tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post1733094057003186981..comments2024-03-02T21:58:21.667-08:00Comments on The Real Deal with Jim Fetzer podcast: Total InfoUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger250125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-47804953881602550122016-03-28T10:32:56.945-07:002016-03-28T10:32:56.945-07:00I realise this is pretty old, but as no-one seems ...I realise this is pretty old, but as no-one seems to have pointed it out, The Ontario Provincial Police are responsible for policing the province of Ontario, as the name would indicate.<br /><br />The Ontario Police Department are responsible for policing the city of Ontario. Patrickbluehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07760986436835445575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-4507348191506824602016-03-28T10:29:04.619-07:002016-03-28T10:29:04.619-07:00I realise this is pretty old, but as no-one seems ...I realise this is pretty old, but as no-one seems to have pointed it out, The Ontario Provincial Police are responsible for policing the province of Ontario, as the name would indicate.<br /><br />The Ontario Police Department are responsible for policing the city of Ontario. Patrickbluehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07760986436835445575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-50583666933072456612013-03-21T03:33:44.973-07:002013-03-21T03:33:44.973-07:00You are either an agent or one of these thick neck...You are either an agent or one of these thick neckbeard types that jacks off to James Randi and Richard Dawkins and thinks they are so scientific and uses the word science as a cudgel but couldn't explain the scientific process if asked to. But hey, if that is a picture of you then you might be the type of young man James Randi would be into. No, you're probably too old for him. But stupid enough.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06227375422479927428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-30349339167979400952013-03-21T03:21:27.603-07:002013-03-21T03:21:27.603-07:00How convenient for you then; a circular argument d...How convenient for you then; a circular argument defense or begging the question. Obviously we are saying that Paul was replaced. But you say he can't be dead because he is alive.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06227375422479927428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-69988579532638110692013-03-21T03:13:22.628-07:002013-03-21T03:13:22.628-07:00I love how you trolls (or troll since I think it&#...I love how you trolls (or troll since I think it's the same person using different names) all use the same tactic of playing dumb, repeating the same questions and acting like what you've asked for hasn't been answered or provided. And then of course use ad hominem attacks. Why do police use photographs to identify people if photographs are useless. Why is there facial recognition software on computers that can determine identity in photographs, or is that all voodoo too.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06227375422479927428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-49824049517485007002013-03-21T03:05:18.006-07:002013-03-21T03:05:18.006-07:00Well then Frederico, go dig up JFK and produce his...Well then Frederico, go dig up JFK and produce his body so we can prove what happened to him one way or another. In fact, I don't even believe JFK existed until I see his corpse. I mean stupid photos and film proves nothing. You trolls are absolutely retarded. Now go read Turn Me On, Dead Man some more you hopeless waterhead.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06227375422479927428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-79279621063531474162012-02-14T21:00:51.301-08:002012-02-14T21:00:51.301-08:00Jakob's points add nothing to the discussion. ...Jakob's points add nothing to the discussion. This one on schools is a rambling assessment of what the Brits learned and when. It completely fails to make an answer to Total's more general intended point, which was that the Brits were better & more broadly educated at an earlier age then (and probably mostly now, too), than Americans. But yes, Jakob's attitude in general is stunningly pedantic to the point of being way off the mark of the points others are raising.Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-87393239121502446292012-02-14T20:55:26.014-08:002012-02-14T20:55:26.014-08:00First off, dillon, this kind of uncareful backward...First off, dillon, this kind of uncareful backwards track assessment is the kind of spurious idea which does NOT hold any proof of anything on its own. It is why I steered away from PID and even alternate music history for so long.<br /><br />Second, your assertion that this video proves anything about PID is ridiculous, and so "paul is not dead" has no link to what you posted; you merely assert it for your own comfort.<br /><br />Re. backmasking vs. fuller pro-PID case:<br /><br />The general outlines of murder, mayhem, cult activity and subversion in 60s music is covered in McGowan's work on Laurel Canyon, as well as through others. None of that is to do with backmasking at all. And PID can be made as a case with or without the backmasking as well.<br /><br />For music weirdness, however, you could not do better than the following in PID itself:<br /><br />There is a FORWARD reference in the MMT movie version and the stereo (but not re-released mono) version of Blue Jay Way, and it's very graphic and obvious. In the first verse, between four lines of Harrison, the others sing the background vocals. Instead of just "aah"s or something, the words are clearly: "Paul ... Died. ... Paul is very ... bloody."<br /><br />Welcome to the REAL world of clues and evidence for something. Even if the clues and evidence are for fraudulent mythmaking, the PID stuff is much more serious than you're making it.<br /><br />AND we have the forensics case now, well laid out. Work on that; see if you can understand it well enough to debunk or alternately argue for it. Beyond that, yes, there is also a circumstantial pro-PID case which at least shows several possible motives, means and opportunities, enough to make the PID not impossible, and the forensics the true route into knowing whether he did or didn't get replaced.<br /><br />Circumstances against PID are not rock solid. So change your "tune" and figure out the forensics; they're all we need to figure out now. The scientists did a good job; the question is only if it's good enough. Do you understand their points? If not, get informed and argue that aspect. It's the only reasonable tack now, from a logic point of view.<br /><br />Paul may be Replaced or Not, but the forensics, not the circumstantial evidence will clinch that now either way. Argue the forensics. The work there is approachable, well laid out. Find out about it.Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-73503434772258790042012-02-11T18:03:35.396-08:002012-02-11T18:03:35.396-08:00who are the hated?
paul is not dead
http://www.you...who are the hated?<br />paul is not dead<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADemtHx3E4Mdillonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16356352935351845024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-47757432468149753002012-02-01T12:48:28.997-08:002012-02-01T12:48:28.997-08:00It is silent as a syllable, and yes, it is a conso...It is silent as a syllable, and yes, it is a consonant quality changer. You are a pedant. The point I was making is that it is not pronounced, unlike cases such as co-operation, where the second "o" is pronounced. I know these things and for you to continue to act as though I'm ignorant in general is ridiculous. You come across as someone who, in your head, willfully changes the SENSE of a passage, and responds to your misimpression.<br /><br />Just as you do with the PIR case. There are forensics; prove they're bad science or you are shamefully nonsensical as an arguer on the case. Proving bad science doesn't mean maligning a good science team out of hand, or maligning that they did work on the case and found for a position you don't approve. It means proving his head and teeth are the same, and showing where the forensics team did wrong science.<br /><br />Your saying he's the same man doesn't cut it in life; nor would it if I did that.Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-29692547685877874682012-01-29T20:01:52.270-08:002012-01-29T20:01:52.270-08:00Jakob, etc., do not have to end up believing in PI...Jakob, etc., do not have to end up believing in PIR (Paul is Replaced) or PID (Paul is Dead and Replaced), if there's an insufficient case; to them, we could be people who just fall for anything, and I know they think that; but to assume that's what we are, when we raise some scientific findings, is wrong.<br /><br />And of course, some such people point to studies which are "studies", i.e., bad science, but to assume that's what we're doing, is wrong.Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-11759535365496736212012-01-29T00:04:52.799-08:002012-01-29T00:04:52.799-08:00No, dear: you keep re ASSERTING that photos cannot...No, dear: you keep re ASSERTING that photos cannot be studied rigourously and that medical comparisons cannot be made from them. That is baseless nonsense.<br /><br />Understand photo forensics (the Italian team, which is known to be very experienced, laid out some of what is necessary to be rigourous, so they actually help one understand their science method in general and what they did here).<br /><br />It is you who have no scientists or personal understanding of the science of photo forensics on your side. Are you a cretin?<br /><br />Learn. Read. Think. Do due diligence. How on earth do you think people figured out that the Zapruder film was a fake? And how do you think you can know that they did? Do you realize that a scientific experiment or sets of them can be explained?<br /><br />The team in Italy did a number of experiments on rigourously selected aspects of rigourously selected photos. YOU repackage mere claims. I however find myself repeating the method of what's called in philosophy the scientific method (proper reasoning about real-world matters) for you.<br /><br />If the skulls and teeth are different in ways which cannot be altered by surgery without also changing other things which are detectable, then the two men are different. The team presents a rather full argument that the two men are. They are a top team.<br /><br />Read. If they're wrong, show how. If you do not do this, you are the cretin of method, EVEN if your prejudged conclusion is correct and Paul was not replaced.Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-79723365951370006552012-01-26T10:53:43.626-08:002012-01-26T10:53:43.626-08:00* Let's argue the forensics -- of voice and fa...* Let's argue the forensics -- of voice and face. At that point, we will know if he was replaced. And THEN, if we find the science is good, we can argue how people covered it up and how he died or moved away, if that's what he did. *<br /><br />You have no science. You have nothing. You merely continue ad nauseam to repackage and repeat your old baseless nonsense.Terry Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10567593436853293998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-73624164648937688492012-01-25T21:25:37.803-08:002012-01-25T21:25:37.803-08:00"One cannot undo that which does not exist.&q..."One cannot undo that which does not exist."<br /><br />Of course, and one cannot undo that which does. The forensics team has made a case; they are scientists at the top of their field; your argument is specious (a non-argument).<br /><br />As to careful "selection": you know, if you have any ideas in your head which are straight ideas, that careful selection is proper scientific method. It is the kind of selection process which determines if it's valid or invalid.<br /><br />Show us that the photos were badly chosen; show us that the points made were bad science (improper method).<br /><br />You have not done so. You have no facts about forensics on your side; we do. Disprove the science -- show that it's bad science, not that you believe he was not replaced and so you believe they couldn't have a case.<br /><br />You live on hunches and requirements for paperwork where hunches have been superseded and scientific counter-argument is now required, while paperwork is unavailable but not critical, because we have the science of the faces and voices to argue.Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-23623373616989756752012-01-25T21:17:03.463-08:002012-01-25T21:17:03.463-08:00Almost nothing is merely "possible" in m...Almost nothing is merely "possible" in my world view, dear Jaco. There are things we do not know yet, and use that term or "putative", quite appropriately in those instances; things are known to be physically possible but are unknown yet in a given case.<br /><br />The facts are that the forensic scientists are serious, and you have to handle their arguments or have no argument yet yourself. Whether your hunch is right or wrong that Paul was not replaced, you present it as a mere hunch.<br /><br />You also demonstrate idiocy repeatedly, and post nonsense repeatedly here.<br /><br />Not every murder or disappearance has a record of where the body or person was taken. Not every murder or disappearance has witnesses and when they do, not always are these witnesses or records available at all or for some time after.<br /><br />The issue is: was he replaced? Can we tell? The science now seems to be rigourous. Deal with it or you're acting on a mere hunch, assuming that we are. :) The forensics team is a serious one (which matters), whatever you like to say about them yourself (not that that matters). So: did they do a good job?<br /><br />You have not read it yet, have you?<br /><br />If you did, then what parts do you take issue with?<br /><br />These are facts they present. This is my case. No need for records or witnesses, if the photos and voice analyses were well done. Disprove them or you have no case, just your hunch. Dream away, or prove the scientists' work was flawed.Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-7822026921626480842012-01-25T21:08:14.744-08:002012-01-25T21:08:14.744-08:00Forensics team - laughable? I remind you of the fo...Forensics team - laughable? I remind you of the following. Or can you not read?<br /><br />"Some background of the Italian Forensic Scientist who concluded that Paul McCartney was replaced in 1966:<br /><br />Gabriella Carlesi is forensic pathologist who specializes in identification of people through craniometry (i.e. comparison of certain features of the skull) and forensic odontology (i.e. analysis of the teeth), while Francesco Gavazzeni is a specialist in computer analyses. By putting their talents together, they were able to use a computer to obtain high precision measurements of Paul McCartney's skull from various photos of his face.<br /><br />Certain features of our skull, teeth, and ears are extremely effective for identifying us; some of them cannot currently be modified by surgery. In fact, in Germany, the identification of the shape of the right ear has the same legal value of that of a DNA test or fingerprints detection.<br /><br />Gabriella Carlesi has been a consultant for identification of people via digital image processing for various investigations, including:<br /><br />• The identification of Sergei Antonov in the scenario of the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II, in relation to the "Mitrokhin Archive" (for an Italian Parliament Commission),<br /><br />• The identification of Francesco Narducci, connected to the investigation of the so called "Monster of Florence,"<br /><br />• The murder of journalist Ilaria Alpi and her camera operator Miran Hrovatin (for an Italian Parliament Commission),<br /><br />• The assassination of Benito Mussolini and his mistress Claretta Petacci (for a historical reconstruction).<br /><br />This is a lot more than you have brought to the table. All you bring is name calling and bluster."Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-205311697790276022012-01-25T21:06:44.029-08:002012-01-25T21:06:44.029-08:00I remind you of the following, or can you not read...I remind you of the following, or can you not read?<br /><br />"Some background of the Italian Forensic Scientist who concluded that Paul McCartney was replaced in 1966:<br /><br />Gabriella Carlesi is forensic pathologist who specializes in identification of people through craniometry (i.e. comparison of certain features of the skull) and forensic odontology (i.e. analysis of the teeth), while Francesco Gavazzeni is a specialist in computer analyses. By putting their talents together, they were able to use a computer to obtain high precision measurements of Paul McCartney's skull from various photos of his face.<br /><br />Certain features of our skull, teeth, and ears are extremely effective for identifying us; some of them cannot currently be modified by surgery. In fact, in Germany, the identification of the shape of the right ear has the same legal value of that of a DNA test or fingerprints detection.<br /><br />Gabriella Carlesi has been a consultant for identification of people via digital image processing for various investigations, including:<br /><br />• The identification of Sergei Antonov in the scenario of the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II, in relation to the "Mitrokhin Archive" (for an Italian Parliament Commission),<br /><br />• The identification of Francesco Narducci, connected to the investigation of the so called "Monster of Florence,"<br /><br />• The murder of journalist Ilaria Alpi and her camera operator Miran Hrovatin (for an Italian Parliament Commission),<br /><br />• The assassination of Benito Mussolini and his mistress Claretta Petacci (for a historical reconstruction).<br /><br />This is a lot more than you have brought to the table. All you bring is name calling and bluster."Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-37401202027773804052012-01-25T21:03:45.987-08:002012-01-25T21:03:45.987-08:00Forensic science doesn't prove anything? Tell ...Forensic science doesn't prove anything? Tell that to the Intel and Police communities! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.<br /><br />Idiot.<br /><br />If you're right that Paul wasn't replaced, prove it; don't just rely on your beliefs.<br /><br />I have a belief based on scientific argument. I would thus be open to a rigourously argued counter-point on the science. You are not open to either? Disprove the scientists' work, or you're blowing hot air, Jaco, even if your hunch is right.<br /><br />You have only a hunch right now.Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-83663159062954022832012-01-25T18:17:15.900-08:002012-01-25T18:17:15.900-08:00Jakob, You have gone bananas, to put it mildly. W...Jakob, You have gone bananas, to put it mildly. We all know where you are coming from. Give it a break. If you persist in posting again and again, I will consider removing your posts. Enough said.Jim Fetzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05539733121153973439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-7547024657432900962012-01-25T18:05:57.991-08:002012-01-25T18:05:57.991-08:00When the mafia/CIA/MI5/MI6 or The Mossad whack som...When the mafia/CIA/MI5/MI6 or The Mossad whack somebody and dispose of the body there generally isn't:<br /><br />1. Death Certificate (until the person has been missing for 7 years)<br />2. Autopsy<br />3. Funeral<br />4. Inquest<br /><br />How can you listen to Fetzer and be so unaware of how the intelligence community operates? You are a friggin' moronAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-29197946046198594042012-01-25T17:38:53.191-08:002012-01-25T17:38:53.191-08:00Psychosis would be clinging to the belief that a m...Psychosis would be clinging to the belief that a man can get a different skull somewhere between August and December of 1966 and still be the same man. <br /><br />Spin that anyway you like.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-49973832007946151932012-01-25T17:32:33.027-08:002012-01-25T17:32:33.027-08:00"It IS your job to provide facts that show co..."It IS your job to provide facts that show conclusively that Paul McCartney is dead.It IS your job to provide facts that show conclusively where and when Paul McCartney died."<br /><br />Jaco you are totally insane. It's YOUR job to prove that the person who claims to be Paul McCartney today is in fact Paul McCartney. Forensic science proves that the person who claims to be Paul McCartney today has a different skull than the original James Paul McCartney born in 1942. Therefore they are different people.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-41224027621894782422012-01-25T17:24:37.588-08:002012-01-25T17:24:37.588-08:00Some background of the Italian Forensic Scientist ...Some background of the Italian Forensic Scientist who concluded that Paul McCartney was replaced in 1966:<br /><br />Gabriella Carlesi is forensic pathologist who specializes in identification of people through craniometry (i.e. comparison of certain features of the skull) and forensic odontology (i.e. analysis of the teeth), while Francesco Gavazzeni is a specialist in computer analyses. By putting their talents together, they were able to use a computer to obtain high precision measurements of Paul McCartney's skull from various photos of his face.<br /><br />Certain features of our skull, teeth, and ears are extremely effective for identifying us; some of them cannot currently be modified by surgery. In fact, in Germany, the identification of the shape of the right ear has the same legal value of that of a DNA test or fingerprints detection.<br /><br />Gabriella Carlesi has been a consultant for identification of people via digital image processing for various investigations, including:<br /><br /> • The identification of Sergei Antonov in the scenario of the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II, in relation to the "Mitrokhin Archive" (for an Italian Parliament Commission), <br /><br /> • The identification of Francesco Narducci, connected to the investigation of the so called "Monster of Florence,"<br /><br /> • The murder of journalist Ilaria Alpi and her camera operator Miran Hrovatin (for an Italian Parliament Commission), <br /><br /> • The assassination of Benito Mussolini and his mistress Claretta Petacci (for a historical reconstruction). <br /><br />This is a lot more than you have brought to the table. All you bring is name calling and bluster.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-56252943420910022642012-01-25T16:45:52.567-08:002012-01-25T16:45:52.567-08:00Those are only some of the facts in a death and re...Those are only some of the facts in a death and replacement scenario. The main fact to determine -- if those other things are currently not yet known -- is whether there was a replacement.<br /><br />The replacement or not is the first issue we need to determine. The Italian forensics team made arguments that they had determined there were two men claiming to be Paul. Photo forensics is a science, and can be done badly or well (as can any science), so let's determine if they did a good job.<br /><br />You have not dealt with the facts of the case until you have dealt with the forensics. Period.<br /><br />After that, if there was a replacement, we can hope we will track down the death details or where he moved to --- if there was a mere replacement somehow, though that seems less unlikely than death.<br /><br />So FIRST FACTS FIRST: is the man different now? If so, then we'd know there was some kind of death scene, or new home, for the original.<br /><br />Stay focussed on the true thread of the case:<br /><br />1/ Replaced?<br /><br />2/ How.<br /><br />So:<br /><br />1.1/ Forensics of face and voice analyses done well?<br /><br />2.1/ If so, then how was the replacement done, why, and how have we fooled ourselves?<br /><br />First things first. Forensics of replacement or of same man? Handle the science; is it done well? Don't assume. Find out.Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-79011774196732972402012-01-25T16:19:03.402-08:002012-01-25T16:19:03.402-08:00The Jaco Everardski posts and the recent posts abo...The Jaco Everardski posts and the recent posts about "psychosis" rely on circumstantial evidence alone, and, to boot, circumstances which are not air-tight against a replacement.<br /><br />The posts I've entered are about forensics: of voice AND face, in fact (though I've emphasized the facial forensics). This is not psychosis in the least, of course. If the forensics findings were carefully proved wrong, I would be the first to acknowledge that. Of course, one would have to question those findings in turn, which is only due diligence both ways. But if the counterargument were made and stood scientifically, then fine.<br /><br />Jakob's emphasis, on the other hand, is mere deflection at every point. He has claimed that photos and films cannot be carefully chosen by rigourous standards and tested to make forensic comparisons between what are putatively different people -- in any instance where good comparisons can be made because they happen to have certain points of comparison showing in the film image, which a scientist needs in order to do rigourous work to identify IF a replacement has taken place, in whatever case (not just Paul McCartney).<br /><br />And of course, he has never handled the points of the scientists, so if they are invalid arguments, he has not shown so: he has merely assumed.<br /><br />Finally, I use "putative" to show that I can see both sides, and merely treating the case for his death or replacement, and the case against it, with equanimity, and that I merely find lacking the case against replacement.<br /><br />As should anyone, until there is a good counter-forensic case made. Does Jaco have this? No. He has circumstances, and selected ones at that: the idea that family, friends, acquaintences) were impossibly silent is belied by the forensics, if they're correct forensics.<br /><br />By the way, in the cases of Emilio Lari and Roby Yonge, they were not silent, though.<br /><br />And Jaco and the rest replace argument about the forensics with the idea that no forensics could be done, can be assumed to be untrue in this case, and the scientists were nuts or I'm a mere repeater of other people's conclusions. None of those things is accurate.<br /><br />Let's argue the forensics -- of voice and face. At that point, we will know if he was replaced. And THEN, if we find the science is good, we can argue how people covered it up and how he died or moved away, if that's what he did.Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.com