Monday, September 8, 2014

Clare Kuehn

Paul is still dead


  1. Sorry Clare. I like to give every theory a chance but I have religiously studied and listened to the Beatles and the dude singing on the first records and in the photos is the same bloke who started wings and now hangs out with cool people like Dave grohl. Stop with this meaningless research for your own sake. You seem like a sweet person but this is dumb.

    1. Attempt not to be an idiot stevie. Your hypothesis is forensically impossible. At least give us an hypothesis that CAN be true. Or tell us your new theory on adult skull morphology.

    2. Your skull morphs your bunghole

    3. What erudition! Your argument convinces much more than all that so-called thinking these suspicious thinkers do. PS: I think Grohl might be one of 'em!

    4. Listen you Khazarian dickhead. Lets have your theory of adult skull morphology or kill yourself before you pass the stupid gene on.

    5. No no stevie. Lets have your theory of adult skull morphology or admit you are wrong. Its that simple you fucking moron.

      Lets have that theory. Or lets have that retraction. Its not complicated. Or am I going too fast for you.

    6. Psythron: I present tons of evidence. This broadcast was how to approach the types of evidence, not so much a listing of specific claims.

    7. Stevie.T: Good for you for trying. This one requires patience, because it's so personal in how the perception issues get tricky.

      Keep trying!

    8. Stevie.T: GMB is right about how you must counter the work done on the other side. It is cross examination and in fact, because we are not in court, you have a burden of proof, too, to provide. You are not only to try to poke holes in the work done, but also to think through your own convictions from this angle that Paul died, as an opposite court case.

      By the way, to some degree a jury must do that no matter what: to understand the new claim properly, they must learn to see the world through its eyes.

      So, Stevie.T: when there is a trick, it is imperative not to approach the putative trick (problem area) with the same emotional tack you used to build up the other one. If you "study the Beatles", you will likely not come to the conclusion Paul died. You will miss a lot, loving the impression left by the trick, not learning where the direct evidence for holes is and the alternate ways to see the general impression's false leads.

  2. I will listened to this. I promiss I will try. I will try... Try so hard to understand a single sentence from her.. My promiss to you Fetzer. Just no today

  3. The song I Am The Walrus begins with an English ambulance siren sound and carries the theme throughout. Very eerie. Good job Clare. For those who claim to not be able to understand Clare, go back and listen to all the previous shows with her and Jim. She is building on a foundation here. Also, if you have any interest in this case (and you should, if nothing else but for a thinking exercise) there are mountains of evidence out there. I did my research years ago and came to the same conclusion as Clare, but she has done a marvelous job and has brought many new things to light.

    1. Thank you, Linda. Yes, the information and approaches are each a bit different in the now 4 broadcasts here on the subject. -- My other broadcasts are on the other, more well-worn subjects of this radio show.

    2. Linda, thank you for pointing out the English siren. Helpful tidbit, if so. I don't know what sound you mean. Can you point out what you mean?

  4. So Once Again: We're Taught Rock-n-Roll Is Huge Psy-Ops....

    By golly, Prof., I duly went and listened to all 2 hrs of this INTERMINABLE . . . recitation. U must be BIG fan of this material/subject-matter. I listened to and liked Beatles too, but gosh--why couldn't Clare just sum it all up either at the beginning or at least at the end, or any time?--was it really appropriate for 2 full hrs of droning on and on and on? Ho ho ho ho

    But I take the pt. fm Dave McGowan, etc., about rock-n-roll being a huge psy-ops. And after all, if they got away (so far) w. executing JFK in broad-daylight in front of all our faces in 1963, why then couldn't they pull-off another, lesser, psy-ops in 1966 or whenever, right?

    I also seem to recall there was a replacement, also, round about same time, of Pope Paul VI--then later, of course, we had the elimination of Pope John-Paul I in 1978.

    So I take the pt. that such psy-op is quite possible, but we still seem to be missing the WHY--did Paul die and Beatles so important psy-op in itself that they then had to insert a replacement?

    So I guess, in general, TV and Rock-n-Roll were psy-ops, heavily monopolized, chaperoned, and affected by the Satanists, and the amazing, pathetic, little brain-dead morons we got (I flatter myself as a survivor, hoh ho ho ho) who pretend they're "advanced-thinkers," "progressives," and "liberals," these as expressions of the prevailing moralism-Pharisaism regnant for nearly TWO centuries now, since Immanuel Kant.

    So I guess I'm just waiting for something more informative and conclusive to all the circumstances, factoids, and trivia that we get fm such as Clare who did best she could, I guess.

    1. It is not as simple as "all rock n' roll is a psy-op or surely myself and Gary King would not dig this music the way we do. If anything, it is more the opposite. Music is an organic outgrowth of a time and place, and will both mirror the times and help spread various cultural memes.

      But is it subject to infiltration? Could Tavistock or other social engineering try to wield influence as any powerful interest can? Sure.

      Are there assassinations of our most powerful icons because of their very power of influence? Sure. John Lennon is the case study there.

      I think our current musical environment is another matter, and the corporate influence -- while always present -- is surely the most restrictive and controlling it has ever been with regards to who gets the tap on the shoulder to be financed and promoted to juggernaut status.

      Paradoxically, the Internet has liberated much art just as it has put all the foundation funded institutions to account for their stifling of true cultural evolution.

      The result is a kind of fragmentation of the market -- there will never be another Beatles in the same way that all of Anerica will never watch one of three news anchors again.

      Yet all who wield influence -- mostly those who are allowed and funded to through a kind of organized spectacle guild, if you will, dare not tarry too far off the reservation as if bound by a kind of contract.

      Often, however, as artists have the disposition to be compassionate and conscious observers of our reality, and excellent communicators with sympathy among the commons they usually spring from, they are prone to suffer a great cognitive dissonance, as they strive to be both authentic and yet retain the confidence of their placement to such lofty heights.

      In politics, people talk of JFK waking up; in music, Michael Jackson had enemies before he died; and John Lennon-- bless his heart -- put his full art to the task of peace.

      Vested powers are likely to envisage these men for the threats they were to the status quo.

    2. Fed COUNTERFEITING Primary Means, Rock-n-Roll Conditioning Then Used For Psy-Ops

      Well, I'm sure I follow u, but I don't think u're really saying anything we don't already know.

      JFK was "loose-cannon" who seemed to be going his own way too much, esp. in way of lessening tensions w. USSR, so ZOG took him out, including as "example" for all others who were on "inside."

      And ZOG had such iron-clad grip on culture and societal psychology they were able to get away w. it--so far.

      For myself, these psy-ops and assassinations demonstrate the activity of ZOG criminal masterminds who control the money-supply--which seems to be slipping only now in time of I-net by which folks learn about Fed legalized COUNTERFEITING and the power it gives an extended criminal tribe (Jews), accomplices, and the satanistic masterminds therein, rock-n-roll used by these Satanists to cultivate over-populated morons and schizoids in CYCLIC "Decline of the West," by Spengler, the schizoid hordes incapable of effectively opposing ZOG.

    3. Apsterian: no, rock and roll is not a huge psy ops. Co-opting of the scene (violence, drug, harmful sexual deviance, etc.) and parts of the creation of styles is.

    4. Golly gee, but thanks for clearing that up for us, Clare: Rock-n-roll is NOT psy-ops, whew--ho ho ho hoho ho

    5. Apsterian: your attitude to learning is really resistant on this issue, even if it were a wrong idea under discussion.

      I answered you regarding what you seemed to think I thought: that rock and roll was a huge psy op. I also clarified for you what I did say, which you missed, which was that there were ops in and around it.

      Back to Paul's death as a case:

      Please learn the evidence well -- from the blog and the other broadcasts. Take notes. Do due diligence -- not what you feel is due, but intellectually what is required for you to truly familiarize yourself with the case.

      Then list what you think is "bunk" and why. - There are ways to understand circumstantial evidence and ways not to. - There are also two claims for every piece of evidence you can bring up, even if one stretches the evidence massively. You know that. You can ad hoc this and say you want to believe the other way. This way, however, has the best proof lines of reasoning from all angles, without prejudicial wishes getting in the way.

  5. I love you, Clare. And I love J for having shows like this. In epistemological warfare, we must sharpen the saw.

  6. As a bass player who was initiated to that church of rock n' roll, I can say that Come Together illustrates the central theme beautifully, as the song is constructed on the bass refrain , and it's chief message -- beyond the clever insights -- is the longing to be free. Pink Floyd, that another band that called me to music, will also discuss pigs flying, and if you look on the Animals cover , take on the symbology of The Wall, we cannot help but perceive the Shakespeare method of presenting sub-rosa truth, and in these cases, one is smacked with something rotten in the state of England, particularly from WWII on, and the military state -- which has yet to be named precisely -- but which rules the world nonetheless, and I urge listeners to look into Francis Bacon, the Shakespeare authorship question, and the grand tradition of urging on the reformation of the world beneath the noses of the entrenched old world order. To wit , the divine bird song that Saint Frances was ridiculed for, has added significance when applied to Bacon, giving us again the image of the flying pigs alluded to by the most collegiate and attuned rock artists. What were they rebelling against, that both fed them and killed them? Who is the pornographic priestess -- that Palladian archetype -- that catches most of the workd's leaders with "their knickers down" and being "naughty boys"? What will Dave M. say of such esoteric riddles , and what does he say of the role of art in the world, both plastic and metallic, and where can one find the truth, that perennial religion lost among the ruins of avarice.

  7. Please have Clare on again, even if she discusses but the weather.
    Or Charles II, Vril, Shake-Speare
    Me thinks she too has a feather.

    There is much hidden history that precedes these more current topics, but which adds a great deal of light.

    And I was stunned to hear how she argues her case, in hopes that in similar fashion, all men might.

    1. :) I try to lift the level of general argument tools. This case is an excellent one, since it requires using all of them so overtly. Thank you.

    2. By golly Clare, but we're so lucky to have u, eh? Ho ho ho ho But hey, if u're good enough for our dear Prof. Fetzer, then that's good enough, eh? Ho ho h ho ho

  8. Mark Lane is mysterious by himself. If he had a deep friendship with Paul, that alone is of considerable note.

    1. Mark Lane was a CIA agent from day one.

    2. Apsterian: your use of religion here for average people is actual bigotry. -- There are many who thought Lane was used by or even from the CIA. However, I think he was not, by a long shot. One way or another, Paul's own deep awareness about Lane's groundbreaking work would be one strong motive for taking him out.

    3. Clare's Effort Defective For Overall Historical Context

      So it's "bigotry," ho ho ho--so what?--are u trying to make some kind of pt. here? Ho ho ho ho. Get a clue: I'm absolute anti-Semite, a total Christian soldier--but u can call it "bigotry" if u like, ho ho ho ho

      Regarding Lane (and Greenbaum), I simply asked for the obligatory ref., get it? As I understand, Mark Lane owns/controls American Free Press ( "Paul's own deep awareness..."?--this also needs some ref.

      Clare, u lack resolution and conclusiveness for ur entire effort, and ur comments here really make little sense. Honestly, I really see little relative significance whether "Paul" lived or died--or for the Beatles, for that matter, aside fm idea it isn't good if innocent people are being murdered. Yet another question is whether Paul was so "innocent," having married a Jew, as I understand.

      This is simply, in general, historically, the CYCLIC "Decline of the West," by Oswald Spengler, Jews and Satanists now having a strangle-hold on the culture/society--this is large context which u have serious difficulty grasping, it seems. All the crap about Paul being dead or not is mere details which u utterly fail to have organized or placed in proper perspective, it seems to me.

  9. Exactly, Solfeggio, I was also quite taken aback by that revelation (Mark Lane and Paul). This is an alley that seems not to be blind.

    By the by, I wonder if a show on Jack the Ripper might be in order. I'd love to hear Clare's take on that.

    1. I almost mentioned that! I like the way Clare thinks; and she is great on topics of complexity, nuance, or those shrouded in multiple husks of hermeneutics. But she can talk for two hours and be completely fascinating on a subject some would never approach.

      If I were Rex Mundi, I would make her ambassador to sort out the mid-east, lol...but seriously, she is great at "telescoping" between various frames of reference, seeing through diverse perspectives.

      One doesn't get the feeling she is polemicizing because she will be the first to point out why and wherefore she can be misunderstood, misinterpreted, and so forth, all while appealing to common sense and discussing intellectually heavyweight issues without having to resort to evasive language, dogmatic commitments, or obscurantism.

      Because I think that all issues within this "truth movement" are epistemological warfare, it is helpful when one listens to another who is aware of the big picture as well as the detail you are looking at now. So as she approaches topics, she is always ensuring everyone is simultaneously observing her skepticism with skepticism, but in such a way that one does not fall into an abyss of relativistic nihilism. Hence it is not surprising her own site is something akin to "you CAN know some things." It is an uplifting and important distinction to be made in a time of universal deceit, when the enemy often wants you to get lost in the labyrinth, thinking "oh we will never know who killed JFK, and so forth...

    2. Solfeggio,

      "you CAN know some things."!?

      There is no such thing as "CAN know". You either "know" or you
      don't "know". There is NO in between.

      Your crass use of the words:

      " "you CAN know some things." "

      shows your entire post up for what it truly is i.e. total bunk.

      You really should stop drinking Clare Kuehn's Kool Aid.

    3. Of course you CAN know some things, as opposed to you CAN'T know some things. How many people say "we will never know" about this or that? Yes, you either know or you don't know - in the present tense - but when you're referring to the future, well, you will or won't or can or can't know things. It's elementary.

    4. What utter drivel!! How "can" you know something? Give an example of a sentence in English
      where the word "can" is followed by the word "know" that makes sense. For example "I can know what time it is if I look at the clock" is absurd. The word "can" has no value in that sentence and
      and may be omitted. "I know what time it is if I look at the clock" is the correct way to express the idea. You cannot "know" something. In other words, you either KNOW something or you do not KNOW
      something. As regards your cretinous reference to the future,
      you are again missing the point.
      It's clear that you have not thought this matter through at all.
      And the only thing elementary about this is your stupidity.

    5. Why the emotion? I have no agenda, but to compliment a guest. And I was merely quoting what I understood from memory was what her website was entitled.

      As for the linguistics, are you in want of battle over semantics, or are you finding some offense in the content she presents? I ask in good faith. One need not listen, or one can engage in discourse in a friendly collegiate manner about those points O'r we disagree can we not?

      For when voices attack, particularly with a kind of vehement dismissal, it should be couched in as fair terms as the points they would refute, less keener eyes should then probe why such offense be taken in such manner, and if this be not more sinister in purpose than that voice which the more vulgar tone seeks so fervently to silence.

      If we occupy this digital forum, are we not open minds in common pursuit of mutual goals, whether it be knowledge, entertainment, edification, or curiosity? To what cause should we reproach those authors and guests to which we are but as guests in their home?

      Does the digital divide between our fair host and his audience allow for our traditional etiquette to be dismissed so that we would roam our hosts home, defaming or adding not but a vulgar presence there?

    6. In jest, it reminds me of the old classroom drill:

      "Can I go to the bathroom, teacher?"

      "No, but you may go to the bathroom."

    7. In jest, it reminds me of the old classroom drill:

      "Can I go to the bathroom, teacher?"

      "No, but you may go to the bathroom."

      You are missing the point. We are dealing here with "can know" and not "can go" or any other use of "can" other than with the verb "know". Your introduction of
      "may go" is a totally different construction and is, as such, an irrelevant diversion.
      To ask the question "Can I go to the bathroom", as you know,
      strictly speaking
      means and to paraphrase
      " Am I physically able to go to the bathroom?"
      whereas " May I go to the bathroom?"
      means, again as you know, "Have I permission " or " Am I allowed to go to the bathroom? ". However, nowadays the distinction between "can" and "may" in this construction has become blurred and almost obsolete and is now enforced by pedantic teachers and members of various internet forums. One is reminded of the TV interviewer who posed the question to some US president or other: " May I ask the president if the rumors regarding his upcoming State of the Union address are true?". To which the president replied: " Yes. You may. "
      making no comment on his upcoming State of the Union address and waiting silently for the interviewer's next question.
      The point being that the interviewer may ask whatever question he may but equally the president may or may not answer it.
      As you know, the word "may" is also used to form the subjunctive
      as in sentences such as "He may arrive tomorrow" or "..the president may or may not answer it. "
      To reiterate, we are concerned here solely with the use of the words "can know".

    8. Psythron: "Can" refers to ability level. "Know" refers to item one has ability to reach.

      This discussion has gone off track, thanks to you, a resister of the Paul death concept in general.


      Yes, Linda, the issue of Jack the Ripper is fascinating.

    9. "Nothing you can know that isn't known. Nothing you can see that isn't shown..."

  10. Clare, look into Dave McGowan's research. For instance, he says there was no music scene in LA when the Laurel Canyon thing started. Capitol Records was there... with a landmark building, no less. Whiskey a Go Go was there... about the most famous rock club on earth. There were all kinds of clubs in full swing.

    That bit is just plain balderdash.

    Hippies were in full swing all up and down the west coast, especially in the Bay Area, BEFORE the LC stuff. In '67 they began being referred to as "flower children" as often as "hippies". They were NOT called "freaks" first. That didn't start up until some time after the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers came out in '68.

    An awful LOT of the stuff he's saying is flat out untrue and some googling will pretty quickly convince you of it.

    He might be onto something, but it DEFINITELY came AFTER the cultural movement was ALREADY going strong. 1967 was when the psychopaths decided to use it, for sure, or at least when they gave evidence of it, and probably did kill Paul, but citing Dave McGowan on this stuff is NOT helping PID at all, and casts a LOT of innocent people in a very bad light.

    ... which was the psychopaths' intent from the start....

    1. The hippie movement can be traced back to the mid 50s on the West Coast. The surf scene was one of the places where the hippie ideal started and surfers were 'dropping out' in the mid-50s, many drove south down the Pacific coast of Mexico and lived in commune-like surf camps, there they discovered the wonderful Mexican marijuana. The Brotherhood of Eternal Love sprouted from this surf scene and the surfers were the ones who started the smuggling of marijuana into California.

    2. Yessirree, Ian! I grew up in it, and it was long since a very mellow counterculture, peppered with radicals who stood for important things, and we stood with them. We were NOT too stoned to care, NOT too stoned to get out there and stand for a stop to the slaughter and human rights and an end to the calcified social ethic.

      We were good to each other! And, you are so right, we were doing it for a long time before the LC debauch. I just come unglued whenever I hear this McGowan fellow, or kids who were not there, talking about this stuff. I could even see it being that erroneous if everyone who lived in it were long dead, but we're still here!

      Just ask!

      I remember distinctly when the media focus shifted to LA, thinking it was just a floozy imitation, too Hollywood, too vacuous, UNreal. And now these kids are talking like that was the START of it.

      So frustrating not to be able to reach through the monitor and shake some sense into them. I try to tell myself it doesn't matter, but I think it really DOES matter, that nothing good is going to come from this disinformation spreading among the youth.

    3. I fully agree. I wasn't there,being born in 1975, but I've talked to many who were and studied the period in depth.

      The counterculture movement was hijacked, disrupted and derailed by the powers that be because it was getting dangerous.

      They chose to do it through drugs. Just contrast the counterculture scene in 1964-5 to a few years later in 68-69 - drugs had ravaged the scene and caused many to become strung out.

      They created and promoted bands to push the use of drugs, The Grateful Dead being a prime example.

      It succeeded and the death blow was struck at Altamont - a very bad kind of acid or some similar psychedelic was distributed there and it caused a very bad vibe that lead to much violence - the west coast hippie ideal died tht day in December 1969. Those who wishedto adhere to the hippie ideal and the back to the earth movement fled California, some went north into Oregon and Washington, some went East into the hills of Tennessee and Kentucky.

      Who cares if Paul is Dead, he was part of a band that was controlled and manipulated to promote drug use and disrupt and derail the counterculture movement.

    4. 1. Of course if Paul is dead it matters as a perception coverup in its own right.

      2. The Beatles were a remarkable set of musicians and an historical grand moment, so their history matters.

      3. McGowan does not say there were "no" hippies of any kind we now talk of, and no music scene at all in LA, but rather how the scene is horribly contrived to expand, corrupt and backed by the worst elements (from our point of view).

    5. Yeah right--Beatles, Paul being one of them, were significant as they made drug culture fashionable and "cool," eh?--other than that, Beatles were a flag-ship for the Jews-media hype and "publicity." Beyond that Beatles were fairly insignificant, certainly no more so than all the other rock-n-roll bands. Clare u're so full of babble u should be ashamed.

    6. Apsterian: babble is when a person does not move on with their thoughts, or when they speak about a subject without knowledge. You do both.

      The Beatles were people, in the simple sense, first and foremost. They were geniuses of a simpler music than orchestral musical form is, but used the brilliant transitions inherent in great Western music. They were also a cultural hit -- beyond comparison with others -- and as such were promoted moreso and infiltrated by friends and the new Paul.

      "Jewry" in your usage is so broad it's meaningless; you use it to give an honourary dishonour to anyone you dislike or power structures you dislike (including those which we'd all agree are not good for the public); in other words, you use the term fanatically and bigotedly, where any value against Israel's & other defenders of Israel's deepest psyops become muddied.

      Now, back to Paul's death (as a case):

      Please list what you think is "bunk" and why. To do so, you're going to have to learn the case far better than you show here. I will not re-argue the points here, but can help you with some or some broad pointers. - There are ways to understand circumstantial evidence and ways not to. - There are also two claims for every piece of evidence you can bring up, even if one stretches the evidence massively. You know that. You can ad hoc this and say you want to believe the other way. This way, however, has the best proof lines of reasoning from all angles, without prejudicial wishes getting in the way.

  11. To bolster your case, you'd need to show that your methods of distinguishing 2 (or more) different people from photos of ostensibly the same person also work on photos of other people, i.e. that your methods are valid and demonstrate what you purport to demonstrate. As argued by a lady in the last forum on PID (whose name escapes me at the moment- my apologies!), when these methods (e.g. ear analysis) are applied to different photos of other celebrities under varying conditions of lighting, time, place, etc., these celebrities are incorrectly identified as two or more different people! Her arguments were sound and were never refuted. If applying the same criteria in other cases results in incorrect conclusion, why would we believe it in this case? Do we have ANY evidence that the techniques used to identify two different Paul's are objectively reliable and valid? This whole argument is weak. Paul didn't die. But a much more convincing case can be made that John Lennon never died either! I'd like to see Fetzer interview Miles Mathis. Here is the link:

    1. No, the case that Lennon never died falls into radical doubt.

      Paul's death has direct and multiple directional support.

      As to photo analysis: I gave the gist of how to notice. It is not niggledy-piggledy exactitude we are after in this; for that, you can go to the talk of the forensic proportions work of the forensic scientists. They give the gist of their science and it works, too.

      What I point out here (that you missed, somehow), is how to get a sense of the differences and then to sustain it long enough to see whether the differences build one kind of head and face or another.

      I also have been a sculptor and painter and though some say they "can't see the difference", I can say that though there are some ways initially the resemblance will fool in some photos, there is always something giving it away, from some tendency of each putatively different person (of course), visible in other photos of that putatively different person.

      Hence, they are different.

      And the whole case overall is consistent & rich, too (what in court is called the circumstantial case).

      He died.

  12. Clare has an IQ hovering around 200, this girl is so smart that she scares me. I too scoffed at the idea; This girl is right and willing to stand up as David did with Goliath. Thank you Clare for being so gregarious with this painful truth...

    1. "Clare has an IQ "hovering"
      around 200...."

      200 what? Feet?

      So when do you think
      it's going to land?

    2. Clare Kuehn's Overall Lack Of Conclusion, Order For Exposition Is Problem

      Gary: we're merely looking for more resolution & conclusiveness for serious, USEFUL info: Clare drones on and on and on, but what do we get for any genuine info/conclusion?--basically, she, by her own admission, just seconds Dave McGowan for the psy-ops nature of ZOG making use of the TV and Rock-n-roll. And WHO controls Hollywood, etc.?--JEWS and Satanists.

      And even McGowan leaves much to be desired for such conclusion, eh?

      So I submit the overall purpose of this psy-ops is (a) to divorce the population, esp. the youth fm the traditional Christian-oriented culture which at least keeps people wary of Jews, hence Satanism which is now absolutely RAMPANT, even dominating.

      (b) Purpose further, is to render the poor victims, like esp. aforementioned youth, into SCHIZOIDS easily manipulated by Satanists who now control our culture evermore.

      What are "schizoids"?--basically, it's people having difficulty discerning btwn reality of perceptually-verified CONCRETES and abstracts. Worst examples are outright schizophrenics who become utterly lost within their own dis-ordered mentalities.

      But practical purpose is especially to maintain "good-evil" delusion/fallacy/heresy (Pelagianism) which Jews and satanists so typically and famously manipulate in way of "advanced-thinking," for "progressives," and "liberals," who are legion, the fans of Daily Kos and Huffington Post, pushing idiot lies like, especially, "climate-change" fraud.

      So pt. is what we get fm Clare Kuehn is effectively just more babble, sound & fury which DISTRACTS rather than informs for serious conclusions and info.

      Same goes for so much of the typical, usual JFK stuff--just distraction fm ZOG, Jews, and Satanists who "removed" a "loose-cannon" and taught the "insiders" a lesson about dissenting fm the Satanist/Kabalist agenda.

    3. I would disagree with the notion generally that Christianity is traditional or providing a check on the "Jewish Question" to invoke that old phrase to hit home how long this has been a question.

      However, I do think certain liberal branches of Christianity -- and dare I say that true but almost holy lost Christianity -- was precisely a check on that issue.

      It was the first reformation that sought to check the Old Testament God at the door, in favor of the "Kingdom" and the Christ consciousness eschatology you will not find in many western churches.

      What is Israel's main protector but the "JudaeoChristianity" clothes she wears for the crowd while concealing her contradictions and true Babylonian creed.

    4. REAL Christian Worship Of TRUTH Only Hope Against Jews, Satanists

      Yes solfeggio: u almost begin to start to grasping the essential issue(s). The REAL Christianity is TRUTH TRUTH TRUTH above all/any precepts (Gosp. JOHN 14:6) vs. Jew lies (JOHN 8:44).

      The REAL Christianity is perfectly rational, endorsing/invoking Aristotelian OBJECTIVE reality, necessary basis of TRUTH TRUTH TRUTH against Jew lies, founded in subjectivist pretext, this subjectivism invoked by moralism/Pharisaism and non-existent "good-evil."

      But what happened?--Christianity became mystified for the people, made to seem to rejecting REASON. Thus Jews and Satanists who now rule and dominate want to keep Christianity mystified, as u seem to indicate by the hereticalists like the Judeo-Christian scum u note.

    5. Hi, Gary. Yes, thanks for realizing the sadness of the situation. -- Aside to the others: The "Xian vs. Zio" debate is not specifically relevant here, though of course different world powers have their representatives in many events somewhere.

    6. Clare's Expo Suffers Grievously For Context, Perspective

      Clare: this statement (above) of urs goes to show how pathetically out-to-lunch u really are. "Christian vs. zio"--or Christian vs. Satanist--gives the overall historical context for all this about Paul, Beatles, Rock-n-roll, etc. No wonder u're so dis-connected for ur babbling exposition, otherwise seemingly coherent, which keeps our good Prof. Fetzer so seemingly spell-bound.

      Get a clue, Clare: Jew bankers, led by Rothschilds, took control of Western culture during/after Napoleonic wars, have been consolidating ever since--this is "Decline of the West," by Oswald Spengler, get it?

      Rothschilds and Sassoon Jews of Brit. East India Co. then cornered the market for opium and made umpteen millions selling it in China in mid 19th cent., and have dominated drug-trade ever since.

      Thus, and further, to keep the goyim under control, among other things, like making money in the post WWII "prosperity," the drug-culture was ushered-in by means, among others, of Rock-n-roll and Beatles, etc.

      So if "Paul" is significant, ur task then is to put things in context--get it?--which u DON'T DO very well w. all ur babbling and droning on and on and on. U're lucky u have Dave McGowan as ref.; otherwise u might seem to be even MORE dis-connected. It's good thing for u and us Prof. Fetzer appreciates ur info/expo--otherwise rest of us would have difficulty appreciating ur material, such as it is.

  13. That's all we need. Clare Kuehn back again for the umpteenth time with her Paul-Is-Dead malarkey. Isn't it about time Miss Kuehn with her insipid and cockamamie crap and vapid and insane nonsense was told where to get off? Just when we thought the forum couldn't get any worse, it does. How many more podcasts with Clare Kuehn and her PID swill on this forum do we have to endure? Is there no end to Clare Kuehn and her obsessional crud?

    Enough is enough is ENOUGH!!

    1. Why exactly do you have to endure anything? The podcast title clearly says Clare is on. Just don't listen to it. Are you that idiotic?

      The point is that Clare Kuehn has been on too much. She has monopolized the forum for too long. All we get is the same inane mumbo-jumbo pseudo-scientific, pseudo-forensic hogwash. Kuehn brings no evidence to the table and never will because there is no evidence for her so-called Paul IS Dead nonsense. Kuehn is a waste of this forum's bandwidth. The podcast title states that Clare Kuehn is on and Clare Kuehn should not be on again and again and again. Clare Kuehn should get the message, wise up and take a hike and you should do the same.

    2. Psythron: I think u go too far here. It's up to Prof. Fetzer to decide if the info is worthwhile for fans listening-in. I think there may well be worthwhile info and details, though I wish Clare could organize it better, that's all. If it was Alex Jones, he'd be interrupting, looking for more summing-up, etc., ho ho ho

    3. Yes. " Alex Jones, he'd be interrupting, looking for more summing-up, etc., "

      Alex Jones would be tearing her apart whereas Jim Fetzer lets Kuehn get away with the most outrageous statements without
      challenge. Kuehn has been on several podcasts with the exact same bullshit. Why Jim Fetzer keeps bringing her back to recite her same old Paul is dead claptrap over and over and over again beats me.Listen to Kuehn's previous podcasts on this PID crap. It's the same fucking rambling and disorganized bullshit every time and Jim Fetzer laps it up without any comment.
      And the reason it's rambling and disorganized is to hoodwink Jim Fetzer and the listeners.

      Kuehn is the biggest con artist there has ever been on this forum.

    4. To the people in this part of the thread: My work & advocacy on all your pet subjects is well evidenced even in this one archive, not to mention the work I did for the Vancouver 9/11 Hearings & on the Oswald in the Doorway subject, with Jim. Your impressions of me, because of expected cognitive dissonance on this uncomfortable subject, are wrong. -- Apsterian: the subject is little known to listeners, so each broadcast we've done takes a different tack. This one was more broad on exactly how to approach the gists; it is summative, but had to give some broad info, too.

  14. Ho ho ho--righto, Jew-w.-a-thousand-names, ho ho ho ho

  15. All you people reacting so vociferously against PID need to put in some hours of research. Your objections are flimsy.

    I once heard a band in a club from outside on the street. If I didn't look inside I would not have known it was not the Beatles. It is relatively easy to mimic the originals well enough to fool most people.

    Paul was shorter than Faul. Rounder. Better looking. More intelligent. Much less testosterone-addled. Paul was sweet and congenial and all-for-one-and-one-for-all. Shy! Retiring. Looking forward to a very early RETIREMENT, mowed down by the Beatlemania. Clearly not comfortable with it.

    You maybe are conflating the kind of popularity enjoyed by today's pop stars with what must've been the case with the Beatles. Wrong. The ENTIRE United States went immediately crazy for them. Girls at least as young as third grade on up to middle-aged women. EVERYONE liked them. Their music and their personae. Grownups even stopped bitching about their long hair relatively quickly.

    The loss of Paul in 1966 would've been outright apocalyptic. The world has not seen anything as huge since. I'm NOT exaggerating.

    But we DID lose him in 1966. A lot of us noticed it at the time, but not dreaming it could actually be that he was replaced. That's just too fantastic to think on the moment, and especially back then.

    The first picture I saw of "him" [Faul] after the switch, I came right out and said, "That's not Paul!" I thought the magazine must've put some impostor in as some sort of joke or maybe even a mistake.

    There are still pictures and videos and recordings of Paul that can be contrasted with those of Faul, and even though much has been put out to muddy this up and you start feeling dizzy after a while, if you stick with it, you, if you are honest, have to conclude that whoever that is running around with his name, it is NOT Paul McCartney.

    I know how preposterous it sounds, and I know it is easier for those of us who knew them at the time, who were alive and paying attention at the time, to see the truth of this, but it really is still possible for anyone with an open mind to get at the truth.

    Paul IS still dead.

    1. "Nines" Shows Us How To Be Distracted

      Yeah right, blah blah blah blah.

      First of all, u exaggerate pathetically when u say, "The ENTIRE United States went immediately crazy for them," blah blah blah.

      And note, we're NOT saying it (Paul's replacement) didn't happen or couldn't have happened--we're just wondering about the circumstances and implications, like ZOG manipulating fool schizoids like u.

      U may have a tiny, extremely SMALL part of the "truth," but u otherwise seem to GROSSLY miss the real pt. to things in my view, including things like making the drug-culture more fashionable for the young schizoid dumbasses, etc.

    2. Re: The Beatles. I'm quite sure we the hype machine manipulated the living fuck out of us all, but the Beatles were not made up out of whole cloth. They'd already been a band, an extremely hardworking one for years. They were real people, not actors in the service of some nefarious force.

      Yes, Ringo was put in at the last minute, but he had already been a drummer heavily in demand at the time.

      Inside a week of their first appearance in a magazine here, not even yet on Ed Sullivan, every girl I knew had a monster crush on one or another of them in particular, but all of them in general. Every boy I knew was avid to emulate them.

      Despite massive and obvious promotion by music industry execs, etc, the product was solid and pleasing to people on many fronts. Great music. Great humor. Sex appeal. Fashion sense. The works. Until John was taken amiss about his Jesus comment, there wasn't a peep against them I ever heard.

      The circumstances of Paul's death, and of what pressures came to bear on the Beatles, are known by people afraid for their lives to expose. These "ZOG" people, whatever that means, are pretty clearly not going to have it. There have been too many precipitous deaths not to be sure of that much.

      And it wasn't the so-called "drug culture" that wrecked the movement. That's just outright idiotic. Pot and psychedelics don't ruin your life or your brain unless maybe you are already a train wreck waiting to happen.

      What brought us down was MONEY. They let loose with some fabulously well-paying jobs for us and soon former "freaks" were better known as "suits".

      Spraying insults all over a comments thread is, I think, the last refuge of the weak-minded... or so lazy as to end up that way... and I'm trying to tell you the drug-culture was already extremely fashionable before the Beatles dove in.

      Maybe it's debatable whether they dove in or were shoved in, but that is actually moot because the Beatles were actually BEHIND the curve on that one. Maybe Paul was holding them up on that front.

      Again, the drugs we were doing DO NOT do to people what you seem to think they do, seem to think these "ZOG" types were shooting for. Meth, yes. Maybe even cocaine to some extent. Heroin, usually or partially. But it wasn't ANY of those until after 1970.

      Maybe your ZOGs had been aiming for that with their contributions to the pot and psychedelics, but they had to give it up and buy us off because it was NOT working to neutralize us.

      Money neutralizes most people, and so does killing enough of the leaders and people who know too much.

      Seems to ME, if you want to get to all these points of complete truth about what happened to Paul and what happened to/with the Beatles, you are going to need to help get enough people to realize FIRST that Faul is NOT Paul... or there just flat out won't be enough controversy to provide cover for the whistleblowers.

      THEN it will be safer for those with the real evidence to come forward. Not before.

      Seriously. Think. It. Through.

    3. Ho ho ho--righto, moron who babbles and asserts without substantiation, whatever u say, ho oh hoho ho.

      ZOG is Zionist occupation gov., moron.

      Beatles psy-op worked brilliantly on u, ho ho ho

    4. Ho ho ho--righto, fool, u don't say, ho ho ho

    5. Nines: you are right.

      RIP to Paul & thank you to him -- a few hours ago, Sept 11.

    6. Clare: what is "nines" "right" about?--tell us.

  16. you have Walking Dead like the Kennedy family, why then one ignores possibility of the dead that are kept alive. Like Freddy Mercury said Show Must Go On, then died form a non existent decease.This reminds me of that retarded Stephen Hawking machine spouting chaff.

  17. This wins my vote for the biggest waste of time. Ever! Not saying that because this is new to me and I'm not capable of believing it. I'm saying it because I have already wasted time checking out if this is true, and it is not. Clare may be right about many things, but this destroys her credibility.

    There is ample photographic, video, and audio evidence that there were multiple Pauls from 1962 on. And that at least some of these continued until at the least, well into the 1990s. The PID theory is a psi op. It is most those perceptive enough to notice photographic and other evidence of there being more than one Paul, suspicious enough to believe a cover-up is possible,and weak minded enough to buy the really weird PID theory.

    This website has a lot of the physical evidence that blows the PID theory apart. But there is plenty more besides this. Not say I buy everything on this website.

    Can we plead move on and stop wasting time with something so silly?

    1. That's amazing forum, ho ho ho--all about the beatles--lots of people there too.

    2. If it's a waste of time why are you here? Why listen to the show, why comment on this page? If you have nothing constructive to bring to the discussion, then kindly get the feck out. And that goes for the rest of you trolls, too. The scientific process isn't there to substantiate what we already believe to be true, it's there to find the truth, no matter how much we disbelieve it or wish it weren't true, or how unpopular it is or makes us look weird for "going there." I think this is an extremely important topic and am very glad to see that the research is continuing. I haven't yet completely made up my mind about this, but the possibilities are fascinating.

    3. Bill Thomas: The fabfourdozen stuff is filled with errors, as with JFK anti-conspiracy sites.

      The errors on pro-PID sites are legion as well (just as JFK pro-conspiracy researchers make mistakes), however they make some corrective adjustments to the confusion in Paul is Alive (PIA) sites.

      To understand the issues, follow my work as a clear line of reasoning on all general issues and many specifics. Then wade into the other stuff. Then judge.

      You know the same is true regarding what Jim Fetzer's high-end picture of JFK's death does for you: you can use it as a spur to more research, but going the other way will leave most persons slightly rudderless.

  18. Linda, the comments section is not reserved for those who agree with the guest.

    It is a waste of time if there are documented multiples of Paul before 1966, and after then including he "real" Paul. Pretty elementary physical characteristics like teeth shape, height, voice show this. The Paul is Dead theory is similar to saying 911 was done by aliens on the moon with a special laser beam. By that I mean that both theories are far-fetched and do not do a good job of explaining the evidence. It takes something important - that the Beatles were not what they seemed, and wraps it in a theory that cannot locate the truth.

    1. Not at all, Bill Thomas. - The thesis he died is quite grounded in normal death & psychology of grief, fears of losing careers, not to mention also the conspiracy normative elements of argument, i.e., that others had motives to push an infiltrator of a certain kind.

      To say the "Beatles were not what they seemed" is rather broad and ungrounded; though it has some basis in how they were promoted before 1966 and in the stuff which was linked exactly to the Paul death and the infiltration, after.

      However, the fact that Paul died (or may have, if you wish to think that), is quite more grounded and far from baseless, though I understand how you wish it were.

      There are not multiple doubles. There are the same kinds of shifts on Paul's head before 66 and after on a different man's head (except for the fact that a few wildly doctored photos were made of the new fellow, in exactly the places we'd expect it).

      Paul did die.

  19. I know it sounds horribly loony to honour something when one is assumed by so many to be merely "oddly convinced of something which so certainly did not happen" -- but he really did die, so yes, it is an honour to be maligned. When one knows how one knows, from all lines of evidence, one is not as troubled at the name-calling.

    I mean, I feel odd doing it, in near isolation on the planet, but the insiders know.

    Thanks for your understanding, some of you. He really is gone 2 times his lifespan (in year count, though not in days).

    Ringo really is the last remaining Fab 4 Beatle, as he said solemnly a few years ago (many assuming he joked). Yes, Pete Best and Sir Paul are still alive. But Ringo's 3 frontmen are gone.

    RIP today for Paul, in a sad and sometimes creepy coverup. (I'm up late, so for me it's like it's still Sept 11.)

  20. Clare Kuehn......

    Still dead in the water and going nowhere fast....

  21. There is a very low-key version of 'While My Guitar Gently Weeps' by George Harrison available on youtube that has extra lyrics. The extra lyrics give the whole Tavistock/MI6 game away in terms of these guys staging plays. But the lyrics also contain a pretty explicit message that George isn't going to do anything about it, and of course if they thought he would his life expectancy would have been reduced to hours.

    The standard song has lyrics song to dead Paul about how he wasn't warned. How he was corrupted, perverted, bought and sold.

    A song by Sir Paul amounts to a bit of an apology a plea for understanding, and a fatherly bit of advice to the other three that they are to 'carry that weight, a long time....' The weight of course is the secret held under the threat of death that Paul was murdered and that the Beatles were a covert operations project right from the inception.

    1. Listen shit-for-brains. I just go with the evidence. Its only science but I like it.

    2. GMB: Agreed that Harrison is speaking about Paul in "While My Guitar Gently Weeps", though it also (of course) applies to other things in life. However, the "Beatles were an operation from the start" comment you make is uncareful; clearly, they themselves were not. Increasingly, they and public attention were deflected.

      Psythron: Don't get so upset. Learn the case for Paul's death correctly and openly, or you will have no leg to stand on forever.

    3. But clear have you heard the version with the EXTRA lyrics. Spooky.

      Hmmmm. Maybe the lyrics are in the original. I'd have to re-check. But this time he's talking to his MI6 minders staging the plays they stage.

      Two minutes and twenty seconds in.

    4. Your infiltration thesis is just not plausible Clare. The sort of free publicity these kids got early on is something that needed to be arranged by the usual suspects. And the output of these kids was far too fast and large for people who also had to learn to play at the same time.

      So for example take the ABBA songwriting duo. These guys were already skilled musicians when they started ABBA. We are talking a similar quality level, though the Beatles wound up with a much larger range.

      Well those two in ABBA would take 2 months to get one single to recording and performing stage. Two months per single and they already had the skills together. The Northern Songs catalogue is just too huge not to have these boys getting a little help from friends who were not real friends.

      I think ultimately most of the ideas came from the two lads but if you have a lot of musical servants helping you you can increase your output.

    5. GMB: these fellows might have had help, but it's not really necessary as far as the catalogue goes. They were geniuses -- in the sense not only that they were great, but that they were prolific. Many are. Like sketching and "studies" by visual artists, these fellows lived and breathed music playing & writing for some years before they were famous. It shows.

  22. GMB-

    " I just go with the evidence. Its only science but I like it."

    Evidence?? What evidence??!!
    Science?? What science??!!

    There is NO evidence!!
    There is NO science!!

    Clare Kuehn-

    " Don't get so upset. Learn the case for Paul's death correctly and openly, or you will have no leg to stand on forever."

    LEARN(?) the case??

    There is NO case and you are the blind leading the stupid!!

    Open your mind!!

    There is NO case!!

    1. There's a huge case. That much is obvious if you bother to learn how to learn.

      This broadcast was largely about that: the areas of study which are involved, so you can get straight where you are in the case.

      Also mentioned was that any argument is a case; the issue is whether something is a relatively complete and accurate and detailed case.

  23. What are you after. Do you want a one-liner dopey. The scientific method doesn't allow us to encapsulate all the evidence for a complex conclusion in a one-liner.

    You have the same database as me. So you can check out the forensic evidence. Its all there.

    But anyway here are the two different men only a few months apart. They appear to be talking to BBC types. Both interviews are in context pretty obvious psychological operations. They have all the hallmarks of such.

    The spectacular proof that these are two different men comes about because the interview with the 2nd Paul was recorded prior to any facial hair growth or plastic surgery.

  24. Here is the Sir Paul song, which is really a rewrite of a couple of earlier songs, which was recorded when John was out of the studio. This is Sir Paul feeling sorry for himself but telling the other three that they have to live with their secret.

    Some of the lyrics appear to describe an award ceremony or something similar. He's picking up an award, but for another man, and this is upsetting to him.

    'I never give you my pillow talk' Here he talks to his general audience and the public. He's saying that they don't know his secrets 'I only give you my inspiration ...' That is to say that his fans only get the output of his songwriting. They don't get to know the real Billy at all. He must hide the horrible truth from them.

    1. GMB: your contributions are very useful, except calling people Jews as some kind of insult, just as people "hating on" some version of Liberals, Reactionary Capitalist, etc. also are. I wish those aspects were missing from your other posts, because though you may not care (as anyone with a pet "insult term" & belief does not), it makes dissemination of the page's straight information harder.

      However, I appreciate your & Linda, too, and Solfeggio & others for any new thoughts, meta-analysis, tidbits of references (clues) to the death.

      Sadly, if the official announcement were ever made, and when people without that realize one by one that Paul died, Bill (Sir Paul or Faul) would be/ is blamed for much of the replacement lie, when he is only to blame for the spookery element he was seemingly partaking in. I am just ruminating on the blameworthiness & lack thereof, at the moment.

    2. For best Talmudic expo, ck and

  25. You brain-dead fuck. The forensic evidence is all there. Skull size, shape proportion. Equalising for the eyes, and then imposing one skull on the other.

    Now you don't NEED to go and look at that. The video should be enough. But its all there and its total proof. Its not debatable.

    Unless you've got a new theory of adult skull morphology you accept that you are wrong, an idiot, stupid, and really not all that bright.

  26. So retard. You got that theory on adult skull morphology. You got it. Yes or no. No you haven't. So you are wrong aren't you. Yes you are. Yes you are. And you are a dummy. Not the sharpest tool in the shed. A dim bulb.

    The world has just got too many morons like you dude. Consider increasing the average IQ of the world population by way of making a personal attempt at unassisted flight.

  27. GMB

    You're like Kuehn. You're full of shit.
    Big girly man turds. Your song lyrics bullshit is all in your thick Neanderthal
    "head" with a big cock on it.
    Stop posting your asinine webpage links to more of your shit. Nobody is interested. As for your skull morphology crap, I blame that bitch you call your mom. She really had no right whacking you over the head with an iron bar when you were a child. Still the surgeons did their best to reverse the brain damage you suffered and, sadly, failed.

    You PID WANKER!!

    1. It is sad they didn't tell you. You don't have the patience & flexibility properly to try on the information enough to assess it fully right now. He did die.

      Think of this: if he did, would you regret these words?

    2. Forgive me, Saint Clare of the PID

      For I do not believe.

    3. I don't need to forgive you, except as a witness to what you don't see yet. Remember: if this were correct, as JFK conspiracy & 9/11 inside-outside job conspiracy are, and you were wrong about those, yes, there is a kind of "you believe we're kooks but we forgive you". But true kooks or mistaken people also can have this discussion!

      So, how to know?

      Try to accept it & see how deep the case is, how intricate, how complete in types of questions it raises & answers. Then judge. It may take you time.

      In that sense, sure, I forgive you and your snarky assumption. But I fully understand that to anyone new to an issue, wrong or right, the others who talk of it as true seem odd and may in fact be.

      Best wishes, Psythron.

    4. For goodness snakes, Clare, just give-out w. the facts, ma'am--surely this isn't rocket-science, eh? Good gravy.

    5. Psythron your Mother is stupid. You know how I know that. Follow a stupid kid home and you'll find a stupid Mother every time.

      Look its only undeniable scientific evidence. The skull shape only changes in adulthood through acromegaly, and that takes time. It cannot happen in a few months and no-one in this story suffers from acromegaly and acromegaly would not make the changes that are fully proven.

      Mick Jagger knows its only rock and roll but he likes it. Its only science but I like it.

    6. So GMB, u're saying "Paul" died, etc., and there was replacement?--so is there simply evidence for this?--is there some place we can go to ck it? Thanks for ur info.

    7. Apsterian: there are plenty of facts; arguments are factually strong or not, too, in anything and become "facts" of one side, as well.

      You need to, as I said, take it on as if true, learn more & deeply & richly, *then* judge.

      It's the only way for any controversy.

    8. Total forensic proof. Not beyond reasonable doubt. Beyond any doubt whatsoever. The sort of forensic tests include voice recognition. Not subjective but scientific. It includes equalising for size of a known standard guitar to compare the size of the two men. It includes just watching the first video of the second man, before the facial surgery. It includes equalising for eye-width and superimposing one skull onto the other.

      Total proof. Not admitting Clare is correct amounts to a continuation of the belief in the tooth fairy. It is BEYOND normal irrationality to just run from total forensic proof.

    9. Clare: if there are "plenty of facts," as u assert, then say what they are (a), and then, (b) as appropriate, give the references which demonstrate--is that too hard to unnastan'? Good gravy.

    10. Aspertian just look around. Look for photographic evidence of the sort I have described. But have you seen the two Pauls months apart on the video I showed you. It will be pretty amazing if you can see the two of them and think they are the same fellow.


    11. Ok GMB: now that's resolution--only thing needed now would be some pictures or such-like hard evidence--and I'm not saying there isn't any, but still there needs to be some, right?

      Again, note I'm not saying it isn't true (about Paul being kaput), but surely u'd agree what's at least equally interesting is why ZOG would do things like this, like for all circumstances--they'd have to have LOTS of further functionaries and tools, like within the Jews-media, etc.

    12. Ok--I'll look at that vid--I presume u have the link in another entry which I'll ck. Thanks for ur info.

    13. And GMB: can u say WHY ZOG did all this?--isn't/wasn't it all soooooooo . . . elaborate and pains-taking to do such thing?--I'm still looking for that vid, and will get back, thanks again.

    14. ZOG needs to bugger our capacity to perceive reality as such ... as part of the wider goal of getting us all fighting each-other all the time. If we ever stopped fighting we would round the perps up, and we would take all their wealth and bring all their central banking and derivatives scams to an end.

      But its in their nature really isn't it. Set up some poor kid to be the most loveable 24 year old in the country and then murder him. Murder him twice over by murdering our memory of him. Now when we remember him we are thinking of someone else.

    15. GMB: I went and spent 10 minutes of my precious time and looked at ur vid, fm ur above entry, 9:33 am,

      "The spectacular proof that these are two different men comes about because the interview with the 2nd Paul was recorded prior to any facial hair growth or plastic surgery."


      Sorry bro., and I'm not saying ur (and Clare's) thesis is wrong, but the above-noted vid DOES NOT prove ur thesis--and if there's something I'm missing, pls excuse my stupidity.

      And I agree w. ur above note completely at 11:35 am--we're under thumb of Jews and SATANISTS, un-questionably, but the vid doesn't cut it for proving ur thesis, I gotta say the sad truth.

      But maybe u have something else?--believe me, I wouldn't put ANYTHING past ZOG, but as I note, mystery is why/how they'd do this sort of stuff--seems un-likely--w. so many fans, u'd think word would get around there was a switcheroo.

      And isn't it plausible ZOG would deliberately spread such a false rumor--if it was false--that Paul was dead, etc.?--just for dis-info purposes and playing w. people and their credulity? Ho ho ho ho

    16. Then the next thing to do, is if you cannot tell that they are two different people, is to defer to the forensics. And go and track down the forensics. Its as fast for you to find a few sites on this as it is for me. Put Paul Is Dead in the google, then go for images, and soon you will be at some of these sites.

      Its worse then I described it. Because we NEVER think of the real Paul. The other fellow is still alive so they have even wiped out the very memory of the real Paul. You could propose the alternative conspiracy theory but thats a harder gig then the reality of the original psy-op. In the video BOTH interviews have that usual reversalism wherein they are trying to push drugs and alternative anti-family lifestyles, with plausible alibis for everyone involved. Think of the 'bigger then Jesus' comment and what the media did with that.

    17. In terms of the original Beatles psy-op one would wish to put it in the context of the Laurel Canyon revelations. But for an independent look you might try John Coleman's 'The Committee of 300'

      Johns book is pretty slender and doesn't contain the footnotes. If he is telling the truth that is a good thing in that it doesn't provide the capacity for the usual suspects to go to the London Museum and destroy all the documents.

      Coleman appears not to know a thing about the death of the first Paul and doesn't comment on the rumour and may not even have been aware of it. The Beatles as a psy-op, if Coleman has it right, is there quite apart from the killing of Paul, but I would say that people in that inner circle had to be scheduled for death or the secrecy could never hold together.

    18. Well, but note u said "spectacular proof"--which it was much less. So much for "musical talent"--that they could switch-out the artist, and hardly anyone can tell any diff.--and those who say they can tell have to beg and plead to insist that there is any diff.

    19. Well I think its pretty spectacular since I think that when you bring a new fellow in that doesn't look even the least bit like the old one I think thats pretty spectacular. But that doesn't matter. If people cannot see the difference on a subjective recognition level the idea is to shoot straight for the forensics.

    20. Apsterian: the case's general direct evidence (individual facts in the circumstantial case) & how to see differences & then how to judge whether that is the mistake of your mind or whether the current perceptual idea you have is the correct one & how to know more than evidentiary fact but what are good suppositions of the reasonable kind (connecting arguments) are all in gist (i.e., many of them) on my blog page, discussed audially in 4 interviews here & elsewhere.

      Don't go around to average videos until you are ready to be careful but try to believe it long enough to see how full or not it is. Then judge.

      Here are some links:

      I mentioned this link in this broadcast. Listen to it again for details of arguments & broad issues.

    21. Listen to the broadcast AGAIN?--Clare, u're a torturer & sadist, but I'll ck the link.

  28. GMB

    " Yes you are. Yes you are. "


    Na na na na nah

    Get a grip!! LOL


  29. GMB & Psythron: This was not recruitment; the argument for that falls apart quickly with basic common sense applied to the Tavistock indications. However, common sense does not require that Paul did not die & a later Tavistock involvement through Bill (Sir Paul/ Faul).

    It is only distaste which says Paul did not die. Common sense about high pressure situations, tragedy, coverup indications all actually support that kind of common sense acceptance of this case.

    He did die, despite GMB's extreme position, Psythron.

    About the death, no hallucinations required. Same for knowing JFK could be killed through lots of people's involvement, or 9/11 could and would be done through an inside-outside intelligence job, and what the evidence is to support those contentions.

  30. I meant: the Beatles were not recruitment. They were a real band. That's why Bill was needed and tragedy, to break cohesion emotionally and run certain operations in the powerful name of a Beatle.

    But the basic arguments for the death and replacement are also important.

  31. 'How appropriate!! The big girly man GMB is into
    fairy tales!! LOL What next?'

    OH people I must apologise. Its clear to me now that I have attracted my regular stalker/minder to this site. Hopefully he won't cause too much trouble. I'll try not to get in a flame war with him from here on in.

    1. Ur stalker?--I thought he was MY stalker--ho ho ho ho

    2. Well these guys likely have a portfolio of sixty to eighty people to follow around ...... that is to say if he is a professional internet stalker.

      I was inactive for many years so people tended to ignore me.

      Counter-intelligence used to be people physically acting on foreign territory at some risk to themselves. Now its just a bunch of nerds making a nuisance of themselves on blogs all over the world.

    3. In what way is the Godfather real or not real. No I was citing a well-known story as an explanation for something you see in all of these scams.

      You can come back under as many names as you like 'Cleff' but your smell is always going to give you away.

  32. Hi Clare,

    Is it your belief that Paul was murdered?

    I assume that this must be the case since it would seem highly unlikely that he would die completely accidentally while there was at the same time a look-alike ready to step in and fool most of the world.

    More likely, it seems to me, would be the known existence of the replacement before the fact, and possibly even his complicity in the replacement scheme.

    One would therefore have to suspect the complicity of the other three Beatles as well. Possibly not before the death of Paul, but certainly insofar as they must have been aware that the sudden death of the first and appearance of the second was not at all likely to be purely coincidental.

    So, who do you think murdered Paul McCartney? Why? And who knew what and when? Especially the replacement and the other Beatles?

    Or do you believe that he died accidentally and there just happened to be a replacement ready to step in, which replacement would never have been used if Paul had not accidentally died?

    1. Listen to the broadcast, Stooy.

      Hi, as well.

    2. I did, you simply referred to a book written by people who want to rewrite history and make us think they have been controlling it all along when in fact they have not. This is very common in the internet age, this continual stating by a corrupt faction that they are the ones pulling the strings of history. They take all sorts of historical events and rewrite them so as to allege that they themselves were in total control, and suggest that our standard belief in history is wrong. Sometimes our standard belief is wrong, to be sure, but there is a tremendous amount of deception taking place here. The motivation of these people is clear, they want to make themselves look much more powerful than they really are, they want to scare us into submission and dominate the planet. Mouthpieces like David Icke, Alex Jones and many, many others work for these people and serve their interests. In the long run these people will fail.

      So, Clare, what do YOU think yourself? I will certainly not accuse you of being an op. :)

    3. Stooy, I did not simply refer to McGowan. I used his extensive general findings from many details to give context.

      I think that at first the Beatles might well have been so distracted by it all that they did not "put two and two together" that there was a murder.

      I do think it was murder, with a quick replacement like that & the cultic-type death date.

      However, at some point, the likelihood of murder and the overlap of interests from intel-cults and blackmailing feeling or literal threats might well have made the likelihood of murder more obvious to the Beatles.

      I spoke, also, of the link to Mark Lane's expose of the JFK death wide conspiracy. The negative sides of intel groups are in bed on such huge events, with many proofs direct and reasonably inferrable. So who murdered him, if he was murdered? Some cult-interested elements (high levels of intel, old-power Masons or OTO types, creepy Parliamentarians, such as the types who are into pedophilia, protection rackets -- such as protected and used Epstein's gay proclivities against him & got him into embezzling & speculating with Beatles' income).

      Pinning down the perps beyond types is impossible. But they would be from such interests as mentioned above.

    4. I think the event was planned at least that year. The earlier "moped accident" that year has come under suspicion, as well.

      There is no way to know right now except in the broadest strokes, when the killing was planned from. McGowan's work and the setting up of Indica in early 1966, with International Times launching later that year, the month after Paul died, makes me posit that some persons may have been wanting for a couple of years to have some kind of influence on Beatle behaviour (break up their cohesion and push the music and thinking style toward the weird a bit).

      Do I think Sir Paul was in on the murder? I think maybe somehow. That he knew it was coming, at least, is likely. But it is not a more certain type of speculation at this point.

      I just feel he is, plus the likelihood from how quickly it was done and how he seems to have wanted the job so much -- conflicted and oppressed by the role at times that he nevertheless is, and which must be mentioned as well, for full truth.

    5. If the remaining Beatles were a part of the concealment of the death of Paul and his being replaced, then why did they put so many clues in their music suggesting that Paul had died? This seems odd if the death was supposed to remain a secret.

      At the time many people did fear that Paul may had died, but most of us believed and eventually concluded that the death of Paul had been faked as a publicity stunt.

      Clearly one or the other took place, there is no doubt about this. So, if Paul really did die, and they wanted it covered up, why did the people controlling the Beatles, according to your theories, allow them to put so much not so subliminal suggestion in their new music to the effect that Paul had died?

      Of course, one could well understand the sadness that might be expressed, a change in the style of music as they used LSD and as the incredible decade of the 60s unfolded. But did they really need to do things like say "I burried Paul"? If the true intent was a cover-up? If the Beatles were as controlled as you suggest? Or could they have sneaked all of this not so subliminal stuff through without their controllers noticing?

      All of the not so subliminal messaging is clearly consistent with a hoax that was planned to be detected, it is absolutely inconsistent with the possibility of a death/murder that was planned to be covered up.

    6. Stooy, as I thought people would realize but mentioned anyway in the broadcast: when something personal is suppressed, a person wants to feel he or she has told anyway. Leaving real history in the historical record of themselves is totally natural.

      Hoaxes share some of the features of any real event; however, real events show repetition compulsion of accurate things (i.e., deeply ordinary things, such as literal grisliness, grief, what one's real age is, etc.).

    7. In addition to the thematics (deeply detailed and contextually consistent), the activities of a putatively new person are also literally not the same person, if one learns how to see it for oneself. (It's not too hard, though there are some tricky aspects for our minds and emotions when the two people do manage to look or act similarly -- i.e., when the second naturally resembles or intentionally mimics the former).

  33. Paul 2 was not look-alike Stooy. They don't look at all similar. Not until the surgery kicked in.

  34. Looks like GMB and apsterian
    have found love on the forum at last.

    The only question now is, will GMB
    be in white when they get hitched at the synagogue.

    1. Kike w. a thousand names is un-relenting, ho ho ho ho

  35. Clare, I appreciate you looking at the fabfourdozen link. Yes lots wrong with that site. I'm not particularly partial to the clone theory either. BUT whoever runs that site has spent thousands of hours pouring over photos, and they blow the PID theory out of he water. There is no Paul and Faul, or any of the other BS. Paul did not suddenly get taller with a different shaped face after 1966. If you look at that website you will see equally divergent Pauls used as early as 1962-1964. You could take any two of them and build the same PID theory. The "crooked-tooth" Paul with the narrow pallet and pushed out canines and quirky sense of humour is clearly evident at times in the late 1960 and 70s and 80s.

    It is correct to say that something dark happened with the Beatles, and it happened around 1966-1967. But many dark things happened then in the culture. Paul started playing a very different role then. There is too much relying on mind reading of the Beatles and their lyrics going on here.

    One example of PID cherry picking evidence. The photos of Paul with Jane Asher, and Fau suddenly looking much taller, when their backs are to the camera. Well, you can find the photos from the wedding that this one ws taken at. The photo in question is on the side of a hill. So of course Paul looks much taller. If you look at other photos from the same wedding, on level ground, Paul no longer looks way taller than Jane. In fact their heights are about in the same ratio as normal. In many of the other photos, his face looks rounder. My point here is that this is a psi op, done in part by cherry picking the evidence. Most people just read the articles, glance at the photos and make their mind up that PID. This is lazy at best, and weak-minded at worst.

    1. Interesting comments Bill.

      Do you agree with me that the evidence indicated back then, and still indicates today, that the Beatles faked the death of Paul as a publicity stunt?

      This would explain the not so subliminal messaging, the probable appearance of a look-alike for some photos and films, the planted media stories that took place at the time, and so on.

    2. Stooy and Bill: publicity stunt would not explain several aspects, e.g., the drawing as one major individual item, but also several lines of reasoning required with the materials.

      Also, Stooy: most people who think it was done "as a publicity stunt" do *not* accept a different man is in the photos, which you do, according to your comments elsewhere.

      They simply write off the case entirely, except that they say some "weird" items were in artwork.

      Neither of those positions is sufficient, however; they are convenient limited hangout ideas -- yours, Stooy, being the least held (that the photos are different but the death not having taken place).

    3. Hi, Bill:

      The fabfourdozen is as bad as Dallas Goldbug. They pour over photos intellectually uncarefully, with seeming care. That is, they do not use basic common sense about photos as a check.

      I explain how to see it, then unsee it, and judge properly whether it's there as a replacement. I also discuss the extensive context -- including not only details but likelihoods regarding the details in Beatle lives and clues.

      One aspect (one only) is the fact the Beatle clues are consistent, not general, about death methods & body condition. One aspect is the drawing, whose existence has no good explanation from any other hypothesis than that Paul died -- when the drawing is fully looked at, understood in its context in history and the other putative clues.

      Many other such things, however, are parts of the reasoning, even if you can't see the switch.

      There is the same guy after 1966, but different from the same guy before.

      It's sad Paul's death date will continue not to be marked by most people and the birth date and history for Sir Paul (likely named Bill Campbell) will not be marked, either. But c'est la vie in a coverup -- and spy operation.

  36. I'm not sure I agree that it was a stunt. I'm going to say something you almost will never hear in this forum, "I don't know." It is impenetrable, that's how you know you are dealing with pros (intelligence agencies) not musicians. My guess, the four talented and rough and tumble Liverpool lads got in way over their heads. My guess is that the PID meme distracted from real questions like who was writing all this music? why was there so much variation in their appearances, especially Pauls? and where did all the instant crowds come from in the US on the first tour? I think they made a deal in 1962, and were happy to ride it. They were not saints.

    1. The suggestion that high levels of secret agencies were involved is in my opinion very dubious. Yes, these people are writing books and "leaking" information now to try to make us think they were involved in most historical events of importance. Were they really involved, or is this just a series of lies to make us think they are and were more powerful than they really are?

      I agree we cannot know for sure. But I am not convinced that Paul died, nor am I convinced that secret agencies played a role. My suspicion is that this was a publicity stunt. That's certainly what we thought at the time, and I have seen no evidence that is credible to make me change my mind.

      Little of what has been created in the internet and digital age can be taken seriously. All of it might be faked, and a lot of it certainly is.

    2. Bill Thomas: The crowds for the Beatles right away (first landing) are one thing; the utter exhilaration of people listening is another. The excitement built, but once started, it was unstoppable. Their own genius & energy & newness of approach were -- and still are -- the natural part of the love of the band and music.

      As to your "not knowing": good. Yes, they vary. But they vary consistently (except in clearly doctored formats, which themselves are recoverable to the original person used in the doctored photo). In other words: they are different people.

      Stooy: of course high levels were involved. It's England, such persons had involvement in all the groups of mind control, money, art scenes, youth and homosexual perversions, etc.

      Epstein was already entrenched in the protection services of such elements, Sir Paul deeply interested (at least) in the occultic versions of these elements.

      Just as anywhere, but long-embedded in England's power scened.

    3. With respect to the "Beatlemania" that hit North America, Clare is correct. I was a child at the time, and remember it well. There has been nothing like it since.

      It is possible that Paul died and was replaced, but I have yet to see enough credible evidence to convince me.

      The alternative explanation of an elaborate publicity stunt still seems the more likely to me.

      I do like Clare's passion and work on this subject.

    4. Stooy: thanks & good.

      The drawing, alone, has no good "publicity stunt" explanation at all; it would be a total distortion of the sense of the content to claim that.

      It also hinges a whole set of Beatle putative clues (which already were compiled), by putting a personal heart into them.

      He died from these reasonings. However, he also died from the arguments that there would be nothing less which would drive such consistent and horrible messages, plus that there are exactly holes in the history where there would need to be for this to be true (though those can be more easily given individual, i.e., ad hoc, "Paul is Alive" assessments with less stretching).

      He's gone; the little boppy guy is no more except on film and in heaven (or wherever). It's sad I have to be so rare here in saying so.

    5. You may be right, but either way the music will live forever.

  37. Face Sad Fact & Conclusion: THERE'S NO EVIDENCE For PID--But It Is Tremendous Psy-Ops, Indubitably

    I gotta say, Clare and GMB: the OBVIOUS fact, easily verified is there is NO CLEAR evidence for any death of Paul or that there was/is a double standing-in.

    I went to Clare's website and looked at allllllllllll that crap and material she's got there--very interesting, to be sure, BUT THERE'S NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ACTUAL EVIDENCE that's real, direct, un-ambiguous evidence--and I'm sorry if u're disappointed.

    And it's equally plausible satanistic ZOG would insert and insinuate a pretended "death" of such as Paul--I suspect Clare and GMB too easily overlook this possibility.

    Another thing I find repugnant is Clare's demand that we pretend there was a death--and then using anything else and gross, strained arguments and grasping at straws to then imagine there's substantial evidence for such "death."

    But I'm confident I'm always wary of ZOG satanism and deception to be open and receptive to real, genuine evidence for this pretended "death" of the relatively insignificant and highly OVER-rated "artist," Paul McCartney who married a Jew, peeeeeyuuuuu.

    1. And the EASY way to verify there's NO EVIDENCE is to simply ask Clare or GMB for any evidence--they can't give it, though at least GMB tried, referring to "spectacular proof" which turned out to be far less than either "spectacular" or "proof."

    2. Apsterian: you are making the typical error of assessing an argument for a conclusion you don't like in ways different than you would for something you already would accept in principle beforehand.

      The evidence and the ways to stop oneself from being unfair to that evidence are present in every broadcast of mine, in the blogsite and (if you're careful) in other people's work.

      Thus, you miss the spectacular nature of the proof.

    3. Any argument requires truly seeing from its side; one goes back and forth thereafter, but one does have to try to see how rich or not that the position is, from its own side as well.

      This broadcast did not go into all the proofing. It gave the broad strokes of how to approach subjects of all kinds, including and applied to this one.

      By the way, your prejudicial use of -- and liberal sprinkling of your use of -- "Jew" for all elements of life you don't like, is repugnant. It is also as nutty as calling everyone you don't like an honourary "Commie" or "Capitalist" or whatever.

      There are problems in Zionism, in Communism, in Capitalism. There are power magnates in each as well. But the fanaticism and easy-enemy thinking you use must be roped in, just as your assessment of other subjects must become more careful, for your sake.

      Otherwise -- if you don't -- you will only learn and think things which happen to stick to you, which is not true wise thinking.

    4. Clare: Extremely Talented--NOT In Forensics, But For Comedy, Indubitably

      Clare: u had 2 HOURS whence good Prof. Fetzer allowed u, w. hardly ANY interruption, to speak and blather, and bloviate, and prattle, and yak, and yammer, and declaim, etc., etc., etc.--and u said very, very little if anything at all besides assert without substantiation. U HAD MORE THAN ENOUGH TIME and opportunity.

      U STILL CANNOT SUBSTANTIATE--which is very simple thing to do--but u just can't do it.

      U said: "...the typical error of assessing an argument for a conclusion you don't like in ways different than you would for something you already would accept in principle beforehand."

      This, above, by u, IS JUST MORE UN-SUBSTANTIATED assertion--TYPICAL of u.

      And u don't seem to realize the idiotic presumption of ur statement, "the ways to stop oneself from being unfair to that evidence are present in every broadcast of mine,...." Ho ho ho ho--Hint: u don't tell us HOW u did it, for avoiding that "un-fairness." I guess it's just some mystic quality of urs, eh? Ho ho ho ho ho

      So anyone who disagrees w. u is "unfair," u not saying how, and ONLY U are "fair." Ho ho ho ho ho ho

      THEN, u have the effrontery to tell me what's "repugnant," ho ho ho ho--more comedy and presumption fm u. Didn't I already explain to u u had to ck the Talmud? So I at least give premises for my conclusions, whereas u merely assert in ur huffy, empty, un-informed, self-righteous, and preachy manner, ho ho ho ho.

      THEN, not finished, u announce what "must be roped in," ho ho ho ho ho ho

      Clare: u were given ur chance for which u've failed miserably--in forensics, logic, and observation. But u're absolute genius for comedy, that's for sure, and u ought to pursue it; u might make lots of money, seriously, ho hoo ho ho ho

    5. Just watched The Beatles: The Night That Changed America TV special and without any doubt, the guy who performed as Paul was the original. No faking the bass playing style, the voice, - especially when he did Get Back.

      Same guy, no doubt about it.

    6. Hi, Ian. Your lack of doubt is as unfounded as thermite or pancaking from fires for 9/11 but you don't realize it. It's okay.

      He's dead as a doornail. There are ways to see it, but you have to learn how, if you don't naturally begin to notice.

      Best wishes.

    7. Your PID theory is so far from proven that you really shouldn't go around claiming he is dead.

    8. Ian, it is remarkably well proven. However, it is unfortunately the kind of thing which requires people to face personal perception issues more than in other cases; if you did not have the photos and voice & body language available, it would be already a proven circumstantial case, as far as that goes.

      Sorry. I can say he died because he did and because it's my conviction.

    9. Still far from proven, much of the evidence is bunk.

      You may be convinced but the case is so full of holes that few others are.

    10. Ian, would you please list what you think is "bunk" and why. - There are ways to understand circumstantial evidence and ways not to. - There are also two claims for every piece of evidence you can bring up, even if one stretches the evidence massively. You know that. You can ad hoc this and say you want to believe the other way. This way, however, has the best proof lines of reasoning from all angles, without prejudicial wishes getting in the way.

  38. It only sounds crazy. It not only was entirely possible (and to learn how you could be fooled, try the info I have posted, but it may take you much time), but also it is extremely supported by the deep and wide facts. He is dead. Sorry. Died at 24. Sounds odd, but yes, they continued.

    1. Clare: u're no longer operating upon intellect, evidence, logic, or accurate perception. Rather, like a religious fanatic, u simply insist, and say u've found a secret, mystic method of knowing.

    2. Apsterian: far from it. I outline exactly how arguments work, to remind people what they take for granted when they already accept some principle in something they otherwise are unsure of. Here, you are stuck in how you don't like the idea and don't want to truly see if you were fooled. In order to know whether you were fooled, follow what I suggest to begin to assess the general case with its details, too, and approach the physical aspects the ways I suggest in detailed method.

      Then judge.

      Beyond that, of course my surety sounds like not mere certainty but "religious mysticism" to you. I am certain and now speak from that. But I give all the formal reminders of how to know and where the doubt would creep in.

      That's hardly a mere "psychic" or "religious" kind of insisting.

      But I do insist. I know. & I tell you how to know.

    3. Remember, Apsterian: I have written a 400-page blog article on the subject, with details and broad epistemological philosophical concerns, plus been on several people's radio shows, including this show 4 times now, so there is much to cover and remind people -- especially those resistant to the idea.

      Just as for 9/11 or any other subject, especially unpleasant, often ill-understood, controversial subjects, we must remember many new facts in our learning, plus take time, plus work hard to be open to the ideas, so, too, here, for Paul's death case.

      It pans out, too, when approached carefully and openly. Hence, he died.

      No mystical knowing required -- except in the sense that no knowing is formal logic alone, because if not also emotionally accepted, the knowing will not stick together logically for the person, even if the logic is perfect.

      This is true even of "cold logic". It is memorizable, but truly to be accepted for deep usage, understanding, challenge to one's previous knowledge, there is emotion under it as well, but appropriate to it.

      Good night, A., but just as 9/11 was a fraud 8 ways to Sunday, provable only to those who are open, even though the argument proofs are there in many ways, all hanging together, so, too, is the case for Paul's death.

      He died. RIP.

    4. Clare Risks Her Immortal Soul For Illusory Proposition

      Clare, just because u're charming, witty, articulate, and u know lots of trivia about lots of stuff, been on lots of radio shows, etc., and just because good Prof. Fetzer likes u and thinks u're great radio-guest, doesn't prove Paul kicked the proverbial bucket, and u still show no evidence, despite all ur blandishments and instructions on how to arrange our emotions, etc.

      We Christians, for example, worship TRUTH TRUTH TRUTH (Christ--Gosp. JOHN 14:6) because it's ONLY way to Godly happiness, so u see I make it a pt. to observe all facts and rational signs and evidence. At least GMB attempted to try to pt. to some simple kind of evidence, like the vid he cited--U?--u got nuthin'--aside, of course, fm ur comedy routine, which is quite good, to be sure, and worth a listen (though maybe not for a solid 2 hrs), but as for actual evidence--zilch, nada, zero.

      Over 160 responses now for this blog, and what do u have?--weasel arguments, special pleading, and intense mystic conviction--but all too little actual facts and evidence

      U've got urself conned, Clare, but not many others, I note, and further, observe u don't have too many defenders either as (a) they're all Paul & Beatle fans, and their adulatory nonsense has now been roundly dismissed; (b) they also know they'll be assailed for down-to-earth, actual evidence which they know they have too little, if any at all.

      U're on ur last legs now, psychologizing and patronizing the crowd to try winning them over emotionally--but that's precisely the WRONG way to going about things, Clare--u're getting into bad habits trying now to be like a court-room attorney arguing a losing case and resorting to psy-ops and things other than hard evidence. Shame shame shame--u'll end spending lots of time in purgatory for ur tricks, I'm warning u.

    5. No, Apsterian. You were conned. You need to put in effort; the laundry list of facts amassed as evidence is there in the material I talk of, in many places; the laundry list is unhelpful (just as in most court cases, which have to argue why those items are acceptable, what place they may hold in each side of the issue, etc.).

      You don't need to warn me. Paul is dead - though I hope not in purgatory.

    6. What you call "weasel arguments", Apsterian, are simply context & meta-understanding. The basic elements are given mostly elsewhere.

      I am not going to rewrite my blog here.

  39. "The time has come," the Walrus said,
    "To talk of many things:
    Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
    Of cabbages--and kings--
    And why the sea is boiling hot--
    And whether pigs have wings."

    "But wait a bit," the Oysters cried,
    "Before we have our chat;
    For some of us are out of breath,
    And all of us are fat!"
    "No hurry!" said the Carpenter.
    They thanked him much for that.

    "A loaf of bread," the Walrus said,
    "Is what we chiefly need:
    Pepper and vinegar besides
    Are very good indeed--
    Now if you're ready, Oysters dear,
    We can begin to feed."

    "But not on us!" the Oysters cried,
    Turning a little blue.
    "After such kindness, that would be
    A dismal thing to do!"
    "The night is fine," the Walrus said.
    "Do you admire the view?

    "It was so kind of you to come!
    And you are very nice!"
    The Carpenter said nothing but
    "Cut us another slice:
    I wish you were not quite so deaf--
    I've had to ask you twice!"

    "It seems a shame," the Walrus said,
    "To play them such a trick,
    After we've brought them out so far,
    And made them trot so quick!"
    The Carpenter said nothing but
    "The butter's spread too thick!"

    "I weep for you," the Walrus said:
    "I deeply sympathize."
    With sobs and tears he sorted out
    Those of the largest size,
    Holding his pocket-handkerchief
    Before his streaming eyes.

    "O Oysters," said the Carpenter,
    "You've had a pleasant run!
    Shall we be trotting home again?'
    But answer came there none--
    And this was scarcely odd, because
    They'd eaten every one.

    The very telling verses are where the Walrus says:

    "I weep for you," the Walrus said:"I deeply sympathize."With sobs and tears he sorted outThose of the largest size,Holding his pocket-handkerchiefBefore his streaming eyes.

    How often do we see Walruses with tears in their eyes?

    Whether they are persons, or companies, or nations!

    Those who pretend that they are doing what is best, but in reality doing exactly the opposite, but trying to present evil as good?

    For example, is the US invasion and occupation of Iraq really for democracy and freedom?

    If one takes a darker view, the Walrus and the Carpenter can be symbolic of intentionally luring other people with sweet talk, then preying on them (or their money, or their emotions, ...etc.)

    1. Gosh, "solfeggio" u rather intrude this heavy stuff of urs on this extremely important blog & discussion about the putative expiration and demise of that earth-shattering artist, Paul McCartney--how can u be forgiven?

    2. Lewis Carroll actually... A starting place.

      Sometimes earning thoughts by a sincere penetration of the symbolic analogical modes of thought can help us appreciate the "enfolding" of knowledge within verse.

      Imagine that you are Sam Spade and you have a great case before you: "the mysterious happenings and rumors of the 'PID' hypothesis."

      So you go out and collect information and use your own reason and intuition to sort out the overt, covert, and contextual information that might illuminate the case.

      If Clare or anyone comes and just drops a declarative statement that elicits your cognitive dissonance, you are faulting her and not your own failure to penetrate the facts. Clare was not on the show to dance as you instruct, and you must realize this was but another appearance after many previous shows that laid out the more explicit facts.

      I enjoyed this show as she came on to address a particular portion of the matter, like sharing with us just another piece of the larger puzzle that we can all dust off and see how it fits.

      Surely anyone of sincerity would admit the JFK case is of a dazzling complexity. One can not understand the assassination by any one statement nor by any one show. We have fifty years of accumulated research on that case.

      I respect the gentleman who earlier said,"he did not know" the truth. Cheers! That is the beginning of knowledge. A filled cup cannot accept more tea, as the saying goes, and so one must purge one's self of bias and engage the topic.

      Clare is bringing you a true mystery, but true mysteries require true detectives.

  40. Ian GreenhalghSeptember 15, 2014 at 5:24 PM

    Your PID theory is so far from proven that you really shouldn't go around claiming he is dead.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    Clare KuehnSeptember 16, 2014 at 10:09 AM

    Ian, it is remarkably well proven.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    Onus/burden is obviously upon Clare.

    And now here is what Clare must/should do: simply list the evidence--JUST THE EVIDENCE, NOT NOT NOT Clare's usual/typical "explanations" and "prefaces"--JUST THE SIMPLE FACT(S), that's all.

    Notice above statement fm Clare--all she does is DECLARE and assert, "it's remarkably well proven"--should just be, "it's proven, here's the facts," Clare thus listing the facts/items. But Clare CANNOT do this simple thing.

    And the list of facts ought not take too many words.

    Don't try to coach us as to how to arrange, prepare or configure our minds, Clare--just state the bare fact(s). Leave-off the explanations, excuses, or conditionalities--just state the plain, gosh-darn facts.

    U cannot and WILL NOT do this Clare (stating bare facts)--Further, u want to BLAME US for demanding u leave off w. the conditioning of mentality for the "real" truth. Clare wants to ACCUSE us of being "prejudiced" because we want her to leave-off w. the prefacing and "explanations."

    1. No, I present how to know and all the forms of evidence, where they fit, plus the physical evidence. I have talked the bare facts, the connections which reason between them (as all cases do, Apsterian), and give people the additional help of reminding them what mind set allows for absorbing a case -- whatever one decides afterward. You simply resist.

      So, to repeat:

      Apsterian: you don't understand evidence or proof any more than people who resist 9/11 Truth; to people such as you, your understanding of how argument works varies according to the positions you like at first hearing, not with work.

      There is only so much objectivity to any argument (which is evidence meaning-making). Some types are better than others; all are inductive (imperfect) at some level. JFK's backbone is more perfect an argument against an inner trajectory from near-spine back up to centre-front neck, but nothing is perfect.

      Paul's death adds up in all directions; it requires patience with the particular forensic types of evidence available & the Beatles clues material *including understanding that it must be included and why*, and the historical revision (no alibi exists for the counter-case, i.e., this could have happened, with all the gaps in the right places in history, even if it didn't).

      You simply do not get it. It's okay. He still died.

    2. This broadcast was not a laundry list of facts -- which people like to ad hoc dismiss anyway, so they need reminders to think things through.

      This broadcast was more epistemological. You simply don't bother.

  41. There is a great deal of history combined with legends involving the walrus and the people that have lived for centuries in the Artic cold. They understand all too well that without the walrus they wouldn’t have been able to survive. Their early ancestors killed the walrus for meat. They also found great ways to benefit from just about everything that the body of the walrus had to offer. They were very thankful for this and often included the walrus in their dance rituals and ceremonies.
    There are stories to reference that the walrus was actually a person at one time that sacrificed itself to offer food, shelter, and clothing to the people of the Artic. There are quite a few versions of this story. One includes a father that pushed his daughter off a cliff and saw her turn into a walrus before she hit the water.

    1. Gosh, "solfeggio": that story is even MORE irrelevant than ur previous posting on this earth-shattering discussion about, NOT Paul's demise, but rather, the PROOF of it--which Clare is torturing us for her "explanations" and "prefacing," but NEVER giving-out w. the proof.

    2. Some stories are not ours to give.

    3. Walrus as body reference, supported by other elements more directly elsewhere (the wonky eyes, consistent in left-right different states of damage, the moustache used by them all for distraction later, the damaged mouth, the swollen body) are probably the main reasons for the image.

      However, yes, Walruses provide to the cultures which slaughter them, so they have mystical overtones (heavenly, shall we say), and are appropriate here for that reason as well.

    4. Apsterian does not understand what a proof is, abstractly; if something does not happen to easily hit him in its truth, he does not get the significance.

      He needs to step back and understand what argument does, so that he can make sure to build one correctly in instances he would not otherwise bother to let something from which stick within his mind.

    5. WTF?--"proof" is a sign fm the sensory world demonstrating a proposition in a conclusive manner.

      So WHAT is a "proof" "abstractly"?--ho ho ho ho--u need to explain what u're talking about here.

      Note proper perception shouldn't require too much contriving--one simply submits the senses to reception of the evidence or signs, the mind then simply acknowledges it.

      Clare, u're the one who needs to pull ur head out and quit babbling. An "argument" presents premises for a conclusion--so tell me where I'm wrong, ho ho ho ho ho

    6. To repeat (I just posted this below), since I will not argue the evidence here in words. I have done the work for people & present it in other shows, in the forum comments there & on the blog:

      Apsterian: you don't understand evidence or proof any more than people who resist 9/11 Truth; to people such as you, your understanding of how argument works varies according to the positions you like at first hearing, not with work.

      There is only so much objectivity to any argument (which is evidence meaning-making). Some types are better than others; all are inductive (imperfect) at some level. JFK's backbone is more perfect an argument against an inner trajectory from near-spine back up to centre-front neck, but nothing is perfect.

      Paul's death adds up in all directions; it requires patience with the particular forensic types of evidence available & the Beatles clues material *including understanding that it must be included and why*, and the historical revision (no alibi exists for the counter-case, i.e., this could have happened, with all the gaps in the right places in history, even if it didn't).

      You simply do not get it. It's okay. He still died.

  42. Sitting in an English garden waiting for the sun
    If the sun don't come
    You get a tan from standing in the English rain
    I am the eggman, they are the eggmen
    I am the walrus, goo goo goo joob goo goo goo goo joob

    Expert textpert choking smokers
    Don't you think the joker laughs at you? (Ha ha ha! He he he! Ha ha ha!)
    See how they smile like pigs in a sty, see how they snied
    I'm crying

    Semolina pilchard climbing up the Eiffel Tower
    Elementary penguin singing Hare Krishna
    Man you should have seen them kicking Edgar Alan Poe
    I am the eggman, they are the eggmen
    I am the walrus, goo goo goo joob goo goo goo joob
    Goo goo goo joob goo goo goo joob
    Goo gooooooooooo jooba jooba jooba jooba jooba jooba
    Jooba jooba
    Jooba jooba
    Jooba jooba

    1. "Solfeggio": I guess the Jews aren't here, so u're standing-in to spam the forum, eh?--good work.

    2. Look closely, apsterian. Even you might find conjure the spell you seek.

  43. A key line is the one referencing Edgar Allen Poe; also of note might be a perusal of The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket. That should open some vistas, if you take into account the mysteries there.

  44. this song will tell the tale for an "expert texpert."

    1. There are references in I Am The Walrus, but the references there are also more actually psychedelically split up, due to the closeness to the event & the horror. The film of the song has the missing shoes (bloody in the film still in the booklet), plus "Love the 3 Beatles" on the drum, and much more is in the movie and in the booklet. By the time of the songs Come Together and Glass Onion, the picture they painted of the references had built up and were more literal.

      It is not one thing alone, of course, which builds understanding in such a case as this is, for the circumstantial case.

  45. Final clue: Start watching, The Shining Code, on youtube. Start thinking about Kubrick; then watch Stanley accept his DW Griffith award speech on youtube only after. Do you notice anything peculiar in his satellite fed video response? Now think what the 11 means, whether in 911 or Apollo, or other diverse magical mysteries.

    1. In The Shining, Kubrick seems strongly to reference Paul's death as well as the Apollo hoax.

    2. Clare Continues To Torture, Deprive, Tantalize Rest Of Us Mortals

      Perhaps, but Clare: note u continue to with-hold any actual proof for the regrettably pre-mature demise of our dear Paul.--U just got no proof, but u wish u did, and u've soooooooooo exerted urself in wishing, u imagine u actually have achieved that proof--which proof exists ONLY within ur own mind which is so far advanced, the rest of us mere mortals cannot grasp.

      Remember: that "proof" must be that appropriate to the real world of objective reality--real for us mere humans no less than for such advanced-thinker as u, dear Clare.

    3. Dear Apsterian: many people do see it & know the case. The only problem with them is that some of them don't know how to present it well or deal with doubters.

      I present the reminders about argument, dear mortal -- as I am.

      Now work at it. Do the work. Then judge.

    4. Clare Needs To Face-Up To Her Being Accused Of Fraud/Hoaxing

      Clare: "proof" properly means a sign existing in the OBJECTIVE world and then present itself to one's SENSE-PERCEPTION. The mind only sets the perceptions to look in proper direction, that's all. The mind then merely acknowledges the evidence of one's perception.

      So tell us what are those signs existing in objective world which serve as evidence so that we mortals can look and see for ourselves--u got nothing.

      U seem to pt. to this or that sign which isn't conclusive or even relevant, then use another, and pretend to putting them together to say, "ahhh, I've solved it," ho ho ho

      U're just a con-artist who's conned urself, that's all, and u berate the rest of us who don't go along w. ur self-deception. It's not our fault, and we've done all that's necessary for any honest searching.

      Note Clare: at a certain pt. u become outright fraud and hoaxster--this is ur problem, not ours.

      If there's proof of OBJECTIVE nature, say what it is, or they are--list them if there's more than one sign--LEAVE OFF w. the prefaces, marginal notes, and "explanations." Quit shilly-shallying. We're starting to beginning to losing patience w. u.

    5. Apsterian: you don't understand evidence or proof any more than people who resist 9/11 Truth; to people such as you, your understanding of how argument works varies according to the positions you like at first hearing, not with work.

      There is only so much objectivity to any argument (which is evidence meaning-making). Some types are better than others; all are inductive (imperfect) at some level. JFK's backbone is more perfect an argument against an inner trajectory from near-spine back up to centre-front neck, but nothing is perfect.

      Paul's death adds up in all directions; it requires patience with the particular forensic types of evidence available & the Beatles clues material *including understanding that it must be included and why*, and the historical revision (no alibi exists for the counter-case, i.e., this could have happened, with all the gaps in the right places in history, even if it didn't).

      You simply do not get it. It's okay. He still died.

  46. In The End, Clare Merely Fools Herself Most

    I get it, Clare: u're a fraud, a phony, and a con-artist--who, further, doesn't seem to understand evidence, what knowledge is, logic, etc.--or maybe u do, but then u're good at lying about what it "really" is, or "could be," ho ho ho--in order to persuade folks there's something wrong w. them who don't agree w. ur foolery, which u think is so engaging and entertaining--u gotta realize it gets old.

    What I don't get--because there's nothing there--is any evidence for PID.

    U also get somewhat mixed-up w. ur nonsense too, like ur above first sentence/paragraph which rather fails for full coherence.

    If u believe ur own lies, that's what's going to hurt u most, in the end, I submit.

    Ur technique is simply: (a) repeat ur assertion which u don't substantiate. (b) Attack others who fail to agree w. ur balderdash which includes nonsense and mock-"philosophy" about logic, evidence, etc., like ur above moronic, "meaning-making," ho ho ho ho ho. (c) Maintain ur certainty, continuing to repeat.

    Danger is the little lies u tell, like above, "your understanding of how argument works varies"--which doesn't make sense--I understand or not, period. It's UR understanding that's most questionable.

    See Clare: if u're a con-artist, which u are, u can't afford to submit urself to too much scrutiny, like here on Fetzer's comments section. Fans of Fetzer tend to be serious students of logic, etc., and that's dangerous for phonies like u who take ur comedy routine too seriously, thinking u can just go on w. ur foolery--it gets old--doesn't it for u too?

    1. You are simply wrong, Apsterian, in your approach and your knowledge base, but you mean well, or you would not be listening to Jim's shows. Just ignore this case.

    2. "U also get somewhat mixed-up w. ur nonsense too, like ur above first sentence/paragraph which rather fails for full coherence."

      What sentence? Remember, I am not doing majorly edited posts here.

    3. Clare Cannot Resist Committing Fraud--Mostly Against Herself

      "You are simply wrong, Apsterian, in your approach and your knowledge base,...." --Clare KuehnSeptember 17, 2014 at 5:43 PM

      See Clare: that's all u can ever do, when u get down to it--assert without substantiating--known as fallacy of question-begging.

      Remember: people can easily see my "approach" as I make it crystal, explicitly, clear as to what and how evidence is and proper treatment for it--which u NEVER do--and they see urs too, u consistently, repeatedly asserting, NEVER substantiating, over and over and over, aside fm ur other absurdities.

      U spice things up w. ur insufferable patronizing, like, "but you mean well, or you would not be listening to Jim's shows." Ho ho ho ho--and u think u're clever or that u're fooling anyone but urself.

      And it's all done for ur own consumption, entertainment, to fool urself, imagining u're being persuasive, etc.

      "[M]ajorly edited posts..."?--why not just say, "heavily edited," or "carefully edited," or just "edited"? Ho ho ho--see, u just start falling all over urself for ur attempted deceptions which requires excessive elaborations and strained phraseology. Ho ho ho oh

      "Ignore this case"?--absolutely not, as it's excellent example of a con-artist (you) getting carried away w. one's own conning of oneself, thinking u accomplish anything.

      And that's great thing about blogs and comments sections where we Fetzer fans can examine someone like u thoroughly--observe it's now over 200 for the comments--u've revealed urself too much, do u think?--that's probably because u take urself--and ur absurd "philosophy," such as it is, on "evidence," etc.--too seriously and don't mind going on and on with it, imagining u make any sense. Ho ho ho ho

    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  47. This comment has been removed by the author.

  48. Clare,
    You need not explain just because apstarian is rattled by your confidence on your opinions. Apstarian can find out through his own gnostic path, and placating him is throwing pearls before swine.
    (No offense aps). But methinks you protest too much. Life is short. At least research the case on your own. Clare did not in this Paul M. Controversy. Really? It was proven forensically in a Wired magazine article. Keys not forget Paul's role in the 911 PR event. This show wasn't about the fake ears he wears. (True)

    My father was signed to Capital Records in the early sixties. My father appeared on the Ed Sullivan show. I have even met John Lennon's sons. But none of that would matter. It would be special pleading. But I will say this: I find shows like this one with Clare far more important -- oh so important -- and much more intriguing than hearing the same old debates about how the towers cane down etc.

  49. Those same talking points Jim has down pat, on either JFK or 911, mostly because Jim -- for all my deep appreciation of him -- has kind of hardened his beliefs into just shy of dogma, and thus the litany of shows where he exposits these same talking points: (Fusion centers collating... Federal, state, county...can you believe not one incident... terrorism... ) are not nearly as appealing as viewing a topic that does not get the same constant repetition to where the show loses a kind of vitality in its restricted diversity of subjects and it's creeping tone of pessimism. I speak more about the movement at large than Jim's show, which is at least bolder and more courageous and diverse.

    Don't get me wrong. I love that Jim is spreading the word for the neophytes, and solidifying knowledge for the recent converts to the church of sinister truths, and Jim has his synthesis down tight, but for veterans of this knowledge who seek to keep moving forward and help apply this knowledge for the immediate reform of our world by addressing all that needs attention, or viewing those familiar areas everyone covers with new eyes and approaches-- well the feeling is it is very nice to get out out of our familiar patterns. All reality is just a pattern after all.

  50. For instance, with regard to 911, I think Dr. Fetzer has the mechanics down pat, but this becomes essentially boring after a point, and we become ensconced in a perpetual A&E lecture. I think we know the buildings blew up.

    Moving on... There are all kinds of nuance to be addressed in describing all those more meta-facets of this verity real world, and we would be prudent to seek after first causes in this reality we find ourselves in. How many shows reach out to new frontiers, or examine the apparatus of power in our world or examine just how that power operates? Who are these players and how can they be compromised through myriad ways? What are additional tactics that might be neat to combat this tyranny, as Jim is a marine officer and a fine mind, and everywhere people long to break their ideological chains.

    On the strictly educational level, how can we understand the clockwork behind the many OPERATIONS themselves (aside from our dissection of their phenomenal manifestations in the virtual world and all the corresponding logical discrepancies between that artificial world and the alleged objective real world ever retreating from our line if sight.)

    Are we to act as an Alex Jones audience, and merely tune in occasionally to receive our daily pain for the day and then go back into our shells of cynicism and resignation? Has anyone considered Fukushima to be a psy-op, and if not, what empirical evidence is proving what? And I don't count Rense guests as evidence. The truth community and it's anchors -- if not careful -- will perpetuates a more sinister victim mind set than any multi- national, and soon our alternative voices will be but Capos that keep us in line from doing the incredibly obvious: using our incredible leverage to force change towards a more sane world immediately.

  51. I do not want truth talk to begin to become a regular cottage entertainment that moves slowly as it enjoys it niche. And we all sigh in despair as the world is lost to some vague enemies never studied as we care more about the newest reason life is sucking more and more-- and ain't that a drag?!

    Why is Fetzer saying on his last show that 3,000 people died in the 911 event? I think that is not something that is proven, and is probably unlikely. Why is Kevin Barrett supporting the same candidates in Egypt as the Council of Foreign Relations, just because they are Muslim? Why does he support a wide Islamic caliphate as opposed to a pan- Arab world that is secular and Muslim- friendly? I don't like Israel because it is a theocracy. I don't want a Christian, Muslim, or Jewish state with ambition.

    There are many things under the sun, and I think what listeners need to hear are the other subjects that. An give context to our modern world. Let us get our history right! In this context is Clare's show valuable.

    For instance , has Fetzer done a show on the Scottish Rite? You realize the power of freemasonry right? Why are we not studying the details of those who rule us? Historically, has he done a show on the Knights Templar(for kicks), or perhaps a week devoted to secret societies in general, the origins of Zionism, National Socialism, or various shows diverse guests representing different approaches to studying those occult dimensions of our world wherein real power is located.

    Otherwise, the "same old " material becomes becomes more tedious than a Day Tripper opening song (I kid).

    The 911 shows are pro bono work for the mildly confused, but I think it would be of great import to re-evaluate a myriad of other interfacing topics with perhaps two goals in mind for listeners:

    1) what is our world really like, outside and beyond just the reactive issues of our day. TPTB like when the alternative media is scrutinizing the BS they concoct for us to distract from other subjects.

    2. How can we pivot from being on a reactive, disempowered, cynical population to an empowered, enlightened, proactive group organizing and distilling our knowledge base with the intent of holding ourselves and our fellow travelers accountable for the reality we are accomplices in creating.

  52. Hi Clare: What are the major updates in ur research since ur last episode on The Real Deal?

    1. "Aral": can't u tell?--there are no "up-dates"--Clare is just a con-artist, fraud, hoaxer, that's all. Don't be a sucker, ho ho ho ho