tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post5135956934874484685..comments2024-03-02T21:58:21.667-08:00Comments on The Real Deal with Jim Fetzer podcast: Clare KuehnUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger249125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-30394981315700719992016-12-06T13:03:06.187-08:002016-12-06T13:03:06.187-08:00Skulls ad forensics? When they separate Paul'...Skulls ad forensics? When they separate Paul's skull from his skin and measure it against the skull in the grave of the original Paul, AND prove that that other skull IS the original to be compared to, then and only then will we have proof. Skulls can not be accurately measured in a photo. Paul has not submitted his skull for measuring and neither did his earlier body get measured physically. SO this is 100% impossible. Your italian forensic experts are either frauds fakes or wanted to get their name into the press. Forensics needs actual physical evidence. <br />There are no eyewitnesses, no dead body, no missing person named billy shears or william campbell ever reported. There are a number of theories and 'clues for you all' that were planted by the beatles, and other clues that were simply extropolated as such like the licence plate. (the VW is only in some of the pictures, if it were a plant it would be in all of the pictures but during the photo session the driver drove it away! You dont do that to your clue and then take more pictures.)Celebration Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04052287198642122746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-7546911719076478042015-06-30T16:11:02.243-07:002015-06-30T16:11:02.243-07:00What PID needs is some ' "photographic&qu...What PID needs is some ' "photographic" "analysis" ' of "permanently raised, bent legs". Darnit! The Boston Marathon has ' "photographic" "analysis" ' of "permanently raised, bent legs" so why can't PID have <br />some ' "photographic" "analysis" ' of "permanently raised, bent legs"?<br /><br />Come on, Clare! You can do it!! <br />Bring it on!! We want to see <br />your PID ' "photographic" "analysis" ' <br />of "permanently raised, bent legs"!!<br /><br /><br />http://youcanknowsometimes.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/boston-kid-with-permanently-raised-bent.html?m=1Clair De Lunehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12831380731225009443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-25326419765179495412014-09-25T16:40:57.616-07:002014-09-25T16:40:57.616-07:00Some proofs require background to understand each ...Some proofs require background to understand each part and come together in compiled, complex nexuses (pictures, in the mind, so to speak).<br /><br />Hence, each part may link together into a bigger whole which is a proof (an argument you accept), which "compels" acceptance.<br /><br />As I said, above, court goes through that. So does anything large, any theory. It requires patient and thorough work.Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-1140285421293266672014-09-25T16:29:00.497-07:002014-09-25T16:29:00.497-07:00I've told you the elements Sir Paul would have...I've told you the elements Sir Paul would have come from and how his interests in certain topics and uninterestedness indicate the same.<br /><br />I've told you the elements of how to know the forensics and other tendencies link together (nothing "just proves it" for a passive mind). Same with many court cases.<br /><br />How does it fool people? I discussed it. For example, as you wake up to the idea, how did it fool you? Many ways.<br /><br />One way is that until people get an admission, who would wonder? Very few people. Another way is that little doctoring in the beginning helps, then everyone assumes the new, talented person is the former.<br /><br />When you do show very different photos (as I said), they say that that might be a mere one-off, but these outlying examples show a transition from our regular examples. But the outlying examples of each period do not come from the same. -- Do you remember my pointing out this obvious factor?<br /><br />Then there are the psychological reasons we don't want to attack idols, or if we do, we still tend to think the admissions are the joke and the denials are real.<br /><br />And so on. What you heard as my babbling was the answers you didn't know how to listen for yet. Same thing. :PClare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-65313762134188721372014-09-25T16:20:56.608-07:002014-09-25T16:20:56.608-07:00Jim and I decided to discuss the general concepts ...Jim and I decided to discuss the general concepts and ways to learn to see it, and what an experienced person who knows Paul died would have to say about most aspects of his character.<br /><br />We were not running through only the forensics issues.Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-91587253805421643902014-09-25T16:18:57.450-07:002014-09-25T16:18:57.450-07:00You obviously did not read the 400-page blog. It i...You obviously did not read the 400-page blog. It is in there. With a lot else.<br /><br />It was also mentioned in other broadcasts.Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-9977176113039740892014-09-25T16:17:35.094-07:002014-09-25T16:17:35.094-07:00Apsterian: what you call babbling is complete expl...Apsterian: what you call babbling is complete explication of all aspects of every point.<br /><br />However, glad you noticed something.<br /><br />There is no "conclusive" piece, until one understands all of the evidence shows the same tendency and you see the differences in your own mind for yourself.<br /><br />I told you: I am NOT going to provide you with a bunch of images and links here. They are on the blog and others are mentioned in different broadcasts.<br /><br />I only gave a full discussion of height issues and the easiest single comp of many, because Total is a friend, knows Paul died, and asserted overmuch that the heights are different. They are; but the argument is complex because of different cameras and situations.<br /><br />So, resistant Apsterian, one day you will notice that the specifics of why a person like you would not accept certain comps, are important to "babble about" (explicate).<br /><br />Certain comps are not as easy as others, but still show the tendency when they're properly "babbled about" (explicated).Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-36721692896543224182014-09-25T12:24:20.372-07:002014-09-25T12:24:20.372-07:00Clare: u are without doubt a babbling idiot.
Proo...Clare: u are without doubt a babbling idiot.<br /><br />Proof: <br />1.The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.<br /><br />2.The validation of a proposition....<br />3.A statement or argument used in such a validation.<br /><br />"something which shows that something else is true or correct" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof<br /><br />So ultimately, substantiation for ur idiot insistence about PID is something of reality subject to perception. And ur job to simply pt. out the signs fm reality to be perceived, u moron.<br /><br />I have no "work" to do, but to simply observe and acknowledge any proof u're obligated to provide. U're the one who must do the "work" for providing the evidence, the sign fm reality.<br /><br />"Total" at least says something which now only needs be verified, only that verification needing be given or cited. I don't really care (about the "Paul" contrived controversy), but I simply insist there's got to be evidence--like what "total" alleges.<br /><br />There are other problems--WHO then is this imposter?--IF it is an imposter, and HOW could he be sooooo successful for fooling people as he obviously has done?<br /><br />BUT DON'T START BABBLING, AS U ALWAYS DO, ABOUT THIS SECOND PART. First provide the proof for the diff. btwn the real Paul and the fake--that's ur first problem--which u've FAILED to solve, even to understanding, ho ho ho ho ho.<br /><br />apsterianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03297809679042040011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-34530473423791429712014-09-25T08:55:53.794-07:002014-09-25T08:55:53.794-07:00No, a proof must be recognized through argument.
...No, a proof must be recognized through argument.<br /><br />The arguments are not in one place, Apsterian. They are given over many broadcasts, in my blog, and some good other posts & videos. As in a court: points are argued for every piece of evidence (what you call proof), until it's decided the thing or several things linked in a larger argument are the proof (final decision) you seek.Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-61678860774592012842014-09-25T05:29:35.752-07:002014-09-25T05:29:35.752-07:00Total posted about the height differences, below, ...Total posted about the height differences, below, and Dr Jim Fetzer mentioned them in the broadcast. Here is a careful discussion of that issue:<br /><br />http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IxEv9cM4GPI/UU3hYqedN0I/AAAAAAAAAHU/Z9Tc7b65y0g/s1600/Paul_mccartney_mal_evans.jpgClare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-51540655959545333762014-09-25T05:28:01.877-07:002014-09-25T05:28:01.877-07:00Thanks, Total. Nice to see you here.
However, onc...Thanks, Total. Nice to see you here.<br /><br />However, once one notices the general larger build of Sir Paul, it is true that exact comparison is near impossible. There are some camera tricks used and in large scenes, small differences (2-3 overall inches in height), are distorted by even regular camera lenses.<br /><br />For a facial portrait under ordinary conditions, these differences are a few millimeters, making the difference negligible, but there, expression can change radically.<br /><br />For a height comparison, most examples of new Paul and Paul himself are problematic.<br /><br />What we can say is that he is consistently larger where he should be smaller, but exactness is not possible.<br /><br />He is probably 2-3 inches taller ... but that is not a huge difference in any part of the body; and it's enough to make the "it's his wearing of heels" or "it's camera lenses" seem to explain the evidence of height difference.<br /><br />The fact is, though, he is a bit heftier all over and whenever there is a normal height picture, if one is very careful, one still notices a height problem.<br /><br />The comparison to Mal Evans, which Tina Foster and now I have on our blogs, is the very best single comparison. Though there is a wide-angle lens used in each photo (of Paul and of Sir Paul), the proximity to Mal in each case demonstrates a rough measure for Paul and Sir Paul.<br /><br />Paul is further away from Mal, so in the photo, he is indeed even smaller than he was, relative to Mal, but he is close enough to show that he would have to be about 2-3 inches taller (as well as closer to Mal and standing straighter), to reach the head height and overall body proportions of Sir Paul.<br /><br />It is not as extreme a height difference as you might think (Paul's being about 5'9" or 5'10" -- lying about height, with John, from several indicators -- and Sir Paul's being 6' or 6'1.)<br /><br />Sadly, Sir Paul's shoes are not showing in the photo of him, so heels are a factor, but the overall body proportions in regions of the body (torso length to Mal vs hip height vs knee) then become useful to telling, as I mentioned. For Sir Paul is lined up to Mal, closer, with the lens distortion less at the centre of the image than the edges (left-right), and the distortion up and down being roughly the same for Mal and Sir Paul on the axis their bodies share (up-down).<br /><br />http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IxEv9cM4GPI/UU3hYqedN0I/AAAAAAAAAHU/Z9Tc7b65y0g/s1600/Paul_mccartney_mal_evans.jpgClare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-38656164604210090512014-09-25T05:08:22.242-07:002014-09-25T05:08:22.242-07:00Apsterian is wrong, too, on what an argument and p...Apsterian is wrong, too, on what an argument and proof and sensory information actually are:<br /><br />they are all subject to mistakes. An argument as a preamble for what is judged a complete proof is one way the term is used; it is also the name for the whole case and so is proof: the demonstration of what is judged. Each word has an emphasis when we use it: argument emphasizes how the conclusion was made; proof emphasizes how the conclusion feels at the end (it's supposed to be a good argument with a conclusion in the positive, i.e., that we agree).<br /><br />So the entire claim, that is, with its backup arguing, is a proof in mathematics. In real-world claims, we have not agreed to the terms beforehand, so we consider no decision we make actually final on the argument, or proof (now synonymous in our meaning), that's all.<br /><br />The idea, too, that senses merely submit information which we will just know, is radically wrong, too. But it is a common mistake.<br /><br />If there is a trick, the way we know it is also difficult; often even knowing how to judge a counter-proof to what our senses told us is very hard.<br /><br />We have to put aside our emotional and mental conviction that a proof of a trick is going to be absolute or simply be extremely obvious when we are shown how it was done.<br /><br />Sometimes, instead, we will have to know how it would have been done if it had been done, combined with a likelihood that it was, and then some salient direct indications (Apsterian's direct proof, direct sensory information), but which are fleeting to our own senses, not some huge impact on us.<br /><br />For Paul's replacement: many people do see the difference in a radical and consistent way, but for those who do not, the kind of fleeting feelings and fleeting agreement which a demonstration of an illusion's trick are in play.<br /><br />For example: if someone does see or hear a difference, they do not listen or look for more, but explain the difference as individually (ad hoc) having to be for a nice reason: age, camera, lighting, studio sound wizardry, etc.<br /><br />But if they began to notice a whole set of differences, with patience, they would begin to see the trick to a greater degree.<br /><br />Apsterian does not do this. It takes patience and willingness to dovetail one's emotions and thoughts in a new way, which stops saying "Ho ho ho" derisively.<br /><br />It's okay. Paul still died. It is sad and angering and interesting, but he is either nowhere or he is okay in some other dimension (heaven), as some would say. RIP.Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-6534274863947370822014-09-24T20:28:58.791-07:002014-09-24T20:28:58.791-07:00The fake Paul is much taller than real Paul, RIP. ...The fake Paul is much taller than real Paul, RIP. You'd have to be a blind retard not to see that, ho ho hoTotalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09176419145330149064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-43446664455668655072014-09-24T15:34:06.519-07:002014-09-24T15:34:06.519-07:00"You have not processed the types of proof.&q..."You have not processed the types of proof." --Clare Kuehn September 24, 2014 at 2:50 PM<br /><br />* * * * * * * * *<br /><br />Get a load of this latest stupidity: "types of proof"--ho ho ho ho ho Proof is proof, fool, it's a sign in reality subject to sense-perception--so tell us about the sign(s), dumbass--u just get stupider and stupider--sign of a DESPERATE fraud, ho ho ho ho ho <br />apsterianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03297809679042040011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-29952306080524449462014-09-24T15:16:44.870-07:002014-09-24T15:16:44.870-07:00name the diff.s btwn the two men: is one taller th...name the diff.s btwn the two men: is one taller than the other?--what, specifically, are the diff.s?--tell us--u can't, pretending u know, but not saying--u're just a liar/fraud, that's all. Ho ho ho ho ho ho hoapsterianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03297809679042040011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-47389744475467859912014-09-24T15:00:20.869-07:002014-09-24T15:00:20.869-07:00u have no proof--proof only needs perception there...u have no proof--proof only needs perception thereof--there's no "work" needed, u pathetic fraud.<br /><br />"Proof" only needs perception--show (describe) the differences btwn the two diff. people--or cease ur babbling and insisting and bleating and excuses about refusing to show or pt. to the proof, evidence. U have none, and u're lying to us all saying u have it. U're just a fraud, that's all. apsterianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03297809679042040011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-17716175743849098182014-09-24T14:50:06.166-07:002014-09-24T14:50:06.166-07:00You're repeating your nonsense. You have not p...You're repeating your nonsense. You have not processed the types of proof. No mysticism.<br /><br />I have said I will not type out the whole thing. So you can get it or not, do the work fully or not. I have presented the proofs and given guidelines in many places. Not in this discussion. Thus, your point is moot.Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-57482305980253711232014-09-24T14:00:53.036-07:002014-09-24T14:00:53.036-07:00Ho ho hoh ho--Clare says, in effect, she KNOWS (li...Ho ho hoh ho--Clare says, in effect, she KNOWS (like a mystic "knows") they're two diff. people, the old "Paul" and the supposed new one--she just can't prove it.<br /><br />Just be honest, Clare: u got no proof or real evidence, just a strong suspicion--u just "know"--like any mystic.apsterianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03297809679042040011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-11790096563096081392014-09-24T08:18:48.403-07:002014-09-24T08:18:48.403-07:00U won't "give the case" as u have no...U won't "give the case" as u have none--u say they're diff., but then admit, gosh-darn, they too much resemble one another. So u can't demonstrate any diff.--case closed, u lose, fail, kaput.<br /><br />If there's a diff., then say what it is--u can't and don't--u're a failure. U're actually just admitting u can't say if there's any diff.; hence u can't deny they're same. If they're not same, then what's diff.?--u're a joke.apsterianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03297809679042040011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-16285297971761262242014-09-23T22:08:44.585-07:002014-09-23T22:08:44.585-07:00Apsterian: the material is there for you. When you...Apsterian: the material is there for you. When you're ready, work your way through all of it. That I can't do for you. It's proved (argued) & substantiated (evidence submitted and analyzed).<br /><br />It's complicated to show 2 different people with passing resemblance. Think for 1 minute: every expression holds some way one or another feature gains or loses similarity to the other person's feature under a different condition.<br /><br />Again: there is no babbling from me. There are reminders and pointers. I will not give you the case in a forum.Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-30192220801453272752014-09-23T22:05:02.003-07:002014-09-23T22:05:02.003-07:00Apsterian: the material is there for you. When you...Apsterian: the material is there for you. When you're ready, work your way through all of it. That I can't do for you. It's proved (argued) & substantiated (evidence submitted and analyzed).<br /><br />It's complicated to show 2 different people with passing resemblance. Think for 1 minute: every expression holds some way one or another feature gains or loses similarity to the other person's feature under a different condition.<br /><br />Again: there is no babbling from me. There are reminders and pointers. I will not give you the case in a forum. Good night.Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-5961438094805046472014-09-23T12:27:52.008-07:002014-09-23T12:27:52.008-07:00We see u continue to continue to babbling, Clare t...We see u continue to continue to babbling, Clare the fraud, pretending it's all soooooooooooooooo complicated. Ho ho ho ho<br /><br />Clare: I'm not the one who asserts--U ARE, so u're one who needs to prove & substantiate--and which goes to show how out-to-lunch u really are. Ho ho ho ho ho<br />apsterianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03297809679042040011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-39558036051990587092014-09-23T11:50:22.624-07:002014-09-23T11:50:22.624-07:00Apsterian: GMB and others in comments here and on ...Apsterian: GMB and others in comments here and on all the broadcasts, I on my blog, and elsewhere, have given your general guidelines and details to work from.<br /><br />Your "no proof" claim is as dumb as people who hear about 9/11 plane fakery and other lies and say, "no proof", because they don't work through a picture of what life would be like if the hypothesis were true, putting all the marshalled claims and details together to see if they make more sense than the other way.<br /><br />You have not substantiated your claim of no PID, because you call babbling deep, coherent responses from several people here, including my guidelines repeated for you above. I am not going to post all the proofs here on this comments site. That is like arguing all of 9/11 or JFK on a comments section, just for you. Not gonna do it.<br /><br />Go use the pointers from all shows; collect the data and the pointers. Think through.<br /><br />Or don't; but if not, it is not I who have not substantiated anything, it is your own mind.Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-37155414065441798482014-09-23T11:45:32.798-07:002014-09-23T11:45:32.798-07:00GMB: I just noticed your fine points (pointers) ab...GMB: I just noticed your fine points (pointers) about how to see the difference and that it's only months apart, but consistent thereafter, plus how Paul himself is never thought of, now, really. He became -- deliberately but also as a natural casualty of coverup and continuation in a timeline he was not alive for -- a "new person" to such a degree that his real contribution is "old, original" Beatles, as if they were "worse" than Sgt Pepper album and after.<br /><br />Ironically, no, they were not worse; they were better in many ways -- but not in all ways; and I am glad you are here, GMB, to help the points come out. I have gone over so much. People need to use the material I give them, including the discussion (which Apsterian calls "rambling" and "babbling"), about the general ways to think properly about troubling hypotheses and perception errors, if there might be a trick. But I am sick of making the points and sick of being on trial for every method I use -- details (ad hoc-ed to death by detrators) and broad guidelines (called babbling by detractors who think they'd not ad hoc things otherwise, when they would and do).<br /><br />Thanks for helping.Clare Kuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08767270035823206231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759924423263977907.post-47248891747798191042014-09-23T10:55:32.818-07:002014-09-23T10:55:32.818-07:00Clare: u have no shame, just babbling ENDLESSLY, e...Clare: u have no shame, just babbling ENDLESSLY, eh?--u certainly must have strong set of lungs, ho ho ho hoho<br /><br />And I must admit, I don't see any great urgency for getting in deeper to this case--u had ur chance and u've PROVEN u cannot substantiate ur claim of PID.apsterianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03297809679042040011noreply@blogger.com