Thursday, April 9, 2015

P.I.D. Clare Kuehn

How to Think about “Paul is Dead”

254 comments:

  1. To listen live, use this link: http://livestream.com/accounts/4937810/events/3629901

    Also archived at http://webookyourshow.com and at:
    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsfS5KpYMzb20sCxyfSotfX1ELkIBrXZ3

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hour 1: Hr 1 of video: method to determine valid cases (good general & case-specific method) & background.

      Hour 2: more evidence (groups -- i.e., types) & caveats/ tips for when encountering evidence, as you look more into the issue.

      RIP, Paulie & the others.

      Delete
    2. The video itself is episode #39 on Youtube, but doesn't always show on Google searches. It is linked inside the playlist here:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTZrVOU4GsQ&list=PLsfS5KpYMzb20sCxyfSotfX1ELkIBrXZ3&index=38

      Delete
  2. OMG

    Somebody's only gone and drawn back the curtain!! It's a mouse with a megaphone!! I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Almost no-one in the comments below has a viewable profile ... as with you. A couple of the people are long known here and ordinary contributors.

      But interestingly, this topic is getting a lot of comments, and lots of silly crap from hidden profile commenters. Think some or all of them could be vicious, deflecting, often off-topic spooks (spies)? Hm, maybe.

      I did a great job, if so! :)

      Delete
  3. Thanks so much!!!! This is great!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Throughout the entire Beatles catalog the voice of Paul is always the voice of the same person.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not at all, but we know you see the difference and merely cannot accept a death (the only way Paul would be replaced), refusing/unable to hear the difference in voice & interests musically. You have said so elsewhere.

      Your comment therefore only leaves some thinking you do not believe in the replacement;' few would think if there is a replacement there was no death. Most doubt the replacement at all.

      Delete
    2. Yes Clare. I think it has been demonstrated that the Beatles used a Paul look-alike for pictures, film clips, and as a publicity stunt designed to dupe the general public into believing that McCartney had died.

      But music is something you listen to, not something you look at, and try as I might I have not been able to detect any difference in the voice purported to be that of Paul throughout the entire Beatles catalog. Nor, for that matter, have I detected any difference in the style of bass playing.

      Any cogent attempt to prove that Paul McCartney had been replaced should start with and principally rely upon audio evidence. Visual evidence might be used to corroborate, but would always be wholly secondary.

      To determine whether or not Paul was replaced we should be listening, not looking.

      Delete
    3. I agree, I lived through the Beatles when they were releasing records. Although all of them were entirely startling, stunning and shocking, there were all fantastic music. The Beatles were not afraid in challenging their audience. I never detected another Paul McCartney at all. all 4 of them improved as the years went on.

      Delete
    4. " Not at all, but we know you see the difference and merely cannot accept a death (the only way Paul would be replaced), refusing/unable to hear the difference in voice & interests musically. You have said so elsewhere.

      Your comment therefore only leaves some thinking you do not believe in the replacement;' few would think if there is a replacement there was no death. Most doubt the replacement at all."


      Clare, you are always very keen to tell people what they believe. Would you now please tell us, the listeners, what YOU believe and give us the EVIDENCE which supports YOUR belief. Give the listeners and the viewers the FACTS.

      Delete
    5. Charles, in fairness to Clare, she is pointing out to the other readers what I have said about my own views in previous discussions on this topic. She is not telling me what I think.

      I do believe that the Beatles found a remarkable look-alike to Paul, and that they used him as part of a publicity stunt faking Paul's death.

      This look-alike does certainly appear in pictures and film clips. Also, the Beatles used subliminal messages in their music pointing towards Paul's death.

      To suggest that there was no look-alike must be wrong. The evidence is conclusive.

      But I am not personally convinced that Paul died and was replaced. Any my reason is the fact that I can detect no change in the voice purported to be that of Paul, or the bass playing of the musician purported to be Paul throughout the entire Beatles catalog.

      Is it logically possible that Paul died and was replaced by a near duplicate? Of course it is.

      But is this the most reasonable explanation? Not in my opinion.

      It seems far more likely to me that the Beatles found a remarkable look-alike and then decided to pull of a publicity stunt. It seems far less likely to me that this look-alike could also sing and play bass so much like Paul that my ears cannot distinguish any difference.

      Clare suggests that I do not want to or am unable to hear a difference, but I might just as easily suggest that she wants so badly to hear a difference that she does, even if it is not really there.

      I do not know the truth of this matter. Maybe Paul died and was replaced. There was certainly a remarkable look-alike at the very least. But again, it seems more likely to me that the alleged death of Paul was a stunt, and that this near duplicate, while looking remarkably like Paul, could not possibly also sing and play bass so similarly.

      Delete
    6. I've said to you, stooey, that you have said you do hold there was a replacement.

      Most would think you do not, because you do not always mention that you then hold the "sound" of the voices is similar enough that Paul is or was somewhere contributing to/sending recordings.

      Delete
  5. Rambling circular arguments trying to go somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Argument is linear, but backtracks to give new depth where things have built up more and can be added later. Paul is dead.

      Delete
    2. **Argument is linear, but backtracks to give new depth where things have built up more and can be added later. Paul is dead.**

      LOL

      " He who knows does not speak
      He who speaks does not know


      And Clare goes round in circles
      Round and round in circles
      Round and round and round those circles
      Round and round full circles
      Round and round and round in circles
      Full circles
      Full circles
      Round and round and round in circles......"


      Delete
    3. Nonsense. Loser! When you work through a case, you go from general to specific, and fill in more aspects you mentioned earlier.

      You also must focus on the large intermittently, to remind yourself of the main areas of a case which is developing.

      Those are layers or appropriate circling back, not "talking in circles", used as a disparaging expression about bad reasoning.

      The case is reasoned and can be decided. All big-level conspiracy cases, even excellent cases, remain formally "unresolved" forever and thus can always falsely be called "reasoning in circles".

      Why?

      Because at some point, the whole thing is done and must be decided. Representing overall *repetition* to help people remember things, or representing layers of knowledge and review as "circular argument" is an incorrect statement.

      Thus, go back to the drawing table, Anon.

      Delete
  6. Those interested in this subject and all its ramifications ought to check out Joe Atwill's analyzation of 'I Am the Walrus' and the Beatle's involvement with Freemasonry.

    http://www.gnosticmedia.com/joe-atwill-12-i-am-the-walrus-the-beatles-and-the-typology-of-genocide-223/

    I would add that the switcheroo - if done - had to have been planned ahead. Meaning Paul was murdered and replaced for reasons we don't know (like he didn't want to participate in the Op).

    There is no way they could have found the right replacement and pulled it off on the spot - right after a genuine accident.

    Sorry if this is said during the interview! I wasn't able to get to the end of the podcast...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes it's a main point in the interview. You put it well, though.

      Delete
  7. None of you guys play bass very well.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Clare used the word "if" about 48 times during
    the first segment (53 minutes) of this podcast.
    That's almost one "if" per minute.
    The use of sentential adverbs such
    as illocutionary, attitudinal,
    evidential and hearsay adverbs
    is quite apparent in Clare's speech patterns. Expressions such as "in fact", "supposedly"
    etc., etc. etc. are used during the full length podcast.
    The overuse of these expressions is, of course, designed to give a certain credibility, legitimacy and validity to what Clare is saying - a credibility, legitimacy and validity which, what Clare is saying, does not necessarily have.

    Other words used several times were:

    "But"
    " Maybe"
    "Supposed"
    "Whether"
    "Seems"
    "Might"
    "May"


    Too many ifs and buts etc., etc., etc.


    Where's the beef, Clare?

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/usvsth3m/ringo-starr-just-admit-real-5260576

    ReplyDelete
  9. Clare is using terminology of reasoned argument, with consideration for the doubters. You should be able to figure that out, Teun. Would you respect certainty terminology better? Likely not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Clare is certain about her Paul Is Dead
      argument then obviously she should show the evidence i.e. the facts and speak with certainty. What is the point of Clare speaking at all if she does not speak with certainty about what she is saying? Are you implying that Clare is not speaking with certainty? What would be the point of that? Reasoned argument is logical, coherent, rational and certain - otherwise it is not reasoned argument.

      Delete
    2. Bryan, I present with consideration for the interim learning process, but present all with a view to showing the full basic case to help people see it -- one has to use as much certainty as required (method, picturing the reasoning wholistically), but use little "sure" terminology, or it can be treated as fanatic, when it is merely a better argument being presented to often ever-new audiences, as if undecided (forever).

      Delete
  10. The Ringo article could be true as Jim believes, but as Clare points out elsewhere, the date of death is wrong, the only clue shown is the most allegorical overall, and the name Shears has to be wrong. So it is likelier a fake as it seems to be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "allegorical" is not a word I want to read or hear any consequential debate where the facts are of the utmost importance. Perhaps a check on the meaning of the word gives a clue to its total incongruity in any reasoned argument.

      Allegorical: Metaphorical,
      figurative, emblematic, mystical,
      fanciful, fantastic, imaginary.

      Visions of pixies, munchkins,
      hobgoblins, dwarves and
      tooth fairies with a vengeance
      come to mind.

      Let's forget about "allegorical" and go for
      "factual", "true", "accurate", "authentic", "genuine", "fact-based", "correct", "sure", "veritable", "certain", "exact", "precise",
      "honest", "unvarnished", "unadorned".


      ......and so on.

      Delete
    2. Some art reference in most art is allegory, some more direct. Get a grip.

      Delete
    3. I don't like your tone and attitude. You clown.

      Go play your CDs. Stop thinking about P.I.D.
      and start thinking about getting a life soon.

      Delete
    4. You must mean the guy who can't deal with the clothing on Abbey Road album as allegory, most of the rest as direct art references, 'cause that's what Clare meant and I did.

      Want me to say to you "Get off Fetzer's conspiracy study blog & get a life?" Thought you didn't dumbass.

      Delete
    5. Hey Dorothy! You think way too much.
      How are things in Oz these days, anyway?
      You still wearing those ruby slippers?

      Leave those Munchkins alone!!

      Delete
    6. Intelligent, Phil boy.
      Work on your game.

      Topics today are Paul and epistemology and assassination. Look them up, Munchkin mind.

      Delete
    7. A guy can't discuss art, a Jooles (?!) thinks replying is a bad "tone" and a third dude thinks it's all thinking too much to give a correctly presented direction to the spam of the first.

      These three give a whole new low to anti-conspiracy trolls ----- underground bugs. Ugh!!! Ha!

      Delete
  11. There can be no "interim learning process".
    You either present the complete facts of
    your Paul Is Dead argument
    with total certainty or you do not.
    There is no place for prevarication,
    equivocation, vacillation or any hypothetical
    or imputed "interim learning process".
    Absolute certainty and authority as
    regards the truth of your Paul Is Dead
    argument and a thorough consideration
    of the facts must be your goal at all times.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All presentation of things officially "unknown" can be presented with certainty by the speaker while using language for the hearer which presents it to them respecting their doubt and interim mind set. Clare was presenting the case, which includes suggestions for objections and the lines of reasoning you will need to go through. There's nothing wrong in that. Get a grip.

      Delete
    2. Write in English. You dingbat.

      Get a life.

      Delete
    3. Seems you don't know English and don't want to know more than JFK's death by conspiracy, dimwit.

      Delete
  12. After this show, there should be no more need for foundation laying, and I really hope that, should Jim allow another PID show, the next one will be discussing the facts of the case and no more equivocating. Newcomers and "interim learners" can be directed at the beginning of new shows to listen to the previous ones for their proper way of thinking about the case and the necessary background information. Let's not clog up future shows with all of this philosophizing. We are ready to hear the real evidence and in depth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She suggested how to use the evidence. Go to blogs, videos, etc.

      Delete
    2. You have the main lines of evidence, Linda.

      The rest is available. Go use the tips and the evidence covered, to help you with areas to note. Tina Foster has a page on the hair & on the fake ears. I have some of the items and a few more, on my blog. I go through all kinds of things on the blog and in the show. Note them and then you'll be ahead, when you go out and learn more on your own.

      A full case brief would never cover all photos. You need what I covered, to help you.

      Try.

      Delete
    3. There's tons of evidence, even little-mentioned evidence of all kinds (including art clues) in the broadcast. Did you not notice, Linda?

      Guitar changes, height, hair, teeth, preference in music, eyes, ears, fake ears, body hair, mannerisms ---- well done about the ears, Clare ----- plus the history of the rumor, the events of the end of 1966, events of earlier (the bike crash, the friendship with Lane & planned collaboration, the doctored documentation and older clues, ...

      And the Campbell association for Bill.

      Yah you didn't show all of it for any issues (no-one could) and some you just referred to, but, kudos!!!!

      And nice points on the clues and date of death corroborations.

      Delete
    4. Tina has many hair comps, fake ear comps and the facial forensic article, but Clare's blog goes in depth for some things too.

      Hey, C, the things you show about the drawing in the blog text and coats of arms in the broadcast ... Great job!

      Delete
  13. Is Marten Dekker Clare Kuehn
    or maybe Marten Dekker is Don Fox?
    He sure as heck talks the same
    tortuous gibberish as Clare Kuehn.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Marten Dekker

    " (ones when the listener is particularly sure or a major trick is posited to be found, or parts are more ordinary for conspiracy -- though bad -- and parts sound too odd or could be)"

    An example of vintage Clare Kuehn jabberwocky. Does anybody know what the above is supposed to mean?

    Is Clare Kuehn writing Marten Dekker's posts
    or is Clare Kuehn Martin Dekker?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Poor fellow. Look, you other people don't speak perfectly.

      Marten, do you mean:

      - that this case is positing a long-term trick to the point that it has to be very very careful,

      - that one has to treat the material without prejudice of any kind (including perceptual mistakes in categories we can be uncareful about),

      - that one has to know that some conspiracy theoreticians -- people open to the study of such cases -- are actually unaware of how to tell if a whole thing is too odd or not, such as that *all* video is useless for 9/11 research (it is not) vs that planes were not used (they were not), or that Paul did die (he did)

      ?

      I think those are the kinds of things you are getting at.

      Delete
    2. Yes. Was on the mobile and in a rush.

      Delete
    3. Marten Dekker April 22, 2015 at 9:23 PM

      "Yes. Was on the mobile and in a rush"


      Must be tough using a mobile and
      thinking at the same time.


      You ever consider upgrading
      your brain cell to 2?

      Delete
  15. PID is dead. It just won't lie down.

    R.I.P. PID

    ReplyDelete
  16. Being from Liverpool myself, PAULS "scouse" accent has never changed from 62' to the present, it's the same person all four Beatles had to modify their accents for the purposes of clarity in interviews.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh yes it did. By the way, even Ringo recently mentioned Sir Paul no longer bothers to do Scouse.

      Delete
  17. This is incredible!!
    Can't wait for Clare's next video podcast
    on Jim Fetzer's Real Deal and on MBC YouTube!!

    Bring her back soon!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks!

      The others have most of the best formal evidence available (ears, hair mentioned, height mentioned -- all with tips for continuing with worse material -- history, psychology issues, music considerations, and more), plus suggestions for approaching all other types of evidence.

      What is wrong with people who can't face this? Lol

      Delete
  18. To determine if Paul was replaced, we have to listen, look and know.

    The evidence is in all categories and one's mind can trick one in any of them -- directly, not to notice at all in some category.

    One can also detect problems and excuse it too quickly; one comment above does this in a typical way, about "challenging the audience": sure, the Beatles challenged, but are the very specific grief & grisliness & vocal changes (studio magic) applied to voices for a while *all* for pure art? No, says the case.

    Let that be and then move on to the video/photo visuals and the art, in their own ways (tips given about these in the video I did). Then move to the bios and the ideas one has about cover-ups and family acceptance. Then move to the historical contexts and specifics.

    Then move to the significant items from a social and forensic detail point of view: the coats of arms and the drawing, in detail and in context.

    Then decide. It is work, and it is a conceptually complete case, which thus is decidable & sad & big in impact.

    Paul died, long ago. And it's important generally speaking, and yet specific to Beatles lovers in another way, just as JFK died on the public stage but it was "merely" an American tragedy in another way. At least he is known to have died and conspiracy aware, historical realism more easily focuses there.

    But this is an unheralded death, political and social-political, poignant and long unknown (mostly).

    Bless the Beatles and their circle, despite the cover-up, confusion, etc. -- RIP Paul & the rest & JFK for whom they suffered, little knowing (most likely).

    Love to the 3 Beatles.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Claire -
    I have to ask why you stop at such a preliminary level. Don't you see all the Beatles were replaced? Don't you see the dopplegangers throughout the music and movie industry, as well as the political world? Many do, time to join them.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Clare Kuehn is Cher and Marten Dekker
    is Ed Chiriani aka DallasGoldbug.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The presentation may lack dramatic punch, but so what? A few bits of circumstantial evidence alone say nothing, but a cluster of such anomalies spread out over decades may indicate a pattern. She makes her case well. Her "evidentiary logic" may seem like gibberish or prevariacation, but if it turns out Paul WAS actually replaced, the prevariacation is elsewhere and the gibberish is from the self-styled debunkers of such alleged "nonsense." Right or wrong, Clare has touched a raw nerve in her detractors. If a notion is patently absurd, why even give it the slightest attention, much less spend time listening and analyzing? Even though everybody on the web nowadays seems to be a critic or an expert, some seemingly well-educated people apparently have a lot of time and resources on their hands. Makes you wonder if it's a pathology or a profession. Ms. Kuehn is the real deal in a "research" area where nutters abound. Any flaws in the presentation notwithstanding, she makes a very good case. When it's too late, it may turn out that the people who really have been seeing faces in the clouds are those who have had their perceptions shaped by the media for decades and whose world views have been shaped by second-rate academicians. Enough said.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Clare, this is all quite fascinating but you haven't shown us any of the evidence, any of the clues......any of the things you are talking about. So you are talking about things you are going to be showing us but you're not showing them in order for us to know what you are talking about. I think that's....[?]...."

    Professor Jim Fetzer PhD

    ReplyDelete
  23. " ....some seemingly well-educated people apparently have a lot of time and resources on their hands. "


    Clare Kuehn (and Marten Dekker) apparently
    have a lot of time and "resources" on their hands.


    ReplyDelete
  24. The multiple doubles thing is as disprovable as most of Ed Chiarini's stuff, is disinfo continued as confusion.

    Jim's comment about "not showing" evidence in mid-hour 1 was addressed in the video: he said "yet" (which was left out of the comment above), and I showed all major areas of the case (visuals beginning & hour 2), plus was covering other areas throughout (non-visual, such as overviews of history with some details, plus testaments and music issues & reasoning -- testimonial thoughts psychologists, etc., would point out).

    Jim missed that fact & in hour 2 he got some visuals.

    If you missed it all, re-watch & take notes.

    This broadcast was not intended to cover every clue, history point or photo or sound made, either.

    No, I don't have a lot of time on my hands & I don't know the other people's reasons for being able to comment. That comment wasn't me & doesn't sound like Dekker either. Let's analyze the debunker people -- some of whom are clearly shills or stupid, with several odd names here. Others are long known from this forum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Jim missed that fact....."

      Professor Fetzer "missed" that "fact"!!
      Go ahead! Blame Professor Fetzer.
      It's all his fault!!

      Delete
    2. Blame him for what? He wanted splashy, "easy" -- and got a more complete approach. In the end, the very significant visuals are given and how to approach any more (of the multitude available) and all other forms of evidence & objections.

      Delete
    3. "He (Jim) wanted splashy, "easy"..."

      Professor Fetzer, like the listeners, wanted
      the EVIDENCE & the FACTS..

      Delete
    4. You got 'em by the end, as Fetzer suggested was coming. Lots of tips for going through the rest you'd find out there after, too. But your mind was closed, obviously!!

      Delete
  25. " Clare, this is all quite fascinating but you haven't shown us any of the evidence, any of the clues......any of the things you are talking about. So you are talking about things you are going to be showing us but you're not showing them in order for us to know what you are talking about. I think that's....[?]...."


    "Jim's comment about "not showing" evidence in mid-hour 1 was addressed in the video: he said "yet" (which was left out of the comment above),..."


    35m 37s {35 minutes 37 seconds}

    Professor Fetzer did not say "yet".
    There is no "yet". Professor Fetzer did not use the word "yet". Are you now trying to put words in Professor James Fetzer's mouth?


    35m 37s {35 minutes 37 seconds}

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, thought he had. You miss the main point (deliberately, I hope, or you're stupid in a major way, not just resistant).

      The point is: he didn't recognize forms of evidence I was giving: filling in the arguments about objections (psychology, etc.) is evidence in court, plus that history, etc., are evidence and that I do cover the physical evidence (of rumor text, of art clues, of body of replacement, etc.).

      In saying that I *will* show them, he is effectively saying, "yet", which is where I got that impression. Now get the main point.

      Delete
    2. Jim started, off screen, wanting imagery first, worried we would not get to it. Anyone who goes through the whole broadcast knows it was covered in the most salient forms and in broad outline & tips for continuing. No-one can go through much of the mass of material and minutiae without months (say, in a court), or by writing a tome.

      No-one can go through all material, ever, either. That is not the point here for the broadcast, nor should be.

      Delete
    3. "No-one can go through all material, ever, either. That is not the point here for the broadcast, nor should be."

      What is the point of the podcast if not to put forth or lay out your body of evidence
      with all the facts? Jim Fetzer was
      absolutely right when he said:


      ".....you haven't shown us any of the evidence, any of the clues......any of the things you are talking about. So you are talking about things you are going to be showing us but you're not showing them in order for us to know what you are talking about....."

      "In saying that I *will* show them, he is effectively saying, "yet", which is where I got that impression. Now get the main point."

      Jim Fetzer did not say the word "*will*" and can you give an example of a context in which the word "will" can ever mean "yet"?

      The main point was cogently and adequately made by Jim Fetzer when he said:

      "....you haven't shown us any of the evidence, any of the clues......any of the things you are talking about. So you are talking about things you are going to be showing us but you're not showing them in order for us to know what you are talking about..."

      Delete
    4. The presentation was partway through.

      By the end, you have (& he had, as he said would happen) tons of evidence marshalled and types of tips to help you with the masses of material no-one could cover in one broadcast. That was my intention; Jim knew it, but had a fear we wouldn't get through it. We did.

      Hence, your implication it was never given, based on his early comment, is irrelevant.

      Delete
  26. It seems Clare Kuehn cannot even be trusted
    to tell the truth about the audio content of her own
    P.I.D. How to Think about “Paul is Dead” podcast.
    Jim Fetzer did not utter the word 'yet'
    in the statement he made at 35 minutes
    & 37 seconds into the podcast.

    What are we to make of Clare's
    strange and erratic behavior?
    Is Clare now in total denial?


    ReplyDelete
  27. I don't know Shinola from Ed Chiarini, but I know bullsht when presented to me. And it's everywhere, not just here. Paul is just a beginning, no sense stopping there. You can't see doubles in popular culture? Look a little harder. It's right in your face.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Better learn more how to tell a good case from a bad one, then. Featles schmeatles.

      Chiarini's crap is a great example of bad facial analysis, too, for other people. Find it & go through it.

      Paul's gone ---- . Rabbit hole's deep but not in stupid directions. Yeah, yeah yeah!!!

      Delete
    2. Let me get this straight. You are sending me to a BS website to disprove what I know from using my senses, mostly common sense. PID is just a beginning, quit acting shocked.
      Thanks for your effort, Claire.

      Delete
  28. Fucking weirdos!!!!. How come people can read this thread and see she just said (!!) she thought he did say it because his other statement effectively means "yet" ...

    But whoever these repetitive fuckers are can't read?! ROFL!!!!

    And it's not relevant to how to know Paul died ... Or did you want to discuss stupid side issues forever?!!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Fucking weirdos!!!!. How come people can read this thread and see she just said (!!) she thought he did say it because his other statement effectively means "yet" ...

    But whoever these repetitive fuckers are can't read?! ROFL!!!!

    And it's not relevant to how to know Paul died ... Or did you want to discuss stupid side issues forever?!!"


    Aha!

    Now the illiterate grunting caveman
    Dekker has shown his true colors!
    Clare's illiterate sidekick and little helper Dekker has finally shown himself for the brain dead and foulmouthed moron he really is
    Does this Dekker idiot even speak English?
    Or maybe double Dutch ?
    I wish Clare would be more selective in choosing whom she shares her PID theory with. Let us resume the debate and ignore the vile and obscene Dekker.

    Now where were we?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How is anger illiterate, vile and obscene? How is support "sidekick"?

      The odd use of a swear word got your knickers in a knot?

      Don't read other threads here, then: you'd have a fit

      Delete
  30. DR FETZER:
    I CANNOT COMMENT ON MEDIA BROADCASTING SINCE I DON'T USE FACEBOOK OR TWITTER; YOUR COMMENT ON GORDON DUFF REMOVING YOUR POST ON "JADE HELM" MADE ME SEARCH; I LISTENED TO HIM GIVE COMPLETELY BOGUS INFORMATION ON "GLOBAL WARMING"; THIS WAS THE RESULT OF MY SEARCH: COPY AND PASTE THE LINKS:

    ON THIS LINKS YOU WILL SEE DUFF'S COMMENT:

    About 40% of what I write, is at least purposely, partially false, because if I didn’t write false information I wouldn’t be alive.


    https://undertheradarmedia.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/response-to-gordon-duff-kevin-barrett-mike-harris-and-jeff-renses-lies-on-40-false-information/

    ON THIS LINK, YOU WILL SEE HIM SAY THE ABOVE:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZufw3G931Q



    ON THIS CLIP YOU WILL SEE: 5:00 IN THE COMMENT SECTION; CLICK ON IT; YOU WILL HEAR DUFF SAY:

    About 40% of what I write, is at least purposely, partially false, because if I didn’t write false information I wouldn’t be alive.

    YOU COME ACROSS AS A "COMPLETELY SINCERE/HONEST PERSON"; THE SAME CANNOT BE SAID FOR DUFF/MIKE HARRIS/STEW WEBB; TAKE CARE; YOU WORK ON MEDIA BROADCASTING IS, AS USUAL, "INCREDIBLE"; KEEP DOING WHAT YOU DO!!!
    CYBERFRUME10-4NMRK

    ReplyDelete
  31. Very instructive comments, but why did this lady get so many, while poor James Larson only got three? Interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  32. P.I.D. How to Think about “Paul is Dead"?


    Think like Clare Kuehn would seem
    to be the answer - according to Clare Kuehn.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Given that scientific knowledge is philosophical method applied to the physical world, how to think about PID is not "mine" nor (except in specific parts) limited to Paul's death case. It is good method, presented for all cases.

    Jim often glosses over the way to see if a case is true -- that the hypothesis which confers the best explanation on the evidence is preferred, but is formally fallible (one has to remember it is okay to make a decision knowing one might be wrong).

    I chose to remind people of all major areas of epistemology and process of thinking about often-resisted ideas.

    I also gave tons of evidence, context, all kinds of areas the case touches on.

    Enjoy it intellectually & for justice for Paul, and the others who died or suffered.

    ---------------------------------

    I leave this thread now, to the public and the spooks.

    No-one should pick people up on specific turns of phrase, but I expect that will continue, sadly.

    RIP to those in the Beatles cover-up, except those who continue it now.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Funny how no one seems to care about this case until Clare shows up. Ironically, the very people who follow her around might be unintentionally helping her to make her case. Not too many debunkers seem to be harassing the other notable PIDers who are REALLY off-the wall. But she really shouldn't take it personally, since some of these folks are just doing their job - they're not just people who can't "get" a life, like the usual trolls who haunt forums. Groucho Marx once said that "Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms," but that quip was more funny than true. So, in honor of those who apparently know, where others merely believe, and considering that both their considerations and mine might be delusory, I humbly offer this silly limerick:

    CUI BONO (a limerick)

    In this forum there are commentators
    who are naught other than masturbators,
    plus a few psychopaths
    who are good for some laughs,
    but the serious spooks might be traitors.

    ReplyDelete
  35. There was an old PIDer called Dekker
    Who was nothing short of a wanker.
    He broke his small cock
    Somewhere up his sock
    And now it's just "No. Thank you, sir!"

    ReplyDelete
  36. Ms. Kuehn: You might want to be careful about Fetzer - he might be genuinely interested in this matter as a Beatles fan, but he might also be shepherding you.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Interesting how Clare Kuehn never uses the word
    "earlobe" in her half-baked photo forensic
    P.I.D. analysis hogwash. Everyone knows that "earlobe" identification is a key factor in photo biometric examination and yet Clare avoids any mention of it like the plague. That's the plague of Ed Chiarini. Clare is determined to avoid "earlobes" and any association with the screwball Ed Chiarini. I wonder why.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Earlobe study is available but she's commented on other places for the earlobes issue ...

      The upper leg of the antihelix and the total shape of the ear are far easier to know as best evidence, man.

      Bill's got detached lobes, Paul had semidetached lobes, false ears confused the historical record of photographic evidence.

      You could do more homework or just read me right for once, dude!!

      Clare's made a great point of the semidetached lobes ... In some angles they looked detached, some photos look attached, but never extremely detached like real Bill lobes.

      Semidetached lobes have a bit of lobe hanging, but less of it ... If you can't think it through for yourself, and of course you can't.

      No way she ever was positive to Chiarini, that I have ever heard and of course she'd avoid him!!!!!!
      You imply she is distancing herself from him for bad reasons??? Hahaha

      Hallucinations and nonsense are affecting your post there.

      Delete
  38. "The presentation was partway through.

    By the end, you have (& he had, as he said would happen) tons of evidence marshalled and types of tips to help you with the masses of material no-one could cover in one broadcast. "

    35 minutes into the presentation
    and you were still waffling.
    How long does it take you to get
    to the facts? "Tons of evidence
    marshalled"? What evidence?
    You marshaled nothing!
    Just the same old rubbish we've heard in your previous PID podcasts. Jim Fetzer blew you out of the water when he said:-

    'You haven't shown us any of the evidence, any of the clues......any of the things you are talking about. So you are talking about things you are going to be showing us but you're not showing them in order for us to know what you are talking about.'

    And your response was to acknowledge that Jim Fetzer had raised a very important point!

    Hilarious!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fetzer wanted the pictures earlier. They were in there.

      There are others in other places.

      But u want more ... Like what? A more obvious double? Black man good enough for you to get?!! Laughing at you ... But not happy you don't know better.

      Of course Clare was happy to have Fetzer comment: she got to address the way she was going to share what she had time for...

      &&& ...to remind people (which you missed ... Ha!) that there are more than pictures and fairly quickly assessed things to talk about for evidence to make the proof.

      Delete
  39. Limerick wasn't me, but think it's great.

    Not that a troglodyte would notice, but the Fetzer comment was good to mention yet moot: so yes, Clare thanked him ...
    He gave her a chance to address just how many forms of evidence are evidence.

    If you can't get that, quit the case and all others now.

    Yup, seems some people can't get that psychology, history, etc. are evidence and the way the other evidence is covered and what isn't shown or mentioned in detail is guidelines for you.

    I loved the talk.
    Oh & to the guy who wants different PID evidence ... hey, whatchya want? A black man or redhead woman? Paul's gone but the double isn't gonna hand ya a pic of himself as a majorly different person or a map to the dead body.

    Whoa!!!! Fab thinking by the shills and trolls. And no, that'd not be allegory. ROFL ...!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For the picayune (know the word?), typologically obsessed here: meant to put that what isn't given in full or shown, "is given in the form of guidelines" ...

      But only if a person works at any complex idea will they get it ... Of course. Riiiiiight? !

      Delete
    2. The TRUTH at last!


      You're a WANKER!!!


      LOL

      Delete
    3. The truth of your having hallucinations about people who answer with content, yes.

      Back to the case now, real wanker: can you handle one thought? This blog site is for study. Get on the topic of the case!!!

      You want a redhead woman or black man doppelganger for Paul? Would that be obvious enough? Maybe not for you!!! Haaaaa!

      Delete
  40. CUTOP is about as adept at textual analysis as he is at writing limericks, so if he is other than just another psycho-troll, I suggest that his employers reassign him to some task within his capabilities - such as cleaning toilets - for which he is better suited. At least the others, despite occasional lapses and sophistries, are no dummies. If you don't understand NLP mirroring, then don't even attempt it. Anticlimax is no substitute for punch, but I guess that your girlfriend (or whatever) has already experienced that sort of letdown. Next time, try injecting Viagra instead of Novocaine into your flaccid comebacks. Anyway, good night all. I hope, at least, you're somewhat tolerant of my low humor, as I'm not on the same level as you guys. At least I didn't use obscenities or DIRECT insults. Ta, and no hard feelings.

    ReplyDelete
  41. a1bae4e8-e9bf-11e4-8e61-2f19a66c67a4

    What a genius blog name!
    Another example of your "low humor"?
    How much time did you spend
    thinking up a1bae4e8-e9bf-11e4-8e61-2f19a66c67a4 or did you just bang it on
    your keyboard using your mom's
    dildo strapped to your forehead?

    "Low humor"? More like slow tumor
    and about as funny as cancer.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Guess you never noticed AOL gives strings of letters & #s when someone is anonymous.

    Fyi, they do :) Give an xoxo to your lonely dildo, fetishist deflector ...

    What's sadder: by deflecting away from PID or any topic, especially in a supposedly dedicated truth-seeking, philosophical forum, you show that you miss a lot already, besides that fact about AOL and the contents of the guy's posts!! When you can manage philosophy (epistemology) and court cases which don't make it (JFK, PID, etc.) come back to debating and learning.

    ReplyDelete
  43. To those who keep asking for more proofs than are in the broadcasts and blogs, I repeat for you:

    You want a black guy pic or redhead woman?! Would that be an obvious doppelganger for ya?

    How about a major broadcast by Bill Campbell, a.k.a. Sir Paul McCartney, with a map to find the probably now-cremated dust of marvelous Paul??

    ReplyDelete
  44. There's nothing to be done for someone who thinks a single-item proof will suffice with a wide audience, Jeffrey boy.

    In a complex case, such as JFK or 9/11 2001 or PID, one thing or another might move a person ... But you got to finish all application of thinking (heard of thought, Jeff?) ... So you need Clare's reminder of method a lot. LMAO

    Why not take up gardening. When you're ready for antihelixes (Latin plural would be antihelixes, fyi) and total ear shapes and parietal bones and groups of clues and historical points and coats of arms and on and on ... Come back. Truth has patience.

    Gardening is great, but not all the time, remember!!!!

    And when you find a black man or redhead woman to double for McCartney, send him or her to a cover band. Bill Campbell couldn't be so wildly different in looks, but he sure is different.

    Yeah, yeah, yeah ... Bug bye until your perennials die, 'cause that's how long it'll take you to get a truth you resist.

    ReplyDelete
  45. ' There's nothing to be done for someone who thinks a single-item proof will suffice..'

    Who said THE PROOF was a "single-item"?
    You clearly have problems with the nuances
    of the English language.

    I repeat AGAIN for the slow learners and the cognitively impaired...and for any junked out perennial P.I.D. dopeheads out there..


    How about Clare Kuehn provides THE PROOF?

    THE PROOF!!!


    So you're an "expert" on "antihelices" - just like Ed Chiarini!! I bet Clare appreciates your "earlobe" input and "expertise".

    Speaking of gardening, stinkweed.
    Are you high on magic mushrooms or something? Haven't you learned your lesson about drug abuse yet? Keep off the grass, Dougal.


    When you come down from your high
    maybe you can provide THE PROOF!!!




    THE PROOF!!!


    100%

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What would you like as proof, Jeff? Something available now ...not a dream wish like a formal, non-conspiracy (compromised) DNA test. Go on, what would you understand??? :)

      Delete
    2. Jeff has the "problems with the English language", obviously.

      The proof, which he leans on his caps lock key to type, is all items of evidence that have some individual or collective merit, and application of proper method, ...... plus the final decision to call something proof, always ... Just as Clare points out and shows, using this case as an example.

      Anything else is reliance on single-item evidence or nearly so, so Jeff could reasonably be thought to be asking for that.

      It's not a language issue; it's a conceptual lack of yours, Jeff, and the "perennially stoned ... stinkweed " attitude you give off.

      Delete
  46. The anti Skakel case won on circumstances, the anti OJ Simpson case lost with physical evidence.

    Even if the Skakel and OJ cases were decided wrongly, when you have circumstances and physical evidence, you have a strong case ... If all method (epistemology) is thought through, too.

    PID has both ... If you like to follow single strong evidence, the cartilage is excellent for you. When it ... or DNA ... is with tons of other physical evidence and circumstance evidence, it is a solid case.

    Another name for that is proof.

    But a Jeff wants to decide to ignore this, nullifying his jury role, there's no formal problem, as in a hall of justice or university. He can do it, but he's demonstrated his incompetence as much as someone else doubting the JFK's death by conspiracy.

    The evidence and thinking is the proof .......but Jeff can call it not proof as willfully as he wants. We all can, in any questions in history---but conspiracy coverup always has "no end" for some,even when excellent: no court tells you directly what to think .....

    !! There's more than cartilage, but there is cartilage. Like having DNA or a death certificate && *****more*****!

    There's more than height and face shape and hair ...but there are those things. Every piece of evidence supports it strongly, is proof when you decide. Same with DNA.

    Those here who aren't addled or paid to debunk or too closed to it can keep the PID case in company of other ones. It works: object to anything but great evidence like the cartilage is available, peeps. And it's gonna be like DNA ;) stronger, valid in context .....

    and there's great context --------!

    So your inner eye and &&& those excuse categories Clare explained are the lies, mistakes.

    Woo hoo! Another murder victim, this time a Beatle .... can get justice among some people.

    ... & Thx Clare & Fetzer

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No-brain Euan, yet another with a hidden profile.

      Hey, non-spies out there -- the "there's no proof" mockingbirds have no new thoughts: as if statements of proof (evidence) can be dismissed by no argument !!

      :) Lmao ....

      Delete
  47. The trouble with these PID nerds and Dekker in particular is that a lot of them are drugged up to the earlobes and high as kites (Clare Kuehn not included). Dekker thinks gardening is great and probably thinks the same way about flower arranging. The "evergreen" and totally lacking in social and linguistic skills Dekker will soak up anything Clare Kuehn presents him with and turn it
    into insane babble and drivel.
    Clare Kuehn really should take this
    Dekker "plant" in hand and give him a
    piece of her mind. Dekker is bringing
    Clare's PID hypothesis into further
    disrepute on a daily basis with his drug induced racist ramblings about black men and sexist ravings about redheaded women all under various pseudonyms on this blog and elsewhere on the
    internet. The sooner Dekker gets out of
    Clare Kuehn's life and leaves her alone, the better
    for Clare Kuehn and her PID research.
    The only epistemology Dekker is interested in
    is pi**ing off Clare Kuehn and reducing
    her PID theory to a joke.
    It is obvious that Dekker has a serious
    drug problem and that he should cut
    out the "gardening" immediately.
    Heaven only knows what the
    junkie Dekker is growing in his attic.
    I call on Clare Kuehn to disassociate
    herself from the befuddled airhead and
    demented flower child Dekker forthwith.
    Only when Clare Kuehn has ditched the
    deadbeat Dekker can she hope to return to
    sober and reasoned debate of her
    PID hypothesis on Professor Fetzer's blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Black or redhead is to show others, not the losers, that the latter are asking for such obvious reasons and proofs that a case of a double wouldn't have.

      Obviously.

      - & the idea gardens are for druggies, which I'm not, is ludicrous ... But that you all should try something other than problems of cover up, since you've been so bad at this ...... :)

      Delete
  48. Glad to have you back on the blog, Clare.
    Now we can have again the serious discusión.

    ReplyDelete
  49. ****

    Marten Dekker April 26, 2015 at 10:30 PM

    Fetzer wanted the pictures earlier. They were in there.

    But u want more ... Like what? A more obvious double? Black man good enough for you to get?!! Laughing at you ... But not happy you don't know better

    ****

    Marten Dekker April 25, 2015 at 5:57 PM

    I loved the talk.
    Oh & to the guy who wants different PID evidence ... hey, whatchya want? A black man or redhead woman? 

    ****

    Marten Dekker April 26, 2015 at 11:17 AM

    You want a redhead woman or black man doppelganger for Paul? Would that be obvious enough? Maybe not for you!!! Haaaaa!

    ****

    Marten Dekker April 26, 2015 at 10:59 AM

    To those who keep asking for more proofs than are in the broadcasts and blogs, I repeat for you:

    You want a black guy pic or redhead woman?! Would that be an obvious doppelganger for ya?

    ****

    Marten Dekker April 26, 2015 at 2:18 PM


    And when you find a black man or redhead woman to double for McCartney, send him or her to a cover band. Bill Campbell couldn't be so wildly different in looks, but he sure is different.


    No doubt about it!

    Dekker is a racist. 4 explicitly racist references to
    "(a) black man" and 1 explicit reference to "a black guy pic".

    Note:

    Dekker makes no mention of a "black haired man"
    or "a black haired guy pic". It's "a black man", "black man" and "a black guy pic".

    No doubt about it!

    Dekker is a sexist.

    4 explicitly sexist references to "a redhead woman".

    Why Dekker feels compelled to single out a woman who happens to have red hair is a mystery but more seriously it is also sexist.

    ReplyDelete
  50. @ Martin Dekker, i want to know how his voice changed and i want every inflection explained and i wannt to know where that Scottish accent went,you cannot throw your lifetimes accent away within weeks..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLNQ8EfTiJs...and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4pSumpSUeI

    ReplyDelete
  51. And where was this compertiton held to find the person with the same face and talent you may get one but you don't get two..Illinois.. Backpool or Atlantis ? it's a preposterous supersition ask his brother if he is not the same person, i have a brother and i would know if he was a replacement or my real brother.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not same talent, etc. Covered some of that.

      Brother (Mike "McGear") said "I last saw my brother at his funeral". I covered that, too.

      Testimony, for any case, is in context of all else on that side, objections noted from other side, just as any evidence is. Together, it is called proof for one side or other. Covered that, too.

      The look-alike competition from before was won by another (not Bill). Yes, could have been a source (method) to locate a similar guy, but no need to think it was necessarily there or that early. Rostrum in military/ police/ intelligence agency could probably provide one.

      Lots of cover bands far more similar in music function today; covered that, too.

      A few mannerisms learned, given even with awkwardness, and you'd insist it's the same guy when it's not. With more direct arguments as well (e.g., cartilage, hair, height, teeth, etc.), you caan know; proof is made this way.

      Bill is not Paul, by all arguments strongly indicated -- but no-one will decide it for you so you'll have to try on the case fully, which you're not (I addressed your points already in the broadcast.) Take notes.

      Best wishes.

      Delete
  52. Clare, i'm i saw your presentation and it is pretty persuasive, i'm not an academic on the subject but i would just leave you with these comments. "Imagine the number of people who would have to lie in order to keep this conspiracy going - family members, friends, loved ones.
    Paul McCartney has a fairly unique voice, which still sounds pretty much the same now as it did in his youth (despite losing some vocal range due to old age).
    Paul McCartney is one of the greatest songwriters in modern music, but only someone as beautifully mad as Paul McCartney could have a hand in writing something as AWFUL as Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da, which was written in 1968.
    Imagine the odds of finding an exact Paul McCartney look-alike, who sounds like Paul, writes songs like Paul, and can play bass and guitar left-handed (just like Paul) as well as being incredible at piano (just like Paul).", Best wishes to you also.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's not exact in any way, man ... And for voice, the mid range when he speaks can be similar but only when forced to be calm. For singing Faul has way less than Paul ... What pipes and joy in Long Tall Sally ... Never again.

      His interests are also different with only some overlap.

      && .....
      Discussing voice is even harder than visuals, so that's probably why Clare just gives a few pointers on it and body language and feeling states for Bill .......

      Bill seems to be more of a pianist and composer type than a real creative informal composer. If you separate the two men as she suggested, even as a mental exercise for a while, your ear and eye (inner sense) and lots of intellectual points about it all will converge.

      Think of it like that: you want to see & hear enough difference to be sure, but some people will not be able to have that and will have to know it's the better explanation for what is more formal evidence.

      Others will get it personally but sometimes only after working on it.

      The brain is powerful, comparing many things at a time ... But also needs to ignore what's going to be similar long enough to notice also where similar moments happen and why &&& ... with what different psychological or physical events combining when the similarity happens (different body language or emotions or looks or sounds a moment later) ...

      It's good you tried to understand, dude

      All serious things deserve a good attempt.

      Delete
    2. & she covered the learning of leftie bass ..... Plenty of time to get better at it.

      Delete
  53. The Beatles never sang in a Scouse accent. They always sang in a standard English accent. Most singers will always sing in a standard accent regardless of what their original
    accent is. There are a few singers who
    will sing in their original accent but
    this is mainly for effect.
    The only group I can think of who sang
    in their native accent was the group
    The Proclaimers composed of identical twin brothers Craig and
    Charlie Reid who sang in their very distinctive native Scottish accent. Their most famous songs were "I'm Gonna Be (500 Miles)", "Sunshine on Leith", "I'm On My Way" and "Letter from America" all delivered in a broad Scottish accent. They could have sung without a Scottish accent but probably chose to use their Scottish accent for aesthetic reasons. The thing about singing in an accent is that unless
    the song has been especially written to
    take the rhythm of the accent or dialect into account, it can be very hard to make the song scan properly. When using any non standard accent the pronunciation and stress of the words
    can be different from the accepted standard and therefore difficult to work into the song. Many singers have their local accents, but when singing their accent or dialect will be toned down or completely suppressed.

    ReplyDelete
  54. "Think of it like that: you want to see & hear enough difference to be sure,.."




    Think about it so you really
    WANT to BELIEVE this PID crap.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, to help you see how things could work the other way, or how far they do or don't.

      Like a jury.

      I covered that.

      True in all cases, but especially where senses and expectations are more difficult to extricate ... if the hypothesis were true. It turns out in this instance, if you do the work, it is the better explanation on all fronts, including cartilage, etc.

      Delete
  55. Not to mention the need to conclude that the first Paul was murdered and that everyone involved in the perpetuation of the hoax would also be accessories to murder.

    It would be preposterous to suggest or believe that the first Paul died naturally or accidentally while there just happened to be a duplicate ready to step in.

    Logically possible of course, but more probable, it seems to me, would be the idea of a publicity stunt, which is what we believed at the time while all of this was taking place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's less logical, yes: finding someone, having the idea, etc., could not come from the Beatles. It's that which doubters at least get right.

      But on the other hand:

      With direct evidence tending strongly to show a replacement, and indirect evidence also, plus the logic of the areas of clues, including now even coats of arms and the forensic drawing, no ... the best explanation is the opposite of a publicity stunt. I covered this. You missed it.

      :)

      Plus, it is a very cruel stunt for any reason, but not cruel if it's history and psychological truthtelling.

      On all fronts, you're wrong.

      Delete
    2. The only difference between us, Clare, is that I admit you may be right, but you do not admit that I may be right.

      Maybe Paul died and was replaced, yes... but maybe not. It could have been an admittedly very elaborate publicity stunt.

      I am not saying that Paul did not die, I am just saying that I am not convinced by the evidence. It has not been proven to me that the explanation of a stunt is not possible, or less probable based upon the evidence.

      And I still maintain that there is NO audio evidence indicating the possibility of a replacement, and music is something we listen to, not something we look at.

      Delete
    3. I should have been softer in tone at the end. I know you are not likely a spook (unlike some likelihoods here).

      And you're not wrong on the one front (as I said), or rather, not entirely:

      of course it would not normally be done, but it's entirely reasonable with the considerations I mention. Thus, it had a way to happen and all the indications are happened, so that's bolstered with the considerations of how the idea would have worked.

      That's what a case does, and if it's strong in those things, it wins (or should).

      This one does, therefore, whether a given person is able to fully conceive the differences between McCartney & Campbell-McCartney or not.

      Learn re. the ear cartilage. When moved by it, move to the rest. Then decide. Or you're not letting evidence speak ... For nothing on it's own should work for you to decide fully, though in some instances a case will have one or two things which move you more than others.

      And in the end, the other side has what? Very little. It has inaccuracies about many facts, brief similarities between the men or man (I speak even-handedly because I am speaking to a doubter or undecided person, of course).

      Paul's long gone, therefore, and he wouldn't be anything less than dead, to be gone lickity split, forever, and so grieved by the so-called "mere hoax".

      Best wishes, Stooey.

      Delete
    4. You can maintain whatever position for yourself, but it falls in the full world ... a jury would agree with me. Learn the indications it happened.

      By the way:

      "... but it's entirely reasonable with the considerations I mention. Thus, it had a way to happen and all the indications are happened, so that's bolstered with the considerations of how the idea would have worked"

      should have been:

      "... but it's entirely reasonable in how it would have worked and come to be, with the considerations I mention. Thus, it had a way to happen and many indications that it happened are strong, even great -- in the ears, hair, height, etc., when the comparison is done properly, and in the artwork properly compiled -- that it happened. This means that the indications that it happened are there and bolstered with the considerations of how the idea would have worked."

      Bye for now.

      Delete
    5. "Paul's long gone, therefore, and he wouldn't be anything less than dead, to be gone lickity split, forever, and so grieved by the so-called "mere hoax"."

      Paul is not dead. Paul is merely alive.

      Delete
    6. Clare, I am prepared to accept your viewpoint for the purpose of the following:

      I assume it is your position that the original and real Paul McCartney was murdered, and that the replacement was already lined up?

      Who might have been in on this murder?

      Does it seem reasonable to suppose that Lennon, Harrison and Ringo knew about it, and went along with it at least after the fact?

      What was the motive behind the murder?

      Do we only have theories to attempt to answer these questions, or do we have evidence?

      Why and how could so many people have gone along with this, people such as family, friends, wives and so forth?

      Delete
    7. Stooey, the speed of replacement itself is evidence and the experience with the JFK assassination through Lane is motivation evidence.

      So it's not all theory. However, it's likely as close as we can come.

      And Clare said so, plus completely handled how the silence and speaking combine to become cover-ups, with a few deaths and no official statement. She talked about psychology of silence, evidence of timings for deaths around the case and gave many examples of people's speaking to deny and confirm the idea.

      There are more. But she points out how important it is to rethink how cover-ups

      Delete
    8. ... work and how taking the side seriously already answers some of how statements work with the side. That is, the denials become the lies and the agreements become the admissions.

      But only PID accounts for the detail in some of the agreement statements, including Beatle lyrics, but not limited to those.

      Delete

  56. "Those freaks was right when they
    said you was you was dead
    The one mistake you made was
    in your head" why these lyrics if he was not addressing the real McCartney?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ha: double entendre, literally.

      Why not think it through from this side? Many things have clear answers both sides. The issue for a case, any case, is only ever to assess the completeness and detail of each full side.

      In this instance, nitpicking how "freaks" was used by John is very weak, as is saying the use of "you" here has to be one man. Any time there is an address to a "McCartney", it can be to 1 or the other or both ... of course. Thus, this side works fine on all that kind of thing.

      Where it wins is ear cartilage (etc.), overall historical accuracy, severity of the clues, etc.

      Delete
  57. Miss Kuehn, although I am not yet entirely convinced, I do believe that you have at least elevated this consideration of Mr McCartney's identity out realm of absurdity. I understand, however, the objections of some of the commentators and feel that not all of their questions are unreasonable. I do believe,however, that you acquit yourself admirably. After all, it's not really necessary to win the battle over every contested bit of minutiae in order to present a well-reasoned case. At the very least, this one warrants further looking into. I have other questions and doubts, but they'll have to wait for another time. In closing, please don't equate all members of the intelligence community with "trolls"
    or whatever. Many are as bright and concerned as you, although few are quite as charming. Good work, Miss Kuehn.
    Best regards,
    Ian

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't assume you all are troll-spooks or spooks at all, and said so.

      There's no profile at all for you. That means I'll write for both possibilities: that you are a spook giving me a compliment (thanks) and maybe even learning something -- if this is not your usual assignment, and that you are not a spook but an odd person with no profile page at all (page not found), who wanted to let me know many spies do good work or learn as they go and are caught up in a game.

      Of course, whether you are a spy or not, troll spooks and more intelligent spooks exist, working to cover up such events (or those allowed to act intelligent). I know that.

      However, either kind of spook who attempts to dumb down the public to "protect" something -- a thing which will never gain wide adherence anyway, or not with full information -- is a spiritual troglodyte (anti-Franklin, anti-Jefferson on educating, shall we say?) *at least for that moment*.

      And the idea that 3 may keep a secret if 2 of them are dead -- if someone wants to quote that at this late point to me (a Franklin quotation) is not exactly relevant to large conspiracy cover-ups. On the one hand, the secret isn't ever really kept anyway. On the other hand, people dumb themselves down with wishful thinking and others (including spook professionals step in) to make it seem as if the secret was perfectly kept. And on a third limb (a leg), let me point out that many do keep the secret from a larger *direct telling format*, though not their close friends. On a fourth limb, yes, some are killed off, too.

      Assuming, for the moment, that you are a spook, you needn't have given a reminder to me, at least, that many spooks are not involved in this kind of cover-up, or that all are very low-end thinkers.

      If you are a spy, let me thank you for the compliment and yet say that you are protecting the worst in elitism, etc., by anti-historianship.

      If you are or are not, let me point out:
      I know that of course there are also those who (as anywhere) are more vicious, or are asked to be.

      They often use language-dissecting, usually with no overall concept, or merely point to bad treatments of the case, or those who otherwise viciously deflect and demean and (many) have hidden profiles, too, yes, I suspect some of them are spooks and if the world had more openness (it would never be complete), massive wars would not happen from a completely ignorant public.

      Young Paul's death is so far from absurd, it is decidable. However, you have to do the mental and emotional work to figure out how you may have been fooled, before you come to the conclusion you were or were not.

      You were. Or rather, if you know better and are being cagey, you know that already but for the general reader I have to twist and turn to address your loaded post.

      In the end, whoever you are:
      Thanks for the compliment. Cheers!

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

      Delete
    3. And of course there are reasonable objections in any complex case.

      The issue is: how good is that case nevertheless?

      Though in this one, it's nice to be able consistently to know which person is which.

      Audio is sometimes easy, sometimes less so than photographs. But with photos it's not too hard after a while. Maybe 3 photos stumped me for a bit (because photos are isolated moments out of a person's total actions).

      But there's a consistently subtly or more different look. And with knowledge of so many areas (including ear cartilage) and history and so on all lining up for this, one ought to decide for it.

      But whatever. I've done the case with more written-out backup method, with other people before me more sporadically covering method, but whose compilations of timelines and all kinds of evidence rearranging (until it settled down). It's what it is.

      That a few think it's deeper (as Featles and clones) is not really my concern. There are ways to know they're wrong, but as always, a person will decide whatever they are capable of emotionally and mentally focussing on: and distractions such as Featles, etc., are *necessary* thoughts to work out, during the process. But now, it's time for the basic truth, which is bad enough ... yet moot for many.

      Delete
  58. Well said, Mr Huxterley. Your kind words have not gone unnoticed. Here's hoping for more contributions from you on Dr Fetzer's blog.

    Best wishes and may the shining radiance of reasoned debate light up Clare's life and up yours.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hidden profile (spook-likely) resentment.

      Grow up.

      Delete
    2. Hilarious. It looks like two boys from different offices are rivals for your affection (or attention), Clare. At least the second, sarcastic, one is not trying to mislead you, but it might be just another example of good cop/bad cop. Who knows? And who cares? Those two apparently have a lot of time on their hands (as I do) to even bother to comment on such a subject.

      Delete
  59. Dammit, Clare, I'm on your side, but that was the most awful presentation and what the heck is wrong with you?

    You could have comprehensively done away with the most obvious excuses and objections in under a half hour, and you are NOT going to get anywhere using the Laurel Canyon crap that is RIDDLED with easily provable factual errors.

    I'm really bummed about this. You USED to come off as so bright and reasonable, and now you're making this too effing boring, clarity seemingly permanently booted out the window, and instead of PROgressing in insight, you seem actually to be REgressing.

    Then, Fetzer's piece is now missing from VT, and your site is still a mess, and dammit, dammit, dammit!

    If you'd taken this to court the jury would've been unable to bear waiting to convict your client. If you're going to use a jury scenario, you need to be able to at least remotely mimic a trial attorney. Nobody, not even the most serious juror, could force themselves to try to train their brains on that INTERMINABLE explication in your presentation.

    I'm appalled and down-hearted. WHAT has come over you? FIND someone who can go over this stuff with you and put it into concise English for you. By now you should be able to have a page with devastating bullet points on it that people can try to refute until the cows come home and remain unsuccessful.

    The case IS proven... to SANE people... unhypnotized awake people... and the sleepers will NEVER awaken if they're subjected to this AGONIZING display.

    I'm going to go put my head in an ice bucket now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Clare is addressing all kinds of audiences.
      That you didn't need what she gave is fine, but irrelevant to the way she said she needed to do it

      ......
      Most, even people who think they are neutral (such as Kevin Barrett) do in fact require parts of what she said. :)

      Plus, it is so great to have the whole basic training and information in one
      ..... Though obviously you didn't need it.

      Course material on the evidence alone without explication has not helped the middle crowd yet.

      Appreciate it for what it is: she said it's quite intentional how she did it & you should see why, even if you don't remember liking having full explication.......

      Hey, even Jim didn't get why a jury duty image was used and thought it was for some technicality of jurisprudence .... But instead it's for the same thing you seem to be forgetting: methods of separating mental preconceptions and utter lack of prejudices are key ...

      Not just the material proofs, their explicitly stated tricky aspects, and so on ---- which she also ran through in ways others have never given.

      Some people need fuller understanding spelled out, and that includes tips on evidence so people are less confused (not you, though!!!!).

      No one can run through the whole case detailed evidence in one shot; this one suffers from other cases with more people confused by &giving up on the evidence.

      Delete
    2. I know what she's doing, trying to do, and am heavily in her corner. The intent is brilliant. The execution, here, deplorable.

      I know SOME people can get through it in "one shot" because I've seen stuff this complicated get boiled down to its essence and delivered to devastating effect quite a few times.

      I see from comments below that Clare is writing a book about it. I hope she finds an editing god to pull her up out of the weeds.

      Delete
    3. Her intent is clearly to address all unwilling to think through each point. This must be done and with a mere two hours, not months or more as in a court case, I think she does an amazing job.

      If someone can get the case points in a few hours on their own, her broadcast here is an asset too, because "what she's been saying is: give cases and parts of cases a chance ..."

      Nay, & way more than that!!!!

      That without trying to make a case work enough to set up appropriate categories and accept all areas long enough to remember them, can a true assessment be made.

      For those who want a few photos, clues and history points and get it, there are many sources.

      She's showing things that many refuse to think through.

      Example:

      Why would anyone lie about the death? This breaks down into many reasons on the one hand... And the reason for asking at all ........

      Because if there is any reason people could lie (different per person), the case can proceed and the question raised there which starts as if a showstopper and often gets used later as if the case has to be proven by proving reasons to lie ......

      Doesn't!! !

      Reason (several) to lie neither need to be known exactly, nor are they proof of the case.

      How many times doubters ask a question

      1 hoping for no answer
      2 not listening through the answer *** because no one answer is a proof in itself**
      ..... Except the higher forensic evidence such as the ear cartilage,

      Now how many would be willing to stake their whole belief on it? One should, actually, except even there it's better to know the whole.

      When a severe doub or quick dismissal happens, it is too often on each part because there is not enough flow through.

      She's given it.

      You want more direct showing and in cases of great resistance or complexity, there is a place for answering doubters with how the case has more to think through than they'd thought.

      Delete
    4. *that only with ... can a true assessment be made.

      And the point is that even well intended people who get this or any case and want to reach people fail to see that the resistance to a next valid case can cause lack of care, or that people who might get a case can often approach one or more piece of evidence or line of reasoning glibly.

      It was very succinct for being so comprehensive, but of course you're right that some think can handle this ... But, hey! Really few can with simple summary only because so many keep asking for more detail when the best evidence is chosen for them (they have no context) ... Or they ask, as I said, that broadest possible doubts be met with unnecessary exactness --exacting thought is not the same as exactness in detail when talking about the broader doubts, such as why people could lie.

      I'm glad you get that Paul died, though. It's good to have some more getting it.

      Delete
    5. Although, like Nines, I tend to prefer straight forward and easily comprehensible presentations, this case is anything but straightforward and easily comprehensible. A recent Rasmussen poll showed that only 3% of Americans think that McCartney was killed and replaced by a double. That’s far less than the stats for any other alleged conspiracy. Apparently, most people would disagree with the contention that any “sane” person
      could easily see that it’s apparent that McCartney was killed and replaced. On the contrary, this “theory”, more than any other, seems likely to be dismissed or treated with derision. So, far from having a “devastating effect,” such a presentation would probably just be preaching to the choir of those few hypothetical “sane” people and to the greater mass of PIDers who are ready to uncritically accept any revelation in this area, e.g. Paul was replaced by a Bigfoot or the Annuanki.

      It’s a major effort just to convince most people to take this case seriously, much less refrain from howls of derision. What we’re dealing with here is decades of acceptance and continuity that would beggar common sense to dispute, not to mention accepting complicity of friends, family and colleagues, in addition to physical resemblance and alleged talent. And Clare, with a little help from her friends, is the only one I’m aware of who has taken the care to put forth both circumstantial as well as forensic evidence AND to connect the dots. Moreover, she’s added a modicum of sanity, instead of unfettered speculation , to the discussion of motives and agenda. No wonder the spooks and/or trolls in this thread are going psycho
      and engaging in logic chopping and verbal diarrhea slinging.

      Perhaps Clare’s presentation doesn’t quite fit the standards of Strunk & White, but so what?
      Is this just another piece of info-tainment for the anonymous, attention challenged habitues
      of the internet? What’s at issue here is possibly murder, criminal fraud and official compliance
      with an agenda that few can wrap their heads around - or maybe it’s not. Who knows?

      In any case, I think that the analogy of a jury trial is not what was intended. Clare’s presentation is more like that of a GRAND JURY, whose function is both accusatory and investigative, and THAT, of course, will lack the drama of a criminal trial and will be more demanding on the participants. Even a trial jury is no piece of cake - I should know, I’ve sat on three. So, even she couldn’t convince a trial jury with her approach here, that’s not the point. She has made a case for further investigation and, more likely an indictment, which are the primary functions of a grand jury. And an indictment is not a conviction, but merely an affirmation of probable cause and an impetus toward judicial proceedings.

      And don’t stick your head in that bucket of ice, Nines. Save a few cubes for my drink and throw the rest at the nit-wits who are trying so passionately - and unconvincingly - to discredit Clare. By praising her with faint damns, you’re unwittingly (or otherwise) doing the devil’s work.

      Delete
    6. Correction: "So, even she couldn’t convince a trial jury .." should read "So, even IF she couldn’t convince a trial jury ..."

      Addendum:
      Also, presenting ear cartilages or a couple works of art won't work for this one. What you see as verbiage is, in fact, epistemology. Spooks and doubters prey on epistemology in all conspiracy theories, more than on the evidence, most notably in this one, where it is critical to an understanding of the case.

      Delete
    7. I think everyone is forgetting that most people are not as ignorant about this, or other conspiracies, as they let on.

      WHO would ask why they'd cover it up? It's immediately apparent why they would, to anyone who is in good faith trying to think it through.

      Most people see what "the important people" want them to think right away and THAT is what they purport to think for the rest of their lives, unless something big happens to make them suddenly revere the truth over appearing to believe whatever is deemed acceptable for the herd.

      How much hot air would crediting that fact alone spare us?

      Bullet points. Like in a summation for a jury. Like Barry Scheck in the OJ case. It was a masterpiece and all of it unassailably true. Clare has all the bullet points. She just keeps burying them.

      I do admit, though, that people younger than forty-something might not be as clear on this as those of us who saw the switch being made right before our very eyes, but STILL, the case can be made using just the strongest evidence and maybe a collection of quotes and anecdotes that might tend to support it.

      I have much better than average powers of concentration and I can't take this mess. It does NOT need to be a mess. And how much less inclined to pay attention will people who don't want to think it be?

      People who don't want to think it are mostly going to refuse to get lost in this labyrinthine and exhausting stuff. If the point is to convince people, it needs to be crisp and clear and hard to refute reasonably... and questions like "why" are NOT reasonable. A ten-year-old would immediately grok why... ESPECIALLY in 2015.

      Delete
  60. "How To Think about "Paul is Dead"

    Update


    *****

    http://www.beatlesbible.com/features/paul-is-dead/

    http://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/paul_is_dead

    http://www.thebeatlesrarity.com/2015/02/05/asknat-concerning-the-alleged-death-and-replacement-of-paul-mccartney-in-1966/

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_is_dead

    http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/%22Paul_is_dead%22_hoax

    http://xdell.blogspot.co.uk/2014_04_01_archive.html?m=1

    http://www.openculture.com/2014/12/paul-mccartney-is-dead-hoax-started-at-an-american-college-newspaper.html

    http://www.beatle.net/paul-mccartney-admits-beatles-planned-death-hoax/

    http://www.ispauldead.com/

    http://beatlesnumber9.com/dead.html

    http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1860871_1860876_1860997,00.html

    http://aboutthebeatles.com/paul-is-dead

    http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/paulisdead.asp

    http://www.amazon.com/Turn-Me-On-Dead-Man/dp/1418482943

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1499234287/ref=pd_aw_sbs_b_3/188-5094147-9324556?refRID=0MEBNDCCK1C07AQNBS7E#

    http://m.livescience.com/4000-myth-rocks-premature-death-paul-mccartney.html

    http://digilander.libero.it/p_truth/

    http://www.rgarypatterson.com/my_review_of_the_new__paul_is_dead__evidence_23917.htm

    http://pid.freeforums.net/thread/82/pid-podcast-clare-kuehn

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8CgHLG-_Wy0

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/03/05/paul-is-dead


    *****

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good.

      I hope you'll give the non-conspiracy case for JFK's death in a run-down like this, for Jim.

      It's as moot but important to know about. I know about the other side.

      Delete
    2. By the way, R. Gary Patterson did a great compilation of not only clues but testimony which actually supports this thesis; that he cannot side for it is not my problem.

      It is clear from his comments on that page that he prefers always to be so neutral emotionally that he doesn't side when he needs to; when the forensics of the face were raised, he commented only that his friend at the famous "Body Farm" said people need skulls to tell a different person.

      He accepted this (a willful and unthinking act), but we may thank him for his scholarship in "The Walrus Was Paul" book of clues and testimony, as far as he got, anyway.

      When I commented in my broadcast here, about how we do not need a skull to contribute forensic arguments about faces and heads to the discussion, I was in fact referencing the Patterson page.

      I contacted him, by the way. As with most, his mind is too undecided/semi-negative to be positive or even careful (the body farm guy's comment is rationally moot) right now.

      Delete
    3. You're making yourself look bad. Keep going.

      How about actually outlining the intellectually meagre & repetitive & inaccurate points these all make. By the way, the best arguments these articles have still fail when considered *with other things*.

      That is my point, ultimately.

      A few of them are not only intellectually meagre at times but outright superficial.

      Delete
  61. Jim Fetzer

    Wellstone, Holocaust, Sandy Hook, JFK



    Clare Kuehn December 15, 2014 at 3:16 PM


    "I am speaking from certainty and many, many discussions past; lecturing it may be but not patronizing: the two are not the same. I simply tire of teaching the same stuff."


    http://radiofetzer.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/jim-fetzer_5.html?m=1



    Getting tired, Clare? .......Again?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, I have to maintain patience.

      I am not alone in fighting for reason in all issues, or for this one in particular, but it is an on-going trouble (and always will be).

      This issue raises things they all do, but in high relief (haut relief). It also has some very personal "inner eye/ear" issues which need new intellectual conceptions to be set up before starting.

      Then any preconceptions (which most have) can be addressed and assessed. Then judged.

      As in court procedure.

      Delete
    2. You like to be a compiler/hoarder of my comments everywhere, eh?

      :)

      :P

      "Francois", another hidden profile. I have quite the fan! As a detractor, you show dedication.

      The same work enthuse you about James Larson? Or others? Not. Wonder why.

      Delete
  62. ** Barret's article on Veterans Today is again incomplete, inaccurate and points to a Mirror UK article which has an outright error in presenting a photo of Bill ("Paul") from 1968 as from 1966.

    I've been over all this with him (a current die-hard) and in non-professorial conduct, he refuses even to correct basic info like that.**


    You've been over all this with Kevin Barrett? When and where? Can you give details i.e. audio or written sources (websites, pdf etc., etc.). I suggest Jim Fetzer invites you and Kevin Barrett onto the The Real Deal blog. Perhaps Clare Kuehn v Kevin Barrett could be Jim's next podcast. Bring it on, Jim!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Comments section & private correspondence. His unwillingness to be remotely *accurate* about indisputable direct points about evidence, no matter what his beliefs are about their implications, has been telling.

      He has refused to use the first aspect of proper method (accuracy) -- never mind the other levels.

      This from a professor and mostly conspiracy theory-open person: just goes to show we *all* can fall for our preconceptions enough not even to be fair. Hence, I went over how open-mindedness works, too.

      Delete
  63. ' By now you should be able to have a page with devastating bullet points on it that people can try to refute until the cows come home and remain unsuccessful.'


    Write a BOOK, Clare.

    ReplyDelete
  64. This is great stuff, Clare. All the more reason why Jim Fetzer should have you and Kevin in a discussion on a podcast soon.
    All will look forward to listening to it.
    Why don't you ask Jim to see if he
    can arrange bringing you and Kevin together?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why don't you? I cannot broach it with Kevin and do not prefer to speak to him at all, given Kevin's recent implicit spittle at me in his article. (He mentions Ole -- a shock to Kevin but respectable to him, whom he gives a link in the article and first reference, right after saying "serious researchers". But by the time he says "these people such as Clare", he's already speaking more demeaningly, it seems, and immediately follows with a verb put-down description, that he immediately follows my name with how Jim "bought into" Paul's death enough to believe the fake news story. By the way, Jim did rush into the fake news story, it is true, or we agree to disagree about how fake it is. Yet, Paul's death, as Jim tries to point out to the dismissive & uncareful Barrett -- he's that way here, anyway -- is a distinct thing from the question of the veracity of the article.)

      Yet Kevin and I got along fine at the Vancouver 2012 9/11 Hearings. Just goes to show that these topics can divide people if one does decide to be vicious and uncareful. If I were wrong, then also we could just disagree, but implicit spittle and his uncareful work on the subject show a flaw in him, even if the case had no merit overall.

      Delete
    2. Let Jim know. I so don't feel like it, I don't even feel like contacting Jim about it. I'll think about it if I get a request.

      Delete
  65. Ah well. If you don't want to, that's your
    prerogative. Nobody can make you do
    what you don't want to do.

    All the very, very best to you, Clare.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I said, I don't feel comfortable raising it -- nor inclined to do so -- right now.

      Give it a shot. Write Jim (his e-mail is public) and by the time I might get an invite I might have changed my inclination.

      Good luck. & Thanks for the thought.

      jfetzer@d.umn.edu

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

    ReplyDelete
  67. Dr. Fetzer engaged in some aberrant behavior with Dr. Judy Wood, author of Where Did the Towers Go?, which covers the possibility of directed energy used in destruction of the Twin Towers. Fetzer gave the book a five-star recommendation on Amazon.com, and shortly thereafter the trolls entered the picture, as here, and hundreds of entries followed. Dr. Wood suspects it was a psyop.

    Fetzer now disses people who regard Dr. Wood as credible as a “cult.”

    But here is where it gets interesting. Dr. Fetzer slipped up and told me in a private email that he had not even read Dr. Wood’s book. How is it that the head of “Scholars” for 9/11 Truth five-starred a book he had not even read?

    Which is why I urge that you treat him with respect, caution and distance. He might soon label any of us who respect your work as a cult as well.

    ReplyDelete
  68. The Neanderthal wimp Dekker (no pecker)
    crawls into the blog to post more of his inane drivel and crap when he thinks nobody can see him. Trust Dekker to scuttle in just like the slimy, sneaky little rat he really is.

    For the record:

    Dekker is a racist and a sexist. Why Clare hasn't told Dekker to shut the f^*# up and leave
    her and PID be is a mystery.
    With "friends" like Dekker, Clare doesn't need any f^*#ing enemies.

    " PID meets KKK De[k]kker


    Marten Dekker April 26, 2015 at 10:30 PM

    Fetzer wanted the pictures earlier. They were in there.

    But u want more ... Like what? A more obvious double? Black man good enough for you to get?!! Laughing at you ... But not happy you don't know better

    ****

    Marten Dekker April 25, 2015 at 5:57 PM

    I loved the talk.
    Oh & to the guy who wants different PID evidence ... hey, whatchya want? A black man or redhead woman? 

    ****

    Marten Dekker April 26, 2015 at 11:17 AM

    You want a redhead woman or black man doppelganger for Paul? Would that be obvious enough? Maybe not for you!!! Haaaaa!

    ****

    Marten Dekker April 26, 2015 at 10:59 AM

    To those who keep asking for more proofs than are in the broadcasts and blogs, I repeat for you:

    You want a black guy pic or redhead woman?! Would that be an obvious doppelganger for ya?

    ****

    Marten Dekker April 26, 2015 at 2:18 PM


    And when you find a black man or redhead woman to double for McCartney, send him or her to a cover band. Bill Campbell couldn't be so wildly different in looks, but he sure is different.


    No doubt about it!

    Dekker is a racist. 4 explicitly racist 
    references to "(a) black man" and 1 
    explicit reference to "a black guy pic".


    Note: 

    Dekker makes no mention 
    of a "black haired man" 
    or "a black haired guy pic". It's "a black man", "black man" and "a black guy pic".

    No doubt about it!

    Dekker is a sexist.

    4 explicitly sexist references 
    to "a redhead woman".

    Why Dekker feels compelled to single out a woman who happens to have red hair is a mystery but more seriously it is also sexist "


    It's good to get a life, dude.



    You racist knuckle dragging PID troll!!!! "


    You're a racist and a sexist, Dekker!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're off topic and don't know an example from a hole in the ground. Actually, spook, you do.

      Delete
  69. For Clare to equate her PID baloney with the assassination of JFK is at best derisory and at worst obscene. The evidence for a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK is overwhelming. The evidence for Paul McCartney having died and been replaced is
    nonexistent. It's a "nice" trick that Clare is trying to pull when she talks about PID with reference to and in the context of the JFK assassination but her trick doesn't work. However, Clare believes that comparing her PID twaddle with the JFK assassination gives her PID nonsense legitimacy and validity. Sorry, Clare there is no comparison. There is no equation. Stop trying to elevate your PID garbage into something it is not. So far, Clare, you have not provided any evidence - any proof that your PID dross is anything other than baseless conjecture, surmise and supposition on your part and no amount of gabble and babble from you, Clare and from your alter egos Dekker et al has or is going to change that.

    Clare firmly believes that if she talks about her PID blather for long enough and peppers it with copious references to the JFK assassination and repeats it ad infinitum and ad nauseam, then people will actually believe it!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, I repeat for the numbskulls who don't understand ear cartilage, height, hair, voice, style, psychology, attitude, body language, plus grief and how cover-ups work.

      Gabble and babble are on your side.

      And it IS the same as the JFK assassination, just not in broad daylight and as a side effect of it, with less forensic material from the death available but more from the replacement, through photos and personal history considerations.

      Delete
    2. Clare Kuehn writes that those who disagree with her P.I.D. hogwash and moonshine are
      "numbskulls" and "losers".
      That's very reasoned debate - NOT.

      More endless nonsense about "ear cartilage, height, hair, voice, style, psychology, attitude, body language, plus grief and how cover-ups work. " That's all we ever get; More endless nonsense about "ear cartilage, height, hair, voice, style, psychology, attitude, body language, plus grief and how cover-ups work. "

      Where is the EVIDENCE?

      Where is the PROOF?

      Where are the FACTS?

      Enough of your cartlage, earlobe and height, hair etc., etc. hooey!!!


      Where is the EVIDENCE?

      Where is the PROOF?

      Where are the FACTS?

      Delete
    3. "....with less forensic material from the death available but more from the replacement,...."

      Forget about your "forensic material".
      First provide proof that there was a death
      and second provide proof that there was a replacement.

      Provide proof!!!

      Delete
  70. Clare's bird brain parrot Dekker squawking
    his mindless asininities right on cue!


    Who rattled Pretty Polly Dekker's cage?


    P.I.D. Parrot Is Dead. LOL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hardly, or you oddball hidden profiles wouldn't be here.

      Delete
  71. Witness the almost contiguous 666
    in the name a1bae4e8-e9bf-11e4-8e61-2f19a66c67a.

    Coincidental or by design?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's idiotic. AOL auto generates for anonymous posts ... As you'd know.

      Delete
  72. Has Clare Kuehn been replaced?


    Recently released photographs of Clare Kuehn show some descrepancies and anomalies in jaw line, eye size, nose and ear shape, length of neck and cheek
    bone structure. Early day investigations show that the Clare Kuehn we once knew and had grown to admire for her work on PID is, in fact, a replacement.
    Careful analysis is ongoing but initial
    indications prove without doubt that
    there is a new Clare Kuehn masquerading
    as the real Clare Kuehn who may have become
    the target of a new identity change psyop.
    The real Clare Kuehn's present
    location is currently unknown.

    ReplyDelete
  73. i like your jacket, where'd you get it? you on trip passion, and six :P is true. you probably one of the cutest during times like this

    ReplyDelete
  74. Clare Kuehn is really one obnoxious
    cookie as is evidenced by her recent
    distasteful and offensive comments
    on this blog. Professor Fetzer must
    take action and remove Clare Kuehn
    and her insulting and, quite
    frankly, sociopathic and psychopathic posts
    on this blog. This kind of unbalanced, hysterical and deeply disturbed behavior from Clare Kuehn cannot and will not be tolerated.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Oh no you don't, Rick Hamill!

    To repeat:

    The work on Paul's death is but one of many contributions I make, and is for those who have an inquiring mind and want to test their mettle on the odder-sounding cases for conspiracy/ propaganda than only the more "obvious" political ones (JFK, 9/11), to work out which are true (and how far or not).

    It can help people with understanding exactly what is so wrong it is like craziness and what can help show if something is true but you (or someone else) is resisting and exactly why.

    Resistance to JFK/ 9/11, etc. functions like resistance to Paul's death and any wrong or right idea which one resists without careful work first. Resistance leads to: viciousness in some, deflections, ad hominems, etc., refusal to keep going to the end though one can think up objections and even silly (irrational) objections (not that the person is always silly personally).

    Merely for example: the recently posted idea from Ian, that a legal identity for a person living under an assumed name (hypothetical or not) is in any way a legitimately original identity (hypothetical or not), is, rationally speaking, not personally speaking, silly.

    Thus, no offense to Ian, his point is moot.

    But the negative "thread flooders" already look bad. Hopefully they will remember that good or bad ideas don't need such behaviour ... and that they resent such behaviour from those who "don't get" yet what they consider correct, such as JFK/ 9/11, etc.

    There is of course one other thing going on: these comments will close down soon.

    If people want so badly to discuss this case of Paul's death, they can go to Larson's broadcast ... or comment on dammegard & Kollerstrom's shows/ posts on the Internet here or elsewhere, whenever they write on it.

    Nick Kollerstrom is writing a book on how it is true, we are told in Nick's article in Fetzer/ Palacek's new book, "And I suppose we didn't go to the Moon, either?"

    ReplyDelete
  76. Being new to the Paul-Is-Dead question, I must say that I find Rick Hamill's list of Paul-Is-Dead website
    addresses most enlightening and instructional. Comprehensive and thoroughly educational in their scope; they give a great and unbiased insight into
    all facets of the Paul-Is-Dead question - both for and against. It is always a good idea to have all sides of the Paul-Is-Dead hypothesis readily available. It is in this way only that the student of the Paul-Is-Dead argument can come to the truth or otherwise of the various pro and con claims regarding the Paul-Is-Dead debate.

    Highly recommended to those who
    want to read and think about the Paul-Is-Dead hypothesis for themselves and come to their own conclusions as to the veracity of the Paul-Is-Dead theory.

    ReplyDelete
  77. I would agree with you on Rick Hamill's website addresses lists. They are very helpful. Those who begrudge and resent Rick's efforts seem to think that they know it all. They are perhaps also afraid that people interested in the Paul McCartney is dead story might actually think for themselves. No one has a monopoly on the McCartney question and no one has the right to tell anyone how to
    approach P-I-D. One should always be
    suspicious of so-called experts
    pontificating on things and saying
    that they have the complete picture.
    My advice to anyone studying P-I-D is
    to read as much as they can find
    about P-I-D on the internet or from
    anywhere else (books, video & audio, magazines,
    journals etc) and make up their own minds.
    Don't be brainwashed by the propganda
    of the armchair "experts".
    Read EVERY scrap of information from
    ALL sources.

    Only then will you see the BiG picture.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Efforts? Rick hasn't let up and it spams the thread: overdone. If someone wants to search the topic, they can and most items are not the big picture.

      I gave the big picture, to help with whatever you find.

      But again: Go to Nick Kollerstrom, Larson, dammegard or those other places. This thread is too long.

      Delete
    2. "I gave the big picture, to help with whatever you find."

      Your name was never mentioned, Clare.
      Why do you insist on insinuating yourself into every post? This blog doesn't revolve around you. You're just a blogger like the rest of us, Clare.

      Delete
  78. Why the incessant whining from you
    that "This thread is too long"?


    You didn't whine about the podcast threads below being too long. Or if you did whine, it must have been under your breath. You certainly didn't write anything
    about the threads being "too long" in any of your posts in the podcast threads below. What has gotten into you, Clare? What IS your problem?

    "This thread is too long." sounds like something a foot stomping spoilt brat would say during a tantrum in Walmart or Valu-Mart.




    http://radiofetzer.blogspot.ca/2014/01/clare-kuehn.html?m=1

    427 comments


    http://radiofetzer.blogspot.ca/2014/09/clare-kuehn.html?m=1

    267 comments


    http://radiofetzer.blogspot.ca/2014/02/nick-kollerstrom-clare-kuehn.html?m=1


    473 comments

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They were too long, too -- and on one, 1/2 comments won't load -- Google bug.

      Delete
    2. ^They were too long, too -- and on one, 1/2 comments won't load -- Google bug.^

      Really? Half comments won't load on one?

      Which one?

      http://radiofetzer.blogspot.ca/2014/0
      2/nick-kollerstrom-clare-kuehn.html?m=1

      http://radiofetzer.blogspot.ca/2014/09/clare-kuehn.html?m=1

      http://radiofetzer.blogspot.ca/2014/01/clare-kuehn.html?m=1

      Delete
  79. It's the night of the long archives!!!

    It looks like Frau Kuehn
    has finally got her way!!!

    LMAO

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

      Delete
    2. Fräulein.

      Fräulein Schmidt = Miss Schmidt

      Frau Schmidt = Mrs Schmidt or Ms Schmidt (for an older unmarried woman).


      LL (laut lachend) LOL

      Duh!!

      Delete
  80. How To Think about "Paul is Dead"



    http://www.franceinfo.fr/emission/le-vrai-du-faux-numerique/2014-2015/non-la-mort-de-paul-mccartney-en-1966-n-pas-ete-confirmee-04-03-2015-08-24

    http://www.paranormal-encyclopedie.com/wiki/Articles/Mort_de_Paul_McCartney

    http://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9gende_sur_la_mort_de_Paul_McCartney

    http://fr.mediamass.net/people/paul-mccartney/rumeurdeces.html

    https://de.nachrichten.yahoo.com/paul-mccartney-tot-die-kurioseste-verschw%C3%B6rungstheorie-der-geschichte-070000172.html


    http://www.tvnotas.com.mx/2015/03/28/C-71652-wikileaks-asegura-que-no-tiene-el-cable-sobre-la-muerte-de-paul-mccartney.php

    https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/581155396343189505

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/6095066/Sir-Paul-McCartney-Death-rumours-led-people-to-think-I-was-an-impostor.html

    http://lmw-28if.de/features/07.htm

    http://mobil.news.at/a/musik-verschwoerungstheorien-elvis-mccartney-cobain-wonder

    http://m.mic.com/articles/111996/a-working-list-of-the-craziest-music-conspiracy-theories

    http://whiplash.net/materias/biografias/000101-beatles.html

    http://m.newser.com/story/67848/mccartney-recalls-madness-of-death-rumor.html

    http://www.inquisitr.com/1890679/no-ringo-starr-didnt-just-confirm-paul-mccartney-died-in-1966/

    https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/581155396343189505

    http://www.klaatu.org/klaatu1.html

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B00F1Z3Z38/ref=kina_tdp?ie=UTF8

    http://www.guitarworld.com/node/3207

    http://www.paulmccartney.com/

    http://www.franceinfo.fr/player/resource/651957-1417069

    https://fstoppers.com/other/picture-making-history-shot-beatles-abbey-road-iconic-cover-5309

    http://www.rebeatmag.com/paul-is-alive-kiss-him-kiss-him/

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/03/05/paul-is-dead

    ReplyDelete
  81. How To Think about "Paul is Dead"

    Updated



    http://www.thebestschools.org/features/50-most-important-living-musicians/

    http://www.rebeatmag.com/paul-is-alive-kiss-him-kiss-him/

    http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/the-beatles-never-broke-up-everyday-chemistry

    http://welcometothefreeworldorder.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/is-paul-mccartney-dead.html?m=1

    http://scott-norton.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/paul-mccartney-is-dead-hoax-or-fact.html?m=1


    http://www.beatle.net/paul-mccartney-admits-beatles-planned-death-hoax/

    http://pid.hoop.la/login/context/GENERAL/redirect/http%3A%2F%2Fpid.hoop.la%2Ftopic%2Fpicture-thread-for-those-new-to-the-pid-coverup

    http://invanddis.proboards.com/thread/6086

    http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?t=1144

    http://www.chicagonow.com/off-the-record/2011/07/paul-mccartney-dead-or-alive/

    http://ludix.com/moriarty/paul.html

    http://youcanknowsometimes.blogspot.co.uk/p/blog-page_24.html?m=1

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/03/05/paul-is-dead

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. wham bam thank you spam.

      Kollerstrom is writing a book on how it's true. Larson's thread is nearly unused, Kollerstrom and dammegard, too.

      Inform them. I don't need long lists of Google searches ---- nor does anyone. But here it's rude to continue. You know it.

      Delete
  82. Few here would advocate vicious language and spam, bad questions, repeated demands for evidence when there's plenty, for 9/11, JFK, etc. though resistant skeptics of an overeager variety do. Nor, even if a case is silly, does inaccuracy and irrational verbal and logic splicing ever do credit to the discreditors, other than to the other bullies.

    Bother other Pid-ers now. Most of us here, anyway, such as Kollerstrom, I, dammegard, TotalInfo, Larson, have done wonderful work in different areas other than Pid. Let it be and when you're ready for whether this is an untruth (mistake on our part about an odd idea, which is too odd to bother with at all), or whether it is a truth, then retry it if you want. Fanatically upset commenting and spam prove nothing for the other side. If it's not worth it, let it go like a commentary that there is a flat Earth -- not that there are no good questions raised (about cover-up and perception) when discussing that or other ultimate low-likelihood cases, such as the existence of unicorns.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Clare Kuehn June 10, 2015 at 11:36 AM


    "Few here would advocate vicious language and spam, bad questions, repeated demands...."



    Clare Kuehn May 7, 2015 at 11:54 AM

    "No, I repeat for the numbskulls who don't understand..."

    Clare Kuehn June 7, 2015 at 4:30 PM

    "Rick: do you have some kind of disability.......?"

    Marten Dekker April 23, 2015 at 1:18 PM

    "F*cking weirdos!!!!......

    .......But whoever these repetitive f*ckers are......"


    Marten Dekker April 24, 2015 at 12:08 PM

    "....dumb*ss.......dumb*ss...."

    ................

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rick deserved a pushback.

      Totally fine to give him one. The other comments here are often disgustingly insulting to me, the topic and by implication, to other researchers into this and all unofficial topics of truth finding, a shame on those closed-minded, uncareful conspiracy theorists of the thread (term used as not a perjorative by me): if a topic case is wrong, do the work properly to find out.

      If it is right, same.

      Anything less is intellectual & sociopolitical evil, in any topic of possible death & cover-up.

      Just because this one can be determined to be true is not more threatening than other ones, nor does it make some positions (such as that Kennedy faked his death) less sloppy.

      For dekker's comments, well ... far worse (and more incorrect) personal "get off the blog" stuff was said by others.

      & while Rick keeps spamming.

      Lovely. (Not.)

      Delete
    2. Go spam Larson, y'all.

      Or Kollerstrom.

      Or dammegard.

      Or Fetzer.

      Or TotalInfo.

      They all also hold by the obvious and well considered fact that Paul died long ago.

      Delete
    3. "Anything less is intellectual & sociopolitical evil..."

      Where did you find that? In Pol Pot's
      Little Red Book, The Sayings of Angkar?
      You really do spout the most outrageous
      and monstrous stercus.

      Delete
  84. "Or Fetzer."?!?!

    Are you saying that Professor James Fetzer PhD believes that Paul McCartney died and was replaced? This is news.
    Listening to your podcast it was interesting how
    Professor Fetzer corrected you when you used the
    words "That's what WE're saying" lest the listeners might think that you were including him in your "That's what WE're saying". Professor Fetzer was keen to make it perfectly clear that he should not be included in your "We". But now you have stated that Professor Fetzer does believe that Paul McCartney did die and was indeed replaced. I wonder if Professor Fetzer would now confirm your assertion that he believes Paul McCartney died and was replaced. It is obvious that during the podcast Professor Fetzer was at pains on several occasions to make it clear that he did not necessarily share your views on PID. You are now saying that is not correct and that Professor Fetzer does share your views and beliefs on PID.

    This is INDEED news.

    I think that Professor Fetzer should be allowed to
    make his position clear on where exactly he stands
    in relation to PID.

    ReplyDelete