tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post1920076786434551854..comments2024-03-02T21:58:21.667-08:00Comments on The Real Deal with Jim Fetzer podcast: Ole Dammegard with Joshua BlakeneyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger75125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-72386442964843012242014-04-17T22:58:31.635-07:002014-04-17T22:58:31.635-07:00Informative but I disagree that real Paul is in an...Informative but I disagree that real Paul is in any part of MMT. It's the same imposter all the way thru IMO.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-86976824882454722592014-01-17T01:22:24.305-08:002014-01-17T01:22:24.305-08:00I think I understand now why you stay in your mum&...I think I understand now why you stay in your mum's villa and don't accept invitations such as the one extended to you to the Vancouver Hearings.<br /><br />You're scared that a relative of a victim will punch you in your smug face for the deeply disgusting Vicsims BS you have perpetrated.<br /><br />Admit it Simon, you're trying to push the idea that no-one died because you're shilling for the perpetrators and trying to diminish the horrific nature of their crime.<br /><br />You're pushing this 'no nukes' and no victims' BS because you don't want people to know that 9/11 was a mass murder event where WMDs were used to kill large numbers of innocent people.<br /><br />You'd love people to believe that no-one died when two empty towers were demolished by dynamite behind a military grade smoke screen because that's a crime that pales in comparison to mass murder with WMDs.<br /><br />That makes you a truly disgusting person deserving of nothing but contempt.<br /><br />Or maybe you are prepared to prove me wrong by attending an event where there will be many relatives of victims present and firemen and responders who are dying of cancers and stand up and present your theories to them.<br /><br />Of course, we know that's not going to happen because those people wouldn't stand for your BS and you're smart enough to know that so you stick to shilling on the internet from the safety of your mum's villa.Ian Greenhalghhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10688759161975670079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-79700321798939952242014-01-16T15:58:02.361-08:002014-01-16T15:58:02.361-08:00Does everyone know that the Chief New York Medical...Does everyone know that the Chief New York Medical Examiner - CHARLES HIRSCH - and his enigmatic assistant "Ellen Borakove" - are the very same individuals who:<br /><br />A: Refused to release John Lennon's autopsy<br /><br />http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2382465#p2382465<br /><br />B: Claimed that "most of the 9/11 victims were "VAPORIZED"?<br /><br />http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2099540#p2099540 <br /><br />Well, now you know.<br /><br />regards<br /><br />Simon Shacknorwegianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17995678585264337010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-58237873110670746212014-01-14T03:49:38.217-08:002014-01-14T03:49:38.217-08:00absolute bullshit again clare! were many of the di...absolute bullshit again clare! were many of the disastrous victim photo fuck-ups fuck-ups too? don't you think they could have at least gotten the skyline colours and backdrops consistent in the many (faked) videos released? don't you think they could have had different times other than 9 and 11 seconds ascribed to the twin tower collapses or avoided completely having the term 'ground zero' associated with the site? don't you think they could have designed more realistic cgi animations to describe the crash physics of aluminium plane meets steel buildings or had the planes cartooned in to come in looking like American airline planes and at at least possible speeds? <br /><br />I could go on and on but 'fuck ups' just don't cut the muster (mustard). we are dealing with men (and women) at the top of their game when we consider those involved in and behind the years in the planning 9/11 operation. you can be certain that nothing that came our way was by accident or left to chance. nothing. <br />9/11 may just not at all be what you (and many others) have come to think it is, is all (assuming you are genuine truthseekers, of course). <br />I have written before on this blog what I believe 9/11 to have been really about, and I am now more convinced than ever that I am right.<br /><br />and andy, you know they began building a new building 7 on may 7 2002 (opened may 23 2006) at a cost of $700 million, and everything is going swimmingly now apparently. (no body parts falling off left, right and centre as far as I can tell.)<br /><br />an interesting read on building 7 here btw. <br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center<br />do you think building 7 (saloman building) might also have been gutted in preparation for demolition? I do. <br />it pretty much says so in the about link, no? <br />who needs nukes, eh?psheahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00450736873877898876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-59793152827114891592014-01-13T14:08:24.938-08:002014-01-13T14:08:24.938-08:00The latter, except the idea of "too many"...The latter, except the idea of "too many". It is the skills of discernment and the tendency of fanatic adherence back and forth.<br /><br />Even though there was a lot of manipulation of imagery, and some faking, Andy, there was a lot of stuff which is better explained as f-ups, not planted, seeded, but embarrassing f-ups in the layering.Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-45178988491376646132014-01-13T12:28:24.617-08:002014-01-13T12:28:24.617-08:00It was certainly not meant as an insult, rather as...It was certainly not meant as an insult, rather as a compliment and as humour.<br /><br />I will listen carefully to the voice and the bass playing. But with respect to the bass playing, being good takes practice, and if Paul got lazy his playing could have slipped. The only conclusive argument can be the voice(s).<br /><br />Thanks for taking the time to debate!Stooy44https://www.blogger.com/profile/09347878945674182794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-43439862780458859652014-01-13T11:55:07.797-08:002014-01-13T11:55:07.797-08:00Oh, and since Ginevra was intelligent and lovely, ...Oh, and since Ginevra was intelligent and lovely, I'll take it as a compliment anyway. :)Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-92075511925635642332014-01-13T11:49:53.210-08:002014-01-13T11:49:53.210-08:00That is a deflection silliness -- sorry to be blun...That is a deflection silliness -- sorry to be blunt. Ha ha to satisfy you.<br /><br />How about this consideration, from Don Fox just now by e-mail regarding "not hearing the difference" and Paul sipping Mai Tais somewhere:<br /><br />"I’ve heard that double crap before as well [that Paul is still with us and overlapping with Faul's work actively] – a bunch of BS. I can immediately tell the difference between Paul and Faul singing (and playing). It’s really not that close. I don’t know why so many musicians can’t seem to figure it out. I’m not that good and I don’t have any trouble. Paul was a FAR more advanced bass player than Faul is. Paul was a MUCH better singer. I’ve heard that [some people think that] Faul was a piano player/singer before he became Faul. That makes sense.<br /><br />Compare the real Paul McCartney playing Can’t Buy Me Love at Shea in 65 to Faul playing it in Moscow. The real Paul just dominates that Hofner bass. He’s holding down the bottom end with Ringo and playing a toe tapping melody on top. It almost sounds like he’s in a jazz club somewhere if you just listen to the bass line. He sounds really snappy using captain caveman equipment. Faul plays the song OK but nothing special. Not much personality to that bass line. To me it’s the difference between a superstar and a lounge lizard. The real Paul McCartney was a stadium act. Faul is a cover band guy."<br /><br />I agree, though he is clever and contributed and I like some stuff Wings did.Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-48644972813410925802014-01-13T11:28:25.636-08:002014-01-13T11:28:25.636-08:00Trolls and shills revel and wallow in attempting t...Trolls and shills revel and wallow in attempting to discredit their opponents' claims with crude insults and detail-devoid rhetoric. And that does appear to be the case in lots of the comment threads on this forum, with excessively unproductive attacks on both the massive-fakery proponents and on the nukes-did-it adherents. Yet both propositions COULD be correct -- without necessarily contradicting or precluding the other. (They could both be false too, but the evidence for their mutual accuracy continues to mount, albeit amidst a regrettably high quotient of silly squabbling and personal attack.) <br /><br />Are the Sunstinian/Mossad shills at work here? Or is this messy/ugly cyber-fight just the result of way too many deficiencies in the categories of maturity, historical perspective, humility and civility -- exemplified in the behaviour of way too many participants?Andy Tymehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09215870996074492489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-79286679889803414112014-01-13T10:10:22.614-08:002014-01-13T10:10:22.614-08:00Clare, you look remarkably similar to Ginevra de B...Clare, you look remarkably similar to Ginevra de Benci. I wonder if you really are a replacement of the original? :)Stooy44https://www.blogger.com/profile/09347878945674182794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-6035733599118531402014-01-13T10:05:30.439-08:002014-01-13T10:05:30.439-08:00Correction: young Paul is shown once in footage af...Correction: young Paul is shown once in footage after 1966:<br /><br />in Mag Myst Tour film, in the 2 brief wizard tower scenes, as his final performance, so to speak. He must have -- unless you're right and he's been living under a rock -- been filmed before the end 1966 for some skit or planned wizard film, which was converted to what we have as the partly eulogistic MMT in 1967, including Paul in his happy wizard role with the button red nose and winning sudden smile and liveliness.<br /><br />RIP to John, George, Paul -- and Mal Evans, who probably died related to this issue.Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-14058176845242156792014-01-13T10:02:17.066-08:002014-01-13T10:02:17.066-08:00All right Clare, I will conduct the thought experi...All right Clare, I will conduct the thought experiment as I listen to the music, and see what my ears tell me. But you will never convince me to accept any of the other alleged evidence. It might all be faked, the voice(s) cannot be.<br /><br />I was born and raised in Etobicoke, at first not far from where 427 and 401 now intersect, just to the southwest. Later in Markland Wood, where Bloor Street passes over the Etobicoke Creek into Mississauga.<br /><br />I did see the Monkees in Maple Leaf Gardens, but could barely hear them due to all of the screaming.<br /><br />And I have a now departed uncle who spent his life in the Toronto Police Force, most of it as a detective. One of his assignments was to go to the Airport with some a couple other detectives and wait for a well-known rock star to appear. When the musician showed up they asked him to rub his hands through his hair, and several reefers fell out onto the floor. My uncle then slapped the cuffs on Jimi Hendrix.Stooy44https://www.blogger.com/profile/09347878945674182794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-2904455881981791892014-01-13T10:00:42.565-08:002014-01-13T10:00:42.565-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-24293905970510711182014-01-13T09:58:17.136-08:002014-01-13T09:58:17.136-08:00Also, Stooy44,
you personally do not hear differe...Also, Stooy44,<br /><br />you personally do not hear difference in the voices. Many do; certain inflections and methods of attack for notes, emotional pulling-back (choking the voice), and so on, which do not match when (under what circumstances) Paul did the same types of things.<br /><br />So,<br />I admit that "any hypothesis will do" at first, but your justification is very personal (that you do not "hear" a difference, and have not actually listened for exactly how to feel a different person, just in case), yet.<br /><br />Also, as I just said in a post, your position belies that prima facie, the clues fit poignancy, gore, grief far better than a hoax might normally.<br /><br />And if your hypothesis were true, the Paul image is never used again after 1966, so what is he doing, living in a cave with all the sadness about him hoaxed? What kind of idea is that?<br /><br />Do I have formal proof of the DEATH? No. Technically speaking, no-one has that. It is replacement which we have proof for.<br /><br />Voice proofs are hearable, but for a formal test of that, we have to pay $15-25 K, or get a kind voice forensics person to do the work on patterns of sound AND inaudible (inaudible, okay?) harmonics in the voices.<br /><br />Two facial experts did the work in their field for free, because they thought it was so crazy they'd like to disprove it. We got lucky, there.<br /><br />But it is hearable, seeable. If you want to. And yet, one can want to change perceptions and be wrong, as I said (not all the Beatles were replaced; impressions can be wrong either way!), so once you hear/see differences DELIBERATELY, then go back and compare what would be the case if it were not a replacement.<br /><br />Go back and forth several times. Really act as if he's different. Feel it. Try it. Feel weird and crazy but do it.<br /><br />Then go back.<br /><br />And actually, in this case, you'd be right with the replacement; for the rest of them, you'd be wrong. But the method to see/hear it for sure is to do what I'm suggesting. Try it on for size, so to speak.Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-26543347446037468062014-01-13T09:42:43.681-08:002014-01-13T09:42:43.681-08:00Music is something to listen to, but listening is ...Music is something to listen to, but listening is a kind of looking, and vice versa -- in other words we "image" or "rework and get a mental map" of what we hear, and we have to be careful when we think we have listened "carefully", not to simply go on an overall impression.<br /><br />In other words, like <br /><br />Paul after 1966 is consistent; there is some possibility that early switchover songs sometimes contained a bit of both voices, or morphing contributed to some similarity. And anyway, they have some natural similarity.<br /><br />IN ORDER TO NOTICE FACIAL AND VOCAL DIFFERENCES:<br />posit that he is different, get used to hearing/seeing that he is (as if he were, even if he is not). That ISOLATES ANY possible DIFFERENCES FOR YOU TO NOTICE. It does not mean he is different necessarily.<br /><br />Then actively compare the differences, the things which stand out as maybe totally different.<br /><br />This should help. He really was replaced, but if he hadn't been -- as, for example, the other Beatles were not replaced but some take impressions of them in different poses and later and voice aging and different moods and think they were replaced because they stay with the impression of difference and do not carefully come back to the assumption they are the same, which one must do to compare -- so again, if he hadn't been replaced, then the comparisons you do in the final analysis after "seeing and hearing him as a different person" will not add into a different person.<br /><br />When one makes the effort to see the same person as a different person, one can be shocked at how our brain will confirm that. So, do it, and pretend. Be shocked, suddenly see/hear them as different. Then go back to your old impression. Which one was better?<br /><br />That is how to do it. Be convinced one way, then the other, then compare.<br /><br />We ALSO HAVE A FORMAL STUDY, HOWEVER, FOR THE FACES, WHICH IS FULLY EXPLAINED. IT IS A POSSIBLE PROOF, FORMALLY, EVEN IF IT IS A WRONG PROOF IN THE END; IT IS THE TYPE OF THING WHICH CAN BE FORMALLY CONTESTED, IS WHAT I MEAN.<br /><br />He did learn left-handed bass (it is referred to often, by the way, in the material called "clues", which you assume too strongly is a hoax).<br /><br />Positing living together and moving to the Cayman Islands or some similar kinds of thinking is fine, up to a point, but it completely belies:<br /><br />the grief<br />the gore<br />the constant references<br />the consistent look and general sound differences in the new bandmateClare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-9548208942271617422014-01-13T06:05:19.576-08:002014-01-13T06:05:19.576-08:00Clare, music is something you listen to, not somet...Clare, music is something you listen to, not something you look at. If the voice is the same then the person is the same. This cannot be faked. <br /><br />Have you considered the possibility that the Beatles used their look-alike for photos and films to promote the hoax, but used the real Paul for the recordings? This would be consistent with the concert on the roof where Paul wore a beard (as a disguise) and sang in odd voices. In this scenario the double would never have had to play bass left-handed, nor would he have had to sing. As I asked earlier, do you have any real proof that the original Paul did die? Maybe he lived and the double was used to perpetrate the hoax for a period of time, again, with the real Paul doing the recording but nothing much else.<br /><br />Be careful not to draw conclusions not contained in the evidence.<br /><br />As I continue to listen I will continue to try to determine if I hear a different Paul in the later recordings.<br /><br />Best wishes to you too.Stooy44https://www.blogger.com/profile/09347878945674182794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-73215170809495053552014-01-12T16:26:54.383-08:002014-01-12T16:26:54.383-08:00(cont'd for Stooy44:)
4. What do I think happ...(cont'd for Stooy44:)<br /><br />4. What do I think happened, as in, natural accident or murder? There is no formal way of knowing. Let me say that right now. Much is not known in this case, and without more information available to sift through, will be unknowable, unlike with 9/11 or JFK, where much was available through commissions and so on.<br /><br />On the other hand,<br />I tend to think he was murdered (by car). I tend to think this because most instances of the so-called clues involve cars (in very constant ways) and the general scene around the Beatles included what I call, in aggregate, cultic-intel-crime. This means loose religious ideas (New Age), Satanism (positive view from and negative view from Crowley, etc.), pedophiles, money rackets, intel schemes for propaganda and emotional control of the masses (experimenting with public psychology) for political and Dr Strangelove-like social control. And the date, Sept 11, a cultic date number possibly. It comes from the clue and two anniversary dates thereafter (the PID-riddled semi-eulogy film Mag Myst Tour started filming 1 yr after, and John Lennon recorded Glass Onion on Sept 11 2 years after 1966, complete with overt mention of clue references and pleading to listen to him). So I tend to think it was murder.<br /><br />And I think it was for:<br />a) infiltration, influence for idea-spreading (trying to get them somewhat more into the New Age stuff)<br />b) compromise if necessary, a kind of blackmail or threat if they saw things, knew things<br />c) instability in this band of brothers, so that their previously friendly coherence could not resist what was coming in the intel/creep plans for the 60s co-opting of anti-war, etc.<br />d) Paul was becoming fast friends with Mark Lane, and overtly against the official story of JFK's death.Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-43184713881238047332014-01-12T16:26:15.836-08:002014-01-12T16:26:15.836-08:00Stooy44 (and sorry for the misspellings in my othe...Stooy44 (and sorry for the misspellings in my other posts!):<br /><br />I just noticed some of your questions above in this thread.<br /><br />1. You are lucky to have seen the Beatles (sort of). It was in Toronto, my city, as I can tell from your description of the highways. COOL! :) Long before I was born, sadly.<br /><br />2. The question of how much was faked is a good question, but in fact most of the material fits reasonable levels of faking: a doctored late face to make it seem more babyish, a doctored earlier face stretched to make it seem a bit longer, someone else's ear on a recent closeup photo (the straight line of Photoshopping at the cheek and the slightly different lighting condition are visible). That sort of thing. -- For voices, we don't know exactly which songs were doctored to sound a bit more Paul-like in some cases, or even where they may have used an underlying real Paul from some unreleased track. We can say that "Let it Be" and "Lady Madonna" and "Blackbird" are typical, unadultered Sir Paul, for though there is a soft bass-tone in them, they have the clipped form of his speech. -- Voice recordings of spoken word which have been around a long time are generally not doctored, but when you get seriously into this stuff, it is true that -- without radical doubt taking over, just careful doubt, remembering always to say that probably the minimum is usually done -- true that some recordings have been sped up, and some images altered in re-release, EVEN NOW. For example with the visual: the CD release of Sgt Pepper front cover of the album has SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT LETTERING style across the drumskin, so the clue doesn't work now. Also, early Sgt P has a green eye on Sir Paul, but now it is a brown eye and face is a bit rounded.<br /><br />That sort of thing.<br /><br />3. The types of faking and the feel of most of the so-called clues are reasonable for a real situation, not a hoax. In other words, they fake what would be the kinds of things people would notice now; the so-called clues are mostly poignant normal references to a friend and death, with a bit of cleverness, whereas only some are really clever.<br />Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-56000500335697558282014-01-12T16:00:05.396-08:002014-01-12T16:00:05.396-08:00Good, Stooey44. That is a start. Of course, to get...Good, Stooey44. That is a start. Of course, to get beyond that to the idea that he actually died, etc., one has to be open to looking for differences in voice (or face, which also has formal proofs available), and then asking if those are the kinds of differences which an impersonator would do or just natural changes.<br /><br />There are similarities; one would expect that.<br /><br />I grant you fully that until one internally sees/hears the difference, the knowing is hampered. But it is possible to know without seeing the trick.<br /><br />Best wishes.Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-46898839562503767102014-01-11T08:47:00.496-08:002014-01-11T08:47:00.496-08:00It is interesting that from about the time of the ...It is interesting that from about the time of the alleged death of Paul, real or not, the Beatles never played another live concert, with the exception of their appearance on the roof of their studio. And at this time Paul had a full beard and sang in unusual voices. <br /><br />You have not convinced me that Paul McCartney died, though I admit that he may have (the voice(s) sound the same to me, this is the problem with believing that Paul died) but you have certainly demonstrated to me that at the very least the hoax was far more elaborate and extensive than I ever realized.Stooy44https://www.blogger.com/profile/09347878945674182794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-65174468905310460652014-01-10T17:25:53.294-08:002014-01-10T17:25:53.294-08:00Don Fox has commented extensively on PID before an...Don Fox has commented extensively on PID before and has his own blogpage about it at http://donaldfox.wordpress.com/2012/12/18/pidcast-with-clare-kuehn<br /><br />Currently, however, he has the old link up with my blogpage on the subject; the new, correct link is http://youcanknowsometimes.blogspot.ca/2013/12/off-topic-new-paul-is-dead-clue-from-j.htmlClare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-70718285382201987302014-01-10T17:22:56.758-08:002014-01-10T17:22:56.758-08:00As Don Fox has said to me:
"I thought the PI...As Don Fox has said to me:<br /><br />"I thought the PID thing was a bunch of BS until I saw the Italian forensic team. Faul has a different jaw, teeth, nose and ears than James Paul McCartney who was born in 1942. They are clearly different people. (Tina Foster has a good post on this: http://plasticmacca.blogspot.ca/2010/01/forensic-science-proves-paul-was.html ) Once you start looking at Faul and comparing him to Paul you’ll notice that they move different on stage and Faul is just a bigger guy than Paul was. <br /><br />I was watching some live Beatles from1965 on YouTube and listening to Paul play bass – what a difference between Paul and Faul! Paul sounded almost like a jazz player live whereas Faul just kind of plods along playing generic bass lines. He sounds like a guy that had to learn how to play left handed."<br /><br />I can see why Don says that about the bass playing, and also the preference for certain sounds. But he's good, Sir Paul, and I enjoy Wings and think it is very interesting what we got as a total Beatle repertoire because they continued with a replacement and, sadly, without telling formally, they were under pressure and grief and secrecy which made some things weirder than they might have been even with drugs around.Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-40757942137249162102014-01-10T13:34:39.377-08:002014-01-10T13:34:39.377-08:00Stooey44: no Hey Jude clearly strains where Paulie...Stooey44: no Hey Jude clearly strains where Paulie wouldn't, Let it Be is a similar sound with the slightly more bass-voice undertones of Faul, without the real softness of tone.<br /><br />There is doubt about this.<br /><br />Learn the faces.<br /><br />As to Mike Brenner:<br />You happen to be wrong, but they do prove at LEAST a strong maybe; forensic photo analysis properly understood proves the rest formally, if you don't see it. It is actually obvious in most photos, but there are some situations where the impression is a little closer, until Sir Paul turns more or less and it's ruined.<br /><br />But if you don't see the dark-haired-other-man illusion (and he is not actually quite as dark haired naturally), then you have to learn about proportions full-frontal and what exactly is wrong.<br /><br />You don't actually have to see it to know.Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-15405432044555397202014-01-10T13:30:25.203-08:002014-01-10T13:30:25.203-08:00Agreed, Mike.Agreed, Mike.Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-2907821486833677042014-01-10T13:21:20.969-08:002014-01-10T13:21:20.969-08:00Hi there, Stooey44.
I am fully aware that one can...Hi there, Stooey44.<br /><br />I am fully aware that one can choose to see all the anomalies and so-called clues as non-clues, i.e., done for some other reason, such as a hoax.<br /><br />1. This ignores the poignancy and constancy of the material. It is gory and mournful most of the time.<br /><br />2. There have been forensic analyses done -- of the face. Learn those, if you do not see or hear the differences.<br /><br />3. Forensic voice analysis on the voices is 15-25 K. You wanna pay for it?Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.com