of "common sense"), we can indeed look into the idea.

      However, there is great grief, there is CIA likely involvement, there is no sign of this wonderful man ever again, there was high motivation to kill him, etc.

      Very likely then, he did not fake it (& this is a common sense which didn't stop us looking at the issue, but which double-checks the case for his faking his death).

      The point is more profound & important than your anger at me warrants; you missed the point the first time, perhaps because I didn't want to post at length to point out the examples. Now you have it. Enjoy & use the idea more consciously going forward in your assessment of cases; we all have to, but we can forget this key point in important ways, so it bears remembering.

      Cheers.

      Delete
    5. "The point is more profound & important than your anger at me warrants; you missed the point the first time, perhaps because I didn't want to post at length to point out the examples. Now you have it. Enjoy & use the idea more consciously going forward in your assessment of cases; we all have to, but we can forget this key point in important ways, so it bears remembering."

      My anger at you??!! You're the angry one here. Your replies are typical of your condescending and arrogant approach to all comments which expose your so-called high ideas: those who highlight your specious waffle and rubbish are accused by you of being incapable of understanding and are told by you to use "the idea more consciously" whatever the hell that means. Anyone who challenges your bilious rubbish is told by you that they really must "try harder". There is no need to try harder. Your PID "research" is prima facie bullsh1t and always will be. The only profound thing about you is the depth of the "high ideas" shinola around your ankles and you'll soon be up to your neck in it. You're so full of sh1t, your
      shoes go "SQUELCH!!", "SQUELCH!!" when you walk.

      Delete
    6. Yes, anger, "??!!"

      I know the upper arguments & lower arguments on both sides of PID (& lots of other things, as you do in some cases, too, I hope).

      With understanding comes compassion. Try it.

      Delete
    7. "Yes, anger, "??!!"

      I know the upper arguments & lower arguments on both sides of PID (& lots of other things, as you do in some cases, too, I hope).

      With understanding comes compassion. Try it."


      Still angry, Clare??!!
      Well, at least, you're not cursing.


      "With understanding comes compassion"

      Yeah. Right.
      And a fat lot of use compassion is and proves nothing. Much like you with your PID eyewash.

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    9. You simply do not work to see, or if seeing difference, you do not work to know if it is significant difference or as we all might hope it to be, if it is instead age, lighting, camera, drug difference in face, body language, style, etc.; nor do you work to know the circumstances which allow for this case to be real quite naturally (i.e., common sensically in every part of it), though, yes, unusually ( thus, not sounding common sensical).

      I almost never curse, nor did I truly do so above, you might note.

      Delete
    10. & U should also note that in your anger "!?!!!" etc., "poppycock & blather" verbal aggression, you missed that I was saying you were angry.

      I get annoyed at repeating information & argument reminders, & I get sadly angry at people's thinking I should follow everything they may write here (I don't even get e-mail notifications of this stuff), but was not angry at the points you made ... yet you are very angry at the idea that someone knows Paul died & says so as a claim with backup you don't want to work through just in case it is true.

      Delete
  15. "Common sense is not uninformed common sense; things can seem against common sense to some people & work quite common sensically, in a new way, but one must check TOTAL evidence & common sense, back & forth."

    Does the above claptrap represent the modus operandi of your Paul-Is-Dead "research"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again: you're having trouble with the terse form of the idea.

      1. The term common sense can refer to almost mere prejudice.

      2. The term common sense can also be used for good reminders we give ourselves during case study, not to stop a line of argument, but to know where its various problems may be.

      ---- Paul died, yes, but the case does not need elitist witchhunting (I really mean that metaphor); you want progress, learn from people who've been wise in other areas & direct you to an area which might be wrong or right (upon first or even 20th inspection), but needn't bring out your worship of "respectable" conspiracy theories.

      I eliminate the claptrap; Paul's death remains.

      Before you try to "take me down" (in one sense) ...

      "I'm going to strawberry fields". Why don't you see whether the official story contains an area where "nothing is real", as you would ask in other cases of possible coverup?

      :)

      Delete
    2. " Again: you're having trouble with the terse form of the idea."


      Yet more of your overbearing arrogance and condescension!! Is there no limit
      to your conceit, pomposity and pretentiousness?

      " I eliminate the claptrap; Paul's death
      remains. "

      You have not eliminated the claptrap since you are still spouting it with your
      "Paul's death remains"..... claptrap.
      You have not supplied any credible and conclusive evidence to substantiate your PID hokum.

      Your claptrap continues.

      Delete
    3. You misidentify claptrap. The arguments exist & you do not do the work.

      Delete
  16. Paul did make a lot of good songs on his own. You can find a lookalike for anyone, but to find one that could also inherit talent would be tough. John never did much singing when he died. True enough, he was busy being dead.

    I see it as the second part of the Manson story, the last nail to the coffin. The stuff he was singing, and his influence, and the harsh penalties for smoking dope, would be enough to switch him off. Then you have the classic story. The patsy, of course, in standard mode, the CIA link as backup. All systems ready.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Manson may have written Helter skelter.

      However, whatever Bill did or whatever Paul songs got reworked, Bill did not make too many good songs (not in the groovy & deeply humane sense) that Paul had; even Bill's followers recognize he seems to have had a lobotomy in the sense of how bad some of the songs are.

      It's not Paul, so don't call him that, for your own clarity of criticism of the repertoire.

      Delete
    2. Hi Clare; I was wondering what you thought of the Joel Gilbert documentary "Paul is Dead: The Last Testament of George Harrison". This might not be the best forum to ask a question about the film, but since the topic of Sir Paul came up, I figured I'd throw it out there. Any response is appreciated. Thanks in advance for your reply!

      Delete
    3. Hi, Jonas. The discussion of the disinfo film is at my blog & Tina's. You can use search term "Testament" to find it in my book-length blog entry at

      http://youcanknowsometimes.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_24.html

      & Tina's good summary on just that issue (some of her posts are great; some are really problematic, in my strong opinion):

      http://plasticmacca.blogspot.ca/2013/07/expose-of-disinfo-hit-piece-paul-really_19.html

      The movie mixes oversimplification (an Mi5 agent named "Maxwell" for the song, instead of the complex interwoven intel scene involved here) with inaccurate complexities (Heather Mills, a child in the 60s, is named as "Rita" the "maid with Paul when he died" -- when it is unknown that a woman was with him either), and of course a fake George Harrison voiceover. It also suggests there are clues from the Beatles before Paul died, a complexity in itself, but ultimately a false position.

      It's a hit piece about the hit (Paul has to have been murdered). It came out when "The Winged Beatle", a far more profound but less easily discussable, artistic piece -- a real leak -- came out. Thanks for asking.

      Delete
    4. You probably was going to say "Manson may have read Helter Skelter." He would be unlikely to write anything. His job was to repeat what was written for him and that was plenty enough.

      As for Paul, or Bill, if you will, dead or alive, it's not pivotal to anything. So, who cares? There are, I would bet, plenty of lookalikes around in show business. Where there is money to be made dead is no problem. Not a very interesting subject otherwise. And Bill is a very good singer.

      Delete
    5. Bill's okay -- but yes, Paul was key to some intel persons in 1966 ... In ways your sometimes subtle mind should begin looking through.

      The death of Paul became even more pivotal in a number of ways, than Paul, but he was & would have become even more a problem for intel.

      Manson wrote songs, by the way.

      Delete
    6. Also: of all media issues of faking, this one is real, simon.

      Delete
    7. Well, Manson was a performer, not a song writer. He may have written songs, but I would doubt it.

      Delete
    8. simon, Manson was known as a songwriter, too.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson_discography

      Delete
  17. Does this guy mention Dave McGowan at all here? Also thought you guys might like to know that appolonian has taken to trolling sandy hook videos incessantly. Just in case you missed him.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://mileswmathis.com/tate.pdf

      Delete
    2. Thanks Lenny, great article.

      Delete
    3. You're welcome. That Mathis article on Sharon Tate and Charles Manson, http://mileswmathis.com/tate.pdf, has made me rethink the whole Laurel Canyon-murders aspect of David McGowan's book.

      I think Dr Fetzer should also have a read of this Mathis paper on the Abraham Lincoln assassination:
      http://mileswmathis.com/lincoln.pdf

      Certainly throws the Kennedy assassination into sharp relief, doesn't it?

      And makes you wonder how come Miles Mathis could come to his remarkable (& imho, quite sound) Lincoln conclusions in fairly short order, while our intrepid Prof of Logic has still not solved the Kennedy assassination 40 years later and he's not even close to an answer! :-)

      Can't wait for a new paper from Miles Mathis on JFK!

      Delete
    4. Remarkable and quite sound?

      Mathis' Lincoln pdf reads like a homework assignment. Most of it not even his own but stolen and cobbled together. What is his own is juvenile
      and facile nonsense.

      Remarkable and quite sound?
      More like turgid, overblown
      and brain numbing bulldust.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. Right, Maziosta. It is like the worst forum crap in all forums, for or against certain ideas ... where the idea for or against some idea is cobbled together from no deep, total, careful, common-sense-remembering position as one moves through the arguments.

      One might say 9/11 or JFK or Paul's death conspiracies are counter to initial common sense, but what I raised earlier & just now again, is where common sense is a reminder, a caveat, which checks new lines of inquiry. Without it, certain pieces of evidence & reasoning do not get remembered, by people such as Mathis, & they go off track.

      I won't mention some such errors in 9/11 & JFK work (they exist), but in Paul's death case it comes up in the idea of multiple doubles & in impossible double candidates for Bill (who is himself, not someone else we can identify by name in history: his own history is lost -- the real double, our sir "Paul").

      It also flows in the counter-arguments to these conspiracy cases: where, for example, at the McAdams site on JFK's death, or in Posner's book, common sense with the corrective information is dismissed (thus no correction to the official story is made), while superficial incredulity about conspiracy as a motive or probability is called common sense -- where common sense reduces to being a biased non-starter.

      Delete
  19. Clare Keuhn,you say there is no sign of John ever again as a point to dismiss the faked death theory. This tells me you did not read the research I linked to. Please read it as it points to where/who John is and uses the same forensics you do with PID.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is annoying garbage, this Mathis of yours. Fail.

      Delete
    2. Lavictoire, he is not good on forensics, plus the common sense issues around John's personality, persons around him (direct grief from Ringo, George -- not Bill, by the way, our "Paul" now), the idea of his leaving his son & the morgue shot -- which yes shows John, though dead & more emaciated than people remember his being, but he was, before he was shot -- and the motive of the CIA, plus its presence at the scene through Perdomo, all argue that John is dead.

      Not to mention, aside, that even radical (i.e., total) media doubter, simon shack, even finds Mathis counter-intuitive and sloppy ... though that is not, of course, as definitive a point for me to make to you as the ones I made in the previous paragraph.

      Delete
  20. I read the Lennon article Lavictoire, and I liked it a lot. Thanks for that. I'll read it again in a few days time.

    Miles Mathis is def asking all the right questions and his writing style is terrific. Starting to look like the "Paul is Dead" thing is a limited hangout, doesn't it?

    I hope Jim Fetzer gets around to reading "The Lincoln Assassination, another manufactured event", sometime:
    http://mileswmathis.com/lincoln.pdf

    Real food for thought apropos Kennedy, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, Paul died; there were not multiple doubles or Johnny faking his death. The position of both those ideas (Mathis taking at least the latter), requires uncareful consideration of the reasonable psychological information we have about the people involved in the group (for Johnny's faking his death), plus dismissing direct counter evidence (in the case of multiple doubles).

      Delete
    2. Lenny, I haven't read the Lincoln paper yet but looking forward to it. How does it compare to McGowan's series on Lincoln? I enjoy both their writing. I thought the same about PID being a limited hangout after the Lennon piece. It is not as though the Beatles weren't in our face with the clues and all. I do think it is a different Paul but it is anybody's guess what happened to the first one.

      Delete
    3. McGowan makes a general claim about wider conspiracy for Lincoln's death, reminding people of not only the literal hangings for a few conspirators, but a wider context.

      It's not a guess what happened to Paul, basically. Only a death would end those friends in such a way; there was motive to kill him; plus there is evidence of their grief & their belief in or knowledge of a car-related death (hit & run or hit & stay or shot in front of car -- whatever like that), are through all the evidence they provide on manner of death, in their obsessive mourning of the death (in the clues).

      He died.

      Delete
    4. LaVictoire: Mathis claims that Lincoln's death was faked. McGowan talks of how the conspiracy to kill him & turn the government toward reactionary southern sympathies was wider than the hanged conspirators; McGowan does not try to say the death of Lincoln was fake, even if Booth was not the real shooter or not the ultimate body presented as Booth's dead body later, etc.

      Mathis works through much material, re-interpreting some of it & posing questions ... but there are overarching guidelines of motive which he moves away from common sense about: people DO want reactionaries to win & progress to stop (when it's not their progress). It is often the motive for real murder.

      Delete
    5. I see Clare you still have not properly read Mathis on Lincoln and you obviously do not have anything like a clear grasp on what he's even saying.

      On the Lincoln assassination, I think David McGowan is just flat out wrong.

      For a guy who wrote a book called "Programmed to Kill", a more complicated and long winded read one could not hope to find and which conveniently failed to solve one frigging thing, McGowan never once posed the obvious first question: "Are these serial killings even real? Did these murders happen at all or were they all staged?" He also failed to ask the same question about Lincoln's assassination.

      Clare, I do suggest you look at these two Mathis articles (which I know you and that other fellow Maziosta won't of course because you don't have an open mind on the subject for whatever reasons best known to yourselves, so this is for everyone else's benefit):

      The Zodiac Murders were faked
      http://mileswmathis.com/zodiac.pdf

      The Unibomber was Another Psyop
      http://mileswmathis.com/unabomber.pdf

      I'm not proposing that Mathis is entirely correct about all things but given what we now know about the general scale of fakery in the MSM, it's a thesis to seriously consider. And unlike McGowan, Mathis at least proposes feasible conclusions.

      Don't take my word for it. Read it yourself and make your own mind up.

      The Zodiac Murders were faked
      http://mileswmathis.com/zodiac.pdf

      The Unibomber was Another Psyop
      http://mileswmathis.com/unabomber.pdf

      Delete
    6. No, Lenny. Too many now think the first question is "is it real at all" -- & that's NOT the 1st question. It only comes into play if evidence takes you there. However, if asked ... or once asked, it still must be compared to the more normal position (though possibly conspiratorial, hence, often unaccepted anyway by most).

      That is what common sense can do within a case: remind one that some positions needn't be worked through, probably, but yes, if someone does work it through & there is merit, then include it.

      With Lincoln & Kennedy & Lennon & the serial killers ... the most reasonable assumption is that they are real, with many lines to support that and insignificant counter evidence.

      Anything else becomes, philosophically speaking, radical doubt, where real & likely have to prove themselves ... in ways reality cannot. Likelihood, then, is part of argumentation: but it must be informed by knowledge of other cases.

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    8. Q: What's the deifinition of an existentialist radical doubter?
      A: A Zen adept with a nihilistic attitude.

      :)

      Oh & for the PID slanderers, here's one:

      John: "Are you really dead, Paulie?"
      Paul: "Are you still alive, Johnny?"

      But Mathis couldn't get that, since he decides the CIA didn't off John. Even if Mathis knew Paul died, Mathis would miss out on that joke above. (The non-death of Paul is what did not happen, i.e., the aliveness of a double where the trick is, the fakery is & that is what we should doubt, not John's death.)

      Delete
  21. I have read Mathis' Lincoln pdf file and found it totally useless. It seems Mathis is another one of those rainy Sunday afternoon with too much time on his hands delusional nuts who
    thinks he alone has all the answers and he
    alone has solved the Lincoln assassination.
    Mathis is on the job! Case closed!!
    I can't wait to read Mathis' take on the JFK assassination. Only kidding.

    Mathis should get a life and stop
    pumping out his ridiculous guff.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Haha. You're a busy little bee, aren't you?

      Delete
    2. Agreed, Maziosta, but the real question is how people can get part of something right, part wrong & how to correct it, so we understand how they confused themselves. (Grammar mistake used consciously, so as to be gender-neutral.)

      Delete
    3. Thanks for your advice, I'll certainly bear it in mind.

      Delete
  22. That there was a conspiracy in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln is not in doubt.......



    Why did people hear a "muffled" pistol shot and not the echoing sound of a pistol shot when Booth discharged his
    Philadelphia Deringer into Lincoln's head? What does Mathis mean by the word "muffled"? Is Mathis implying that Booth used a "muffler" to damp the sound of the shot? Impossible since the Philadelphia Deringer pistol used by Booth cannot accept a muffler. But there are other ways to muffle the sound of a shot from a Philadelphia Deringer. The simplest way is to hold some sort of material - perhaps a thick cloth over the barrel of the Philadelphia Deringer which would ensure a muffled sound or at least a sound that would be considerably less in volume.
    Mathis asks " Why would the
    pistol shot be muffled?" as if this
    question had some deep significance.
    The simple answer to Mathis question is "Why wouldn't the pistol shot be muffled?"
    Booth was an actor who understood
    the worth of the theatrical.
    Booth understood the value of the element of surprise in matters theatrical.
    Timing was important to Booth. Booth muffled the shot from the Philadelphia Deringer pistol for one reason and one reason only. Timing. Or rather to give himself time for his great finale - his great "dénouement" and his jump onto the stage for his little
    "Sic semper tyrannis" speech.
    Booth just had to have the last word(s).
    What is an actor, after all, if he doesn't get the chance and the time
    to deliver his lines?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Maziosta, the "muffled" shot Mathis is referring to comes from the "The Death of Abraham Lincoln" which was a lecture widely given to the public by the famous poet Walt Whitman, 1879-81. And I quote from Walt:
    "Through the general hum following the stage pause, with the change of positions, came the muffled sound of a
    pistol-shot, which not one-hundredth part of the audience heard at the time", page 3.
    So "muffled" is Whitman's reference, not Mathis'. The relevant excerpt from Whitman's speech can be checked on-line.
    The point is, in a theatre sound amplifies and is generally not that muffled that 99% of the audience wouldn't hear a pistol shot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is Mathis who poses the question!!



      The fifth red flag was the description of the assassination by Walt Whitman. Not many people know that Whitman gave a series of lectures in 1879-81 called The Death of Abraham Lincoln. Here are some excerpts: I read from my memoranda, written at the time, and revised frequently and finally since. . . . Through the general hum following the stage pause, with the change of positions, came the muffled sound of a pistol-shot, which not one-hundredth part of the audience heard at the time—and yet a moment’s hush— somehow, surely, a vague startled thrill—and then, through the ornamented, draperied, starr’d and striped spaceway of the President’s box, a sudden figure, a man, raises himself with hands and feet, stands a moment on the railing, leaps below to the stage, (a distance of perhaps fourteen or fifteen feet,) falls out of position, catching his boot-heel in the copious drapery, (the American flag,) falls on one knee, quickly recovers himself, rises as if nothing had happen’d, (he really sprains his ankle, but unfelt then)—and so the figure, Booth, the murderer, dress’d in plain black broadcloth, bare-headed, with full, glossy, raven hair, and his eyes like some mad animal’s flashing with light and resolution, yet with a certain strange calmness, holds aloft in one hand a large knife—walks along not much back from the footlights—turns fully toward the audience his face of statuesque beauty, lit by those basilisk eyes, flashing with desperation, perhaps insanity—launches out in a firm and steady voice the words Sic semper tyrannis—and then walks with neither slow nor very rapid pace diagonally across to the back of the stage, and disappears. (Had not all this terrible scene—making the mimic ones preposterous—had it not all been rehears’d, in blank, by Booth, beforehand?)



      "....Very strange, as I think you will admit. Although Whitman tries to put this into poetic language—as you would expect from a famous poet—this is in fact the standard story, or very close to it. Whitman misses that Booth was said to have broken his fibula in the jump, not just twisted his ankle, but that isn't what we should be looking at here anyway. What you should be asking is,




      1.Why would the pistol shot be muffled? "




      I repeat!!


      It is Mathis who poses the question!!



      1.Why would the pistol shot be muffled?

      Delete
    2. Whether Mathis' muffle or Whitman's muffle ... Maziosta is pointing out that a muffled shot makes a lot of sense, if it was done, but it could have not been done & worked anyway.

      Delete
    3. Good lord. You haven't read it either have you?

      Delete
    4. Mathis has clearly misunderstood
      the word "muffled" in:

      "came the muffled sound of a pistol-shot"

      Mathis is assuming that "muffled" in the context used by Whitman means
      a pistol shot that has been damped or muted by some external means
      which MAY be the case
      whereas "muffled" can simply mean
      relatively low in volume without any implication of some external means
      having been applied to achieve this
      relatively low volume.


      What we have here is Mathis "jumping
      the gun" and purposely misreading Whitman's words for his own cheap
      soi-disant investigative "skills".

      Delete
    5. What nonsense Maziosta, Didn't they teach you how to interpret a text? Good lord.

      But by all means keep going with your masterful "deconstruction", you're just digging a bigger hole for yourself and it's kinda fun to watch.

      Delete
    6. Lenny January 9, 2015 at 11:56 AM

      "Maziosta, the "muffled" shot Mathis is referring to comes from the "The Death of Abraham Lincoln" which was a lecture widely given to the public by the famous poet Walt Whitman, 1879-81. And I quote from Walt:
      "Through the general hum following the stage pause, with the change of positions, came the muffled sound of a
      pistol-shot, which not one-hundredth part of the audience heard at the time", page 3.
      So "muffled" is Whitman's reference, not Mathis'. The relevant excerpt from Whitman's speech can be checked on-line.
      The point is, in a theatre sound amplifies and is generally not that muffled that 99% of the audience wouldn't hear a pistol shot."



      Maziosta January 9, 2015 at 12:48 PM

      "It is Mathis who poses the question!!



      The fifth red flag was the description of the assassination by Walt Whitman. Not many people know that Whitman gave a series of lectures in 1879-81 called The Death of Abraham Lincoln. Here are some excerpts: I read from my memoranda, written at the time, and revised frequently and finally since. . . . Through the general hum following the stage pause, with the change of positions, came the muffled sound of a pistol-shot, which not one-hundredth part of the audience heard at the time—and yet a moment’s hush— somehow, surely, a vague startled thrill—and then, through the ornamented, draperied, starr’d and striped spaceway of the President’s box, a sudden figure, a man, raises himself with hands and feet, stands a moment on the railing, leaps below to the stage, (a distance of perhaps fourteen or fifteen feet,) falls out of position, catching his boot-heel in the copious drapery, (the American flag,) falls on one knee, quickly recovers himself, rises as if nothing had happen’d, (he really sprains his ankle, but unfelt then)—and so the figure, Booth, the murderer, dress’d in plain black broadcloth, bare-headed, with full, glossy, raven hair, and his eyes like some mad animal’s flashing with light and resolution, yet with a certain strange calmness, holds aloft in one hand a large knife—walks along not much back from the footlights—turns fully toward the audience his face of statuesque beauty, lit by those basilisk eyes, flashing with desperation, perhaps insanity—launches out in a firm and steady voice the words Sic semper tyrannis—and then walks with neither slow nor very rapid pace diagonally across to the back of the stage, and disappears. (Had not all this terrible scene—making the mimic ones preposterous—had it not all been rehears’d, in blank, by Booth, beforehand?)



      "....Very strange, as I think you will admit. Although Whitman tries to put this into poetic language—as you would expect from a famous poet—this is in fact the standard story, or very close to it. Whitman misses that Booth was said to have broken his fibula in the jump, not just twisted his ankle, but that isn't what we should be looking at here anyway. What you should be asking is, 




      1.Why would the pistol shot be muffled? "




      I repeat!!


      It is Mathis who poses the question!!"




      "Lenny January 11, 2015 at 12:53 PM

      What nonsense Maziosta, Didn't they teach you how to interpret a text? Good lord. 

      But by all means keep going with your masterful "deconstruction", you're just digging a bigger hole for yourself and it's kinda fun to watch."



      It would seem that YOUR reading comprehension skills aren't what
      they should be.



      "1.Why would the pistol shot be muffled?"




      I repeat!!


      It is Mathis who poses the question!!!

      Delete
    7. Mathis' "red flags" are nothing
      but Maggie's drawers.

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    9. Right, Maziosta:

      but how do we know? how does Lenny not know? how do we share how we know, without demeaning the effort Mathis made?

      These are the important questions, which people disliking me attack when they attack me (deflecting primarily because I now discuss Paul's death & they don't care how much I contributed & continue to contribute to other cases, once I've done that).

      Lenny, for example, just added a seconding of someone else's demeaning statement about me with his "I can't comment :)" comment below. This came after I advocated against using an ad hominem feeling to talk down about Mathis' math claims, when neither of us has read those, which Lenny never thanked me for pointing that good attitude out.

      I also pointed out that he (Lenny) was wrong that Mathis did not advocate that Lincoln did not die, since that was Mathis' point, overtly, but Lenny has not acknowledged the correction. Instead, he adds to others' chorus of ignorant insults of me.

      Very interesting. (Not.) But typical, especially after I showed some years ago that, contrary to spurious radically doubting people such as Mathis & Culto, the broadly known PID case is extensive & supportable & did not crop up from musings of isolated individuals such as these (Mathis & Culto).

      Yes, an individual can almost single-handedly raise an issue, though it is so rare, so it is worth knowing what Mathis & Culto did, if one has time to look -- just in case they have good points within their work or are correct overall, but they are not, & I showed the broad means of knowing it: corrective common sense with memory of all lines of reasoning while one delves into one (theirs).

      Delete
  24. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Maziosta, Clare gave me some good advice and I’ll give it to you.
    “… the real question is how people can get part of something right, part wrong & how to correct it, so we understand how they confused themselves.”
    The answer to that is: people get confused when they go into combative “debunking” mode, and attack a new idea before they’ve actually understood it. The way to correct this is to approach the text with an open mind.
    Thanks Clare. You’re wise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. It seems that contact with Clare Kuehn has infected your brain if, indeed, you had a brain to start with.

      Here's a piece of good advice for you:

      Learn how to read!

      Delete
    3. Yes, but the problem with Mathis is that HE's approaching the case that way: in a debunking mode for normal conspiracy cases without being careful.

      To get to that point, you have to know the original versions of the case (official, unofficial -- & variations on each) AND learn the new version before you (Mathis', in this instance), & then use informed common sense to guide you through the comparative process.

      If so:

      Lennon didn't fake his own death ... most likely, as in, you can decide that way better than Mathis' "rethink".

      Delete
  26. Thank you for your good advice. I'll certainly bear it in mind.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Clare Kuehn

    "Yes, but the problem with Mathis is that HE's approaching the case that way: in a debunking mode for normal conspiracy cases without being careful."

    I agree entirely with your words on Mathis.
    Mathis' piece of "muffled" nonsense shows Mathis up as a self seeking arriviste who will latch onto any piece of nonsense to impress us all with his doubtful investigative techniques and so-called powers of detection.
    I should advise people not to refer to Mathis'
    dross on Lincoln as a "paper". It is not a "paper". It is merely a piece of unreadable junk.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How would you know? Neither you nor Clare have read it?

      Delete
    2. lenny

      "How would you know? Neither you nor Clare have read it?"


      Clare and I have read Mathis' "chit" (a word which comes to within one letter of describing Mathis' Lincoln "paper") as you so lovingly call it. Clare and I have also understood it. Whereas you have "read" it and failed completely in understanding it.

      Delete
    3. Apologies...

      Lenny begins with a big L....

      Delete
    4. Well, I call every piece of work (well done or not) a position paper or case, for to know whether a position or case made is good, one has to start out positive enough, work through it properly, compare & then judge.

      In principle, this is what people do not do well enough: they then don't learn what is junk & what is good (including 9/11, JFK, etc., for some, & Moon, sandy Hook, Paul's death or even Lennon's death, etc., for some).

      Yes, Mathis' work (paper, case) is thin intellectually for remembering to compare his ideas to each new level of common sense considerations & do a full set of reasoning.

      But he works with materials (evidence), presents a proof claim, argues, etc. In this case (instance), his case is thin, but we have to be careful not to simply put down things, since there are some we might try to put down but be wrong about.

      Delete
    5. Is all that just a nice way of saying:
      All Clare's opinions = Good
      Everything else = Bad?
      Just wondering.

      Delete
    6. "Is all that just a nice way of saying:
      All Clare's opinions = Good
      Everything else = Bad?
      Just wondering."

      You got it, Lenny! Mathis has the guts to put his cr*p in writing for everybody (who wants) to read it. Clare Kuehn will never do that! As far as cr*p goes, Clare Kuehn puts Miles Mathis in the penny place.
      For REAL cr*p, you need to read
      Clare Kuehn's PID twaddle.
      What we really need is Clare Kuehn's PID paper(s). Mathis has hundreds of papers. Why has Clare Kuehn no PID paper(s)?

      You figure it out, Lenny.

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    8. You might stop calling Paul's death "twaddle" & realize that I know about many subjects & weed through how to tell between Mathis' complex but untenable work, vs something else within JFK, 9/11, sandy Hook, Boston, 7/7, many others & John Lennon's death & Paul's hidden death.

      I have many works on many subjects, years before I came to investigate the matter of the rumour of Paul's death. Teun, your idea is prejudiced against me & that case. YOU figure out the massive amount of work I've done with Jim & others & then comment. Until then ... sayonara.

      Delete
    9. Lenny: it is a nice way of telling people the reminders of how to approach all claims without being uncareful & biasing oneself with negative language, so that all claims may be sifted; one will not know otherwise what claims have merit.

      All modern coverup (conspiracy crime) cases are attacked by someone, whether outside or inside conspiracy research communities. In order to help non-conspiracy-researchers or conspiracy researchers to separate good from bad from slightly error-including work, refer to my comments.

      I can get things wrong, too, though with great familiarity with the types of cases & the signs to look for, plus great care I've taken on the major cases, I am a good guide in general. Jim is, too. Tarpley is, too. In general, mistakes in some people's work are fewer, while in others' work, complex themes may be undertaken (as in Mathis'), but critical errors be present in various ways.

      I was obviously reminding Maziosta, with whom I agree about Mathis, to try to curb his put-down language, so that the merits & demerits could be mentioned without bringing put-down attitudes to other things which may have more merit.

      I remind general debunker types of this all the time, too.

      Delete
  28. Mathis is guilty of unsteady thoughts
    and is not to be taken seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Jim, why don't you have a shows discussing the immigration issue. It's the most destructive, more so than 9-11.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Amazon reviews of Miles Mathis'
    "The Un-Unified Field: And Other Problems"

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1452005133?vs=1


    LOL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hahaha. You get paid by the message?

      Delete
    2. All that proves is someone else has read it and you haven't. Seems to be your pattern.

      Delete
    3. Here's that piece of good advice again:

      Learn HOW to read!

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. Once people know of conspiracy (coverup) cases or wonder what's true in general, they may begin to carry over suspicion into new cases.

      Mathis (like some others), thought he found fakery in a general sense in Lincoln's & Lennon's death & wondered then about what other things his doubt could deconstruct, such as unified field theory. His multiple subject interest is laudable, though his method is flawed.

      In the simple sense of merely carrying one concept (deconstruction) through many subjects, he is doing something similar to what general debunker attitudes claim all conspiracy theorists tend to do: to "fall for" many of the conspiracy theories, not just one. (Instead, there are many correct conspiracy theories, but yes, we do use our knowledge from cases to ask about new ones, which is similar to how Mathis moved from one thing to another.)

      It is not a danger to ask, but it is a danger to forget corrective common sense during and at the end of a case; Mathis makes this error of radical doubt. This is where, during one's questioning of a subject, one does not earmark what is most likely at each point, leaving all things doubtable without counting that some things have more likelihood of being true than others.

      It does not mean something odd-sounding cannot have occurred (a conspiracy where some think it couldn't, or a fake event where some people think it couldn't), but it means that at some point the common sense doubt would come into play in the case for conspiracy or faking, making the other odder parts one went through suddenly make easier sense. Mathis' own cases do not achieve this. Lincoln & Lennon died.

      Using common sense as a corrective does not mean one stops building a case just because, for example, it is more likely in general that Lincoln was killed; Mathis has every right to build up the case that he was not killed. The problem is that throughout & in the end, he ignores the general reminder that people wanted Lincoln dead & all parts work fine that way in the case, as a normal killing, thus a real killing remains more likely.

      In something such as, say, 9/11 or JFK or Paul's death, what seem to some to be strange claims in fact have common sense answers all the way through. There, it is more likely that people wanted to conspire & fake parts of events, than that they did not.

      The opposite is true with Mathis. But it is not fair to badmouth him; he has given us a tricky case in point of how a position goes off track: how common sense should work in determining the truth about a controversy but does not get used properly. He is not ALL wrong, or unable otherwise to think.

      Delete
    6. Not having read the math work itself, I cannot comment on whether his work there has merit.

      It is doubtful, given his daring but flawed interpretations of Lincoln & Lennon's deaths, but it would be ad hominem to attack part of his work on math or all of it entirely, simply due to his other errors.

      Unseen as yet, it would be prejudiced to say more than he is daring to try his hand at grand topics; ironically, he might have some new approach there, or hidden in bad ideas might be some connection we need for cosmology. It feels (sight unseen) unlikely, but that is a feeling carried over from his other work.

      Inventors, for example, can be wrong again and again, or they can achieve something which works but is still wrong in concept & needs fixing but got enough right, though in error in large ways, that others can ultimately find the right way to do something.

      Lee De Forest's early amplifier is an example: he developed a very poor but successful amplifier; his idea misconstrued why it worked (he thought it worked because of the gas in the tube, but it was the other elements & they needed a vacuum to work better). His amplifier amplified -- but not by much. The concept was wrong, too. But yes, in a sense it worked and yes in a sense it led to one which could work, but his idea itself of how it worked did NOT lead to the true success.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_de_Forest

      (see 3rd paragraph under section "Audion")

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  31. Are you Miles Mathis? Is "Lenny" just another one of your many aliases? Why don't you write another 5 star review on amazon of your collection of "The Un-Unified Field: And Other Problems" "waste papers"? Hehehe

    ReplyDelete
  32. Wow. About 100 comments -- shows on music/ art scene lies get a lot of attention, even when topics go off onto other things such as Mathis' work.

    Good night, all.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "Wow. About 100 comments -- shows on music/ art scene lies get a lot of attention, even when topics go off onto other things such as Mathis' work.

    Good night, all."


    Translation, please?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What? This page has about 100 comments. Most shows don't. This show (& others with many comments) often are on topics about lies in the music & art scene. They also get some off-topic posts (such as here, about Mathis' paper claiming that Lincoln didn't die), but those don't account for the high comment number. Thus, these topics on music & art conspiracies are popular among commenters.

      Do you have a problem with reading English or do you not want to work at any post to understand it?

      Delete
    2. Clare, like most people who don't know before-hand what a total befuddled fool u really and truly are, so in love w. babbling ur stupid crap, asserting and then asserting some more about people who don't go along w. ur stupid asserting--about all the idiot things u talk about--they too much give u credit, only to find in the end u're so psychotic--it's hard thing to have to condemn humanity or ur corrupt sort, who basically likes to hear urself talk and babble in ur brainless way.

      Delete
    3. Clare,

      While I do not agree entirely with the contents of your reply, it is , nonetheless, a vast improvement on your earlier cryptic offering. Try to make the contents of your comments more comprehensive
      and clear and less Byzantine and
      opaque. Could I also encourage you in a more judicious use of punctuation?
      Reference your query on whether
      I have a problem reading English; the answer is no. I do not. Do you?

      Delete
    4. You seem to have a reading comprehension problem if you can't make out what Clare wrote.

      Delete
    5. Clare said:
      "This show (& others with many comments) often are on topics about lies in the music & art scene. They also get some off-topic posts (such as here, about Mathis' paper claiming that Lincoln didn't die)..."

      Haha! "Lincoln didn't die"? Who, other than you, is saying that?

      The debate, in case you hadn't noticed, is "Was Lincoln's Assassination a staged event?"

      You're priceless.

      Delete
    6. It was staged, Lenny: but not in the sense of no death.

      It was an arranged reality, for the conspirators.

      Delete
    7. Did you see this?

      Mathis: "When an investigator of a murder comes across a mountain of evidence of
      tampering and fakery and lies, his first question should be, “was there a murder at all?” Only when he
      is convinced of the murder itself does he proceed to asking further questions. Given the story we have
      been told, we should never have been convinced of the murder of Lincoln. We never had any real
      evidence for it. All the evidence we have is clearly pushed, so we should then look for evidence he
      wasn't
      murdered. As it turns out, there is actually a lot of that evidence, buried just below the top layer
      of falsehoods."

      Mathis' mistake here even in gist is that the question of whether there was a murder comes from the whole case, not that one asks if it was murder first: some murders are more evidently likely, some less so; when it is likely, the investigation already moves in a different main direction.

      Mathis opens up the question hereby as to whether Lincoln was murdered. He forgets the commonsense corrections to his line of reasoning, not really handling the way it would work the other way. In not doing so, he fails properly to compare the two.

      However, he raises questions about how the event transpired, even if a person holds that Lincoln was murdered.

      Maybe you should read, Lenny. Excuse me for sinking to the level of attack on me you were at, but "you're priceless". However: I hold that anyone should read & think through anything. But as Maziosta pointed out (more vitriolically, though): Mathis fails in the basic point.

      Delete
  34. Having a reading comprehension problem might
    actually help in trying to understand
    the nonsense Clare writes.
    Sometimes Clare really can be
    dumb as a post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Opposite is true: not dumb; I got the slanderous tone. I handled it with a challenge. Yes, there is a reading comprehension problem among some here -- in the sense that they don't want me to make sense, don't want reminders of how to approach problems fairly & openly, especially since I opened up the case on PID here, 2 years ago. It is the most explosive issue of all: as if it is dumber than Mathis' uncareful but complex work.

      However, I point out we have to be even handed & how to be; that means we will know in ANY case what is most likely or not, instead of being prejudiced. Note how fair I present Mathis' points as; he still falls short.

      For some other cases (incl. the odd-sounding but completely backed up PID situation), they will reveal truth.

      Paul's death fits in a context; it is knowable the way all good cases are; it is no unimportant or, conversely, overly important case. No true case is unimportant or of complete importance.

      Perception correction is the main thing we learn through these cases.

      Now, what nonsense I write, right? Oh so dumb, oh so incompetent, such mumbo jumbo? No.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  35. If you're dumb enough to understand
    Clare's mumbo jumbo then you must
    be as dumb as she is.

    Well, are you dumb enough?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. No, are you willing to be reminded how to be fair, to act without namecalling, to go through everything & not uncarefully, & then to judge?

      As conspiracy theorists (not a perjorative), you have more responsibility than debunkers, to get the truth straight in your mind & to be fair to each other. This means identifying mistakes in a kind manner & knowing well that when others think something is odd & wrong through initial prejudice (a misuse of how we want "common sense" to work, if we are prejudiced), that that does not mean necessarily that the thing is wrong.

      Now, what's "dumb" or "mumbo jumbo" about that, jury? You'd be told that by a judge.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous January 12, 2015 at 1:27 PM
      said:

      "Having a reading comprehension problem might actually help in trying to understand
      the nonsense Clare writes. Sometimes Clare really can be dumb as a post."

      I couldn't possibly comment. :-)

      Delete
    4. Lenny, I pointed out Mathis is saying Lincoln didn't die, & how to know Mathis is wrong, in spite of his work, yet advocated for positive language while investigating his work & advocated reading it.

      Your adding a "tomato" post to throw at me does you no credit & me no actual discredit. It merely means you don't like that I didn't fall for Mathis' work, though I respect his effort.

      It is an excellent example of the act of reasoning, but where reasoning goes off track and how it does.

      Delete
  36. For heaven's sake Clare: I see by your ramblings that you still have not read Mathis' essay on Lincoln properly. That, or you are deliberately misrepresenting it. Haven't made my mind up yet.

    Whatever, it is patently clear you haven't got the foggiest idea what the hell Mathis' thesis is regarding the Lincoln assassination, as put down here:

    "The Lincoln Assassination was another Manufactured Event."
    http://mileswmathis.com/lincoln.pdf

    So here, let me give you a teaser:

    The official story of the Lincoln assassination inside the Ford Theatre (as immortalised by that fabled man of letters Walt Whitman) is demonstrably false for many reasons outlined in the essay.

    Not least of which is that it would be quite problematical for John Wilkes Booth to shoot Lincoln, stab his adjutant, jump 15 feet out of the President's box onto the stage-floor, break his ankle, recover from that, deliver a speech to the audience, then hobble out the back, not without one of the armed men in the audience responding in the minute or longer such a magic trick would take to perform, and shooting the "assassin" dead then and there.

    Therefore we can not unreasonably hypothesise that this event, like so many others, old and new, was likely staged. Faked. Phony as.

    Mathis then proceeds to build a case as to why this event needed to be staged and why John Wilkes Booth was nominated as the suitable patsy.

    But I'll leave that pleasure of discovery to the other readers here who are genuinely interested. Go here:

    "The Lincoln Assassination was another Manufactured Event."

    http://mileswmathis.com/lincoln.pdf

    And please, open minded readers, do have a look.

    And I sincerely recommend you don't listen to a word Clare or anyone else has warning you off it. Read it for yourself and make your own mind up.

    Sheesh!

    "The Lincoln Assassination was another Manufactured Event."
    http://mileswmathis.com/lincoln.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's complex radical doubt. Read away, but then remember common sense corrections to the lines of reasoning & what those show how there are things which can cross over from events as occurring to events as fake is where they can fit in both, but other considerations nix the rest of the argument.

      Remember:

      some things in any case can work different ways easily; others cannot.

      For example (from Paul's death case): testimony that it occurred exists, testimony that it did not or was a joke also exists. The cases for both sides, then, cannot rest on testimony re-interpreted either way, though each case includes all testimony, in different ways.

      Mathis reworks the picture of what may have happened; some people such as Culto do this for other cases, such as with JFK's death. However, the basic considerations of the wider cases for literal events (i.e., real deaths) trump the re-interpretation in a basic proof of concept.

      It is not knowable in the beginning for sure, so Mathis & Culto contribute the best cases for fake deaths they can, but in the end, there remain direct & general reasons to stay with real deaths.

      Delete
    2. I agree there were problems in the official story of how Lincoln was killed. Mathis is exposing some of the problems, not undoing the actual death.

      We may thank him for trying to expose problems -- but his conclusions miss the mark.

      Delete
    3. Lincoln, I need to hire one for the weekend.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. Ha, simon! My boyfriend rented a yellow VW Beetle convertible a few months back. It was fun to crank up the Beatles & drive by shiny buildings, seeing the cute car. But a Lincoln -- good. Just don't rent a refurbished JFK death-car-styled Ford. :)

      Delete
  37. Reading Clare Kuehn's wacko meanderings on this blog shows clearly why her Paul is dead "theories" have absolutely no basis in fact or in truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Meanderings, Phil? Don't you think rather you don't like that, among the top-level work I've done & reminders I give, I advocate for Paul's death?

      Or do you really not notice -- your fault -- that every point I've made is an orientation on how to assess between what Maziosta accurately described as the bunk of Mathis and, alternately, tricky but true cases?

      Or that I know many things?

      Or that I advocate for fair language (not using the term "bunk" or "drivel" except once explained about a case, such as I've done on Mathis), because otherwise it is not a calm, fair assessment conclusion, but prejudicial language?

      Or are you too stuck in your emotions to see that?

      By the way, the death of Paul is demonstrable in multiple ways: motive for the death, opportunity (finding in the historical record all places & times for the switch), forensic photo and body language & song & emotional styles, direct statements & content clues, psychological considerations of friends in the "circle of trust", context in intelligence gangland-cultism & propaganda spies in arts scenes and finally perception cognitive dissonance considerations.

      All these factors are in all strong cases & must be present in a conspiracy coverup case.

      It's a massive case, all reasonable -- only just that if you were fooled (you seem to have been, as most of us were, by our prejudices), you are upset at the idea.

      By the way, I didn't meander here, for your information -- in case your crappy attitude to me tries to take over. Point out one "meandering" logic I just used. Nada. Good day.

      Delete
    2. Do you even know the extent of my other work with & not with Jim, on 9/11, JFK, sandy Hook, Boston, cults & so on? No, you clearly don't, while some of it is not even public but is helpful behind the scenes.

      It is a shame that my presentation for the 9/11 conference in Vancouver was lost with all the rest, since it was utterly beloved by people who sided with Wood & those who sided with nukes & those who were undecided. Clearly, then, I don't "meander" or talk drivel as a "wacko".

      Not that Paul has to be dead just because I know how to reason, but it might be good for you to try harder, given that. With Mathis, Maziosta was suggesting his math work was likely bad because his other work was flawed (he used much stronger language), and Maziosta is right to think it might be more likely flawed. Yet, it is not good to use likelihood to stop one's reading it, if one has the chance & time.

      You've done something similar in one way: you've used your distaste of Paul's death case (without knowing the rest of my contributions), to colour whether you work through my points here. Yet, ironically, my other work shows that you should put the work in on this thread -- and also regarding Paul.

      People do meander at times, by the way, including me, but "wacko meanderings" does not name my work in any field. Even Mathis is not "wacko", merely off base with his philosophical radical doubt.

      Delete
    3. Re. Paul, what you notice is that, after his death -- but for now, let's say (only) as proof of concept potential, after the possible death -- the objections turn out not to be solid:

      the playing & writing style & even ability, & personal relationships have long been noticed for difference. John & George begin to play bass more (for George) or at all (for John), etc. However, all this means is that the workability of the concept is in one more (of many ways), quite possible, & if it happened, it is part of the storyline (argument) of how it happened: more assistance in things which were not necessary before.

      But I don't deal only with the Paul case.

      Delete
  38. OMG

    Would you please cease with your Paul malarkey. Stop it NOW!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OMG

      Would you get a grip on how reasoned I am, how I comport myself in all topics & learn the Paul death case - start it NOW!!

      :)

      He died. It did happen. Truly, madly, deeply real - sad, not too weird but it is odd. Get to know Bill: you know him as a more awkward, eye-rolling, 1.5-year air-guitaring "Paul", coached, coddled, resented, helping out, benefitting, trapped, controlling, incompetent later in so many works his fan biographer commented he must have had a lobotomy to come up with some of the drivel.

      Never boppy-syncopated sudden body movements again. Never a lot of things. Get to know him. You were betrayed but life goes on for the rest of us.

      Delete
    2. http://plasticmacca.blogspot.ca/2009/09/some-video-photo-comps-of-paul-faul.html I think 5'9 1/2 but other than that ... yup.

      Might help you -- not with your cognitive dissonance about how "odd" it "would be", but with the *case itself.*

      You can stop your Paul is alive malarkey & get how I & others have advanced the case from the early supports. Brother (Mike) said he last saw his brother (Paul) at his funeral -- when pressured with a direct question but with deniability (no oath). Laugh away the statement or the case, which is wide & deep, but it's supported in every way.

      Real death, likely murder; real motivation, real coverup with other deaths & lots of just feeling loyalty to shut up ... etc.

      Delete
    3. Gary, ban Clare Kuehn. Clare Kuehn
      and her troll aliases have hijacked the
      blog. Clare Kuehn's maniacal, obsessive
      and irrational behavior is destroying
      Jim Fetzer's blog. Ban her and her
      trolls now, Gary, before she comments again.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. Robert: read the posts; go to the links; do your work; your reply is irrational & I hope you grow out of it.

      I have no troll aliases; anyone with a modicum of common sense, unimpeded by prejudice as you show you are not, would know that.

      I destroyed NOTHING: I replied carefully & pointed out how to know Mathis & Culto were wrong. I barely mentioned Paul's death case to start with; I was put down for mentioning reasoning methods, by people who don't like Paul's death case, thus, me. In replying, I clarified the abstract points mostly, but did mention Paul's death & the case for it, in the process, among other things.

      But now that people are on the topic, hey ... why not go to the link I sent? Give a serious try!

      If Mathis' time-consuming papers can get "airplay" here in the posts, thought they turn out to be wrong ("drivel", well argued up to a point), Paul's very real death, as a case to study at least, ought to, as well.

      TotalInfo knew Paul died before I did. Gary gets the case & so does Jim in general (though it took them time). It took me time.

      One way or another, even if Paul hadn't died, there are too many prejudiced attacks on my ability to reason from people who just don't like that one of many cases I deal with, or don't like when I show how to know Mathis has flaws, or who are upset through their very idiosyncratic versions of reasoning.

      This thread is not on a show about Paul's death, but even less about Lincoln's putative non-death, which Lenny has yet to admit was Mathis' finding (claim).

      The thread is about Laurel Canyon, though, & all threads are in some sense about reasoning. Paul related to the Laurel Canyon issue, but his death case also relates to all others, in that you need to know how to be patient, on 9/11, JFK, Laurel Canyon, Paul, etc., or Mathis & Culto, and distinguish between good & bad properly. That is my point.

      Delete
  39. Clare. you have the patience of a saint!

    Now, could we have your elucidated take on the Laurel-Canyon-as-a-CIA-op proposition of Dammegaard, McGowan, et al?

    (And, when you have time, your response as well to Fenton Bresler and Alex Constantine.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On the very odd chance that you don't recognise the reference to these investigators and their books, please let us know. Thanks.

      Delete
    2. Of course I have to have this extended patience. I dealt with all the other cases for years patiently (ask Jim!), then learned how to know Paul died. I said to myself: I don't want this one! But ... if it's true, it needs more exposure, & since it's quite true, well ... for the sake of the living & the dead, I added it to my repertoire.

      Yes, Constantine & Bresler. -- I have spoken out on McGowan in many places, lauding his overall work (footnotes missing, nonetheless, which pisses me off).

      I am in a hurry. More sometime soon, Andy.

      Delete
  40. Paul is ALIVE and WELL.

    Thank you very much.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You want to do that for your act? Okay, I'll clap.

      It turns out you're joking but not knowing it.

      Paul is very dead but Bill is alive as the name Paul.

      "9/11 was done by Islamic terrorists." Does it make it true? No. Learn the case re Paul's death fully before commenting, ignoramus.

      Delete
  41. Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Bill is; he took the name Paul.

      Hey, if I just kept posting 9/11 was islamic terrorists, would it make it true? No. Learn any case you come across, PROPERLY, or you're no conspiracy researcher, just a N00B, & by the way, that doesn't mean new to a subject (newbie), but rather someone who does not want to learn about something, good or bad (i.e., they're too prejudiced or dumb to look into something properly).

      Delete
    3. The problem is that most conspiracy researchers find a conspiracy in every important event that takes place. The conspiracy researchers have to let us know when they find an event that is as described by the "authorities" and then people might take them seriously. Not everything that takes place in the world is orchestrated by nefarious agents.

      Delete
    4. But I don't do that & advise how to know in any major case. Try again ... Not only in the Paul case, but, interestingly, you probably have that one in mind.

      Delete
  42. Paul is ALIVE!!

    Learn to face the TRUTH.

    Paul is ALIVE!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For a conspiracy researcher, who prides himself on separating bunk from good material, I'm sure, you should look into how to know something

      Delete
  43. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Of course it's a sliding scale, with no easily calibrated marking as to precisely where or when a conspiratorial deception (propagandistic cover story) can be detected as cloaking some disruptive/violent ALLEGED event by which we (the sheeple/goyim/herd/public) are supposed to be terrorised-into-further-submission...

    But the "rule of thumb" that I personally adopted -- way back before the rise of the Public Internet -- was this:

    ANY major news story that remains at the top of the "front page" for more than three days has very likely been fabricated and staged (or at least manipulated and spun in a deviously deceptive manner) to mold or change crucial public opinion -- in ways that will ultimately benefit only the evil elite and harm the rest of us.

    YMMV, but this vest-pocket "intuition booster" has worked for me, far more often than not.

    To put it more simply:

    "An excess of coverage heralds a deficit of truth."

    And last week's Franco-Muslim Fracas is just the latest example.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I tend to agree, though ordinary tragedies & lifestyle silliness are spun for extra sales as well.

      "Fabricated & staged" are terms over-used now in some conspiracy theory discussions. Any lie is a fabrication & any coverup is a stagey event, but not all lies & events with coverups are outright contentless: no deaths, or no official claims being true.

      For example: JFK died; lots is known; but there were lies & fabrications to mislead the researchers in various ways, as well as the overall scenario claim (that LHO did anything).

      Delete
    2. Yes indeed, Clare, those all-too-easy-to-make claims of fabrication/staging (in regard to every high-profile, perp-spun "news" event) have proliferated in the truther community (a rather wide designation, I know) to such an extent that a fully formed belief system has lately emerged.

      Reminiscent of the Vedantic "Maya" paradigm, this 21st-century quasi-religion saw its first "high priest" self-ordained when the laconically ultra-cynical "Ab Irato" chose to take the amazingly intuitive, initial 9/11 discoveries of Simon Shack and project them (in reductio ad absurdum fasion) onto virtually the entire, media-depicted world in which we (supposedly) live.

      Enthusiastically, but with barely concealed tongue-in-cheek, Simon then "picked up the ball" and is still running with it!

      And many of their arguments and proofs (for massive fakery and omnipresent "crisis actors") ARE quite compelling.

      But some are patently absurd and unworthy of serious consideration, IMHO.

      Of course, I myself could still be suffering some partial blindness from the vestiges of not-yet-shaken-off cognitive dissonance. ;)

      Delete
    3. Yah, Andy. Simon Shack & others (in the Lets Roll Forums, for example) have done great work, as have many people on Youtube & Twitter -- for example, those trying to trace who the actors were for Sandy Hook & Boston & doing other research. But when some get going, they not only ask strange questions (we need that), they (some) don't pull back where necessary.

      By the way, re. Sandy Hook, someone found a list of Lotto winners whose names matched the Sandy Hoax families ... but the video was censored off Youtube quickly, with the claim that the person had wiped it off, himself.

      Now, let's say, he discovered a mistake: he could have uploaded a correction, not taken it off. Hence, I think he was right.

      Here is the info I have. If anyone would like to try to find any Lotto lists still extant, let them try. When I got to the video it was already wiped, but a friend told me what it had been.

      I am sure it had the link at the bottom as to where the Lotto list was -- probably also censored on Lotto site, now.

      "Yes, it has been removed. It was one of Dutch Sinse's videos. He discovered that a list of lottery winners in Connecticut 'just happened' to have the same last names as some of the Newtown shooting families. The odds of this happening by chance would have been astronomical, and he suspected it may have been one of the ways they were paid to engage in the fraud."

      It was at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18__E8fLHyo

      1/14/2015 -- Lucky Last Names? Sandy Hook honors list -- SAME last names win CT Lotto

      Delete
    4. Also, Andy: I covered the 9/11 Victim/Vicsim issue at length, some years ago. It is well supported, but there are some errors & some unknowns (esp. how many were fake, i.e., how many were padded numbers, & the idea that all were simply morphed: some are just bad copy-paste & some are just non-existent photos or bad photos).

      http://radiofetzer.blogspot.ca/2010/07/clare-kuehn.html

      Delete
    5. There were only four comments in that 2010 thread, Clare. One of them was removed, one appeared to employ a non-ASCII character set, and the remaining pair did not address the Vicsim Report. Please try again. I'd really like to learn your take on Max's/Hoi's magnum opus. Thanks.

      Delete
    6. The show is what I referred you to, not the comments.

      I know that too few got it at the time; it was "new & shocking research" to too many at the time, meaning a lot of the listeners had not looked into it as much then.

      Listen to the show. It's all covered, in some detail, with the gists (overview) discussed, too.

      Delete
  45. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Hi Clare, please forgive me for jumping topics a bit. I recently watched "Martin and Me", the video culmination of the iamaphoney saga. What do you make of it?

    The iamaphoney project strikes me as Sir Paul's effort to have an identity separate from JPM. Martin seems to allude to some sort of magical working happening in Kenya. Not just plastic surgery as I had suspected.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J0xjiQL_MM

      Do you mean "Billy and Me"? It's hardly a culmination. The nice young fellow who did it can't keep straight enough on what's common sense ... that he died for the sick sad stuff to be there.

      Bill may have taken on the project after Neil died, and subverted it.

      Of course he believes (hopes) in soul transfer. He is OTO & intel.

      By the way you can delete unwanted posts,

      Delete
    2. Meant to have a period at the end of that last sentence. Was in a hurry.

      Delete
  47. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Sorry about the double-post. Not sure how that happened

    ReplyDelete