clarekuehn
Hard Day's Night
Yes he died. Yes 1 man replaced him. Yes that was it. Yes wasn't so well done. Yes big implications.
Posts: 46
|
Post by clarekuehn on Aug 13, 2019 4:41:27 GMT -5
Delysid (and Hotman637 by quoting the former) claimed that Lennon's forensically accurate drawing can be debunked. Now what would that mean?
1 that Lennon did not draw it. Given several aspects of the acquisition and discussion of it within a month, and its contents and its context as an object upon which the drawing was done, the idea that anyone other than Lennon drew it is beyond unlikely.
2 that it was drawn by Lennon but is not of Paul. For similar reasons, though with more emphasis on the details of the content, this is impossible as a normal conclusion. In other words, in the real world, this is not possible. One can consider only a small aspect of the problem and spin off, but no.
And if it is of Paul, then, it also shows, with forensic accuracy, a two-way open head wound with collapsed forehead and broken ankles. This confirms all artistic clues about Paul dead, plus gives salient, medically accurate types of details.
I also was addressed by someone whose name I forget now, about the Mal page. Iamaphoney is obviously a serious leak. The funding came from Neil Aspinall originally, most likely, given evidence of funds out of his movie account at the time the Rotten Apple Series on YouTube came out from the Iamaphoney group. With Neil dead not long after, Bill took it over as much as he could influence these people, whoever they were, these people with a bit of a conscience. This set of conclusions requires lots of backing up, which I have done, but of course cannot repeat here, for brevity's sake. As it is, this is going to be a long comment post.
Anyway, any sleuth worth her/his salt should notice that the Mal page and book cover are the climax of the movie, a movie constructed so that most people don't notice the content and climax. But it's the climax. It has every indication by wording and what is said, of being a genuine Mal account. Moreover, what is shown, how often, and how some parts are shown in Rotten Apple series only, to make easy exposure against doubters harder, all indicate hiding key evidence in plain sight.
In deadly conspiracies, all evidence must have some level of deniability ... even when that is ridiculous once the context is known. But put something true in with things which distract, even when those distractions aren't false, and you have an attempt to tell you something. It might be an object, such as this book page, or it might be a truth inside a bullsh*t statement on TV.
As far as Kaleidoscope's comments about LaRouche go ... (and I don't have any of the poster names in front of me, as I type this, so please excuse misspellings) ...
LaRouche was identifying types of conspiracy links in the world, and brought out British influences (including history of banking coups and drug and slave running), things which "Illuminati" jargon of recent years rather misses. Every attempt to look at "who does the big evils" will miss some and catch others, some of the same in most sieves, some different.
And LaRouche himself was nearly killed or stopped when in prison, obviously cutting a deal not to mention Clintons going forward. In the switch from Bush Sr to Bill Clinton, in some ways Bush's lackey (though in others a different flavour), LaRouche himself steered away from one toward repeated criticisms of the other.
Agreed he saw being pro people as some form of Marx ideology when he was young, but that is common. As he moved forward, he realized that Marx had problems and yet wanted to help people.
LaRouche was not his own best advocate, being very bright, but also insular in how he saw certain social ills. Some of the best papers I have ever seen came out if his followers: on the Irish Potato Famine and Bailly in the French Revolution, and on Gauss.
Anyway, as regards Tavistock as the "big bad group" of social engineering, I have to agree with you, Kaleidoscope (spelling wrong, I know): Coleman, with his Committee of 300 book, pushed disinformation about PID by design or because he was fed it. He claimed Tavistock and Adorno (who were connected) simply wrote the Beatles and everything is weird. But it is not. Control of people in a business, even in a cult, is different for different definitions of control. Surely, the Beatles were influenced by or at least promoted into certain places by those we can call controllers. But to suggest they were not themselves and organic in other ways simply goes against all levels of evidence, and I'm including logic as evidence links.
Moreover, Paul died, so all this misdirection onto Tavistock (and Adorno), recently produced again in another form, the Memoirs of Billy Shears book, what is it?
It is merely, in my opinion, a mix of good short-hand for some types of players in the conspiracy to cover up the death of Paul and help his replacement succeed, while, in Coleman's case, these players do not even have a death to cover up.
Finally, about the idea that Jackie Kennedy shot Jack, mentioned also by Delysid (again, sorry for misspellings), that idea is only possible by not understanding not only Dr Costella's findings about the Zapruder film, and all others who worked on aspects of the problems of that film. It also requires no sense of the photographic evidence of blood and where the shots came from, why her skirt would show less blood, especially in a black-and-white photo of a pink suit, and the witness testimony.
... Except that we still need someone to catalogue all the evidence for the Italian-owned, crash-impacted McCartney car.
|
|
clarekuehn
Hard Day's Night
Yes he died. Yes 1 man replaced him. Yes that was it. Yes wasn't so well done. Yes big implications.
Posts: 46
|
Post by clarekuehn on Oct 27, 2015 19:39:41 GMT -5
Hey, IWILL, have you got that transcript?
|
|
clarekuehn
Hard Day's Night
Yes he died. Yes 1 man replaced him. Yes that was it. Yes wasn't so well done. Yes big implications.
Posts: 46
|
Post by clarekuehn on Oct 27, 2015 19:36:14 GMT -5
He wrote TOMORROW NEVER KNOWS after his third LSD trip in January 1966. This track was the first to be recorded for the Revolver Album in April 1966 at Abbey Road 3. The title was taken from The Tibetan book of the Dead. The original title of the album REVOLVER was to have been ABRACADADABRA. "That's the first record with backwards music on it; before Hendrix, before The Who, before any f**ker."JOHN LENNON SPEAKING ABOUT REVOLVER. Actually it was on the recording for RAIN which (along with Paperback Writer) was done in the same session as the Revolver tracks but never made it onto the album. Notice how the image of John has Joan of Arc sitting on his ear (the only one shaded in). She heard voices too. Well, his mind wasn't replaced; he was in grief and messing with drugs. That's not mind replacement, not worth saying it that way. If we speak of him as modified by his experience, sure. Now regarding Joan of Arc: I don't know that it is Joan on John's ear on the Revolver album cover drawing/collage. Everything else is the Beatles themselves and they are drawn with tall collars next to that. If it is Joan of Arc, so what? She was mystical, listened to her inner voice or heard voices mediumistically. John was kind of mystical in his "visionary" qualities and it suits him in that way.
|
|
clarekuehn
Hard Day's Night
Yes he died. Yes 1 man replaced him. Yes that was it. Yes wasn't so well done. Yes big implications.
Posts: 46
|
Post by clarekuehn on Jan 5, 2015 21:15:42 GMT -5
Thanks, both. "IWILL": Transcript is helpful, too. Thanks; do let me know, please. We need it available. -- Of course, the power of the audio (& the lost video) are also useful. --- & "B", no, that link will get you viruses, it seems.
|
|
clarekuehn
Hard Day's Night
Yes he died. Yes 1 man replaced him. Yes that was it. Yes wasn't so well done. Yes big implications.
Posts: 46
|
Post by clarekuehn on Jan 3, 2015 18:05:21 GMT -5
Hello.
When radio broadcaster Roby Young got Dr Henry Truby to comment on Paul's voice -- how it is different than Bill's voice -- the comment was not aired by Roby's own station, but he gave it to another, who showed it to openminded lawyer, F. Lee Bailey. This started Bailey thinking, which made him do a trial (formally speaking, a mock trial), in Dec 1969.
The audio is gone from the Internet except tiny snippits; the one page which shared the full audio has no audio on it now; the master video tapes are missing at the station, too.
The trial -- so to speak -- was powerful enough as a serious treatment to keep people wondering, despite denials from Peter Asher & others, that Paul had not died, & despite the misunderstood exchange with Fred Labour. (Labout had commented before the show he'd "made it up", prompting Bailey to say he'd better participate anyway, but really meant he'd made up his version for the article he wrote, & has said so in a documentary by others, now, & Bailey didn't mean Fred should lie.)
I would like a full copy of the audio. Please find one & message me, or ask around. Thank you.
The trial would not "prove" it to many people, especially now, but it is a powerful item in our arsenal, & coverup artists know that.
|
|
clarekuehn
Hard Day's Night
Yes he died. Yes 1 man replaced him. Yes that was it. Yes wasn't so well done. Yes big implications.
Posts: 46
|
Post by clarekuehn on Oct 13, 2014 18:46:35 GMT -5
Paul is very dead & Beatle Bill is still around. Many assume admissive statements are a joke & denials the truth. They fit both hypotheses, & since the case that Paul died is the broader & stronger, people become wrong, for example, about Ringo's meaning, when he said he is the last remaining Beatle (of the Fab 4 configuation, of course he'd mean, no matter whether as a joke or not, so Pete Best or Stu Sutcliffe were not the issue). Many people just don't get it, about Paul. Of course a hoax possibly happened, if there were no other information to support the existence of items called clues: that people only read into things. & Even then, if there were no other considerations, one could stop at the idea of how it was done as a hoax (metaphor of transformation being one form of hoax, too, since it's not literal death). But once one looks at the putative clue items -- or most of them, anyway -- as clues (just in case), one finds not only consistency, detail & reason for their being there as mostly normal expressions of grief, but support in photos, John's private drawing, history (gaps as much as events we know), reasons for killing Paul and, even if there was no murder, reasons for starting the putative ruse & people who would help, as well as testimony now of & an early text mention of the problem of a Paul death rumour. -- So: we all need to learn what we know now, on the side which gets whitewashed: For those ignorant as yet that there was an early rumour and the Beatles were involved in it, even if Paul did not die: THERE WAS A TEXT ITEM PLANTED AS EARLY AS FEB 1967 IN BEATLES BOOK. For whatever reason, it's there. And Emilio Lari, photographer for 1965 film "Help!" is now on record saying he heard it (not necessarily from Beatles) even earlier, in London 1966. ------ Even if Paul did not die, these things are the case. --- Beatles Book: s1050.photobucket.com/user/beaconfilms2011/media/paulcrashnews1_zps5e78413e.jpg.html - Lari: youtu.be/3QtRk1OUYuU?t=1m19s He needn't have died for you to get these points. & John drew Paul very accurately dead. invanddis.proboards.com/thread/7714/clare-kuehn-research-paul-dead?page=1&scrollTo=110490Many people (even who are studying the case for Paul's death) forget one of the main looks Paul had, which "he" suddenly "lost" entirely ("gaining" others). This allows most people to conclude he had only Bill (Sir Paul/ Faul)'s looks -- or, for some in PID research, that he was replaced multiple times (an unnecessary but of course an hypothesis, for which people have amassed material as evidence). ... Yes I really said that. You are remembering only how Paul sometimes gave an impression of a longer face, not how he often does not. You forget how Paul often looked much more boyish or sweet-faced without being extremely young, which Faul (Bill/ Sir Paul) never does because of face shape & features, even at extreme. i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/Puzzle_PID_mccartney.jpg - i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo110/faulconandsnowjob/1966_comp.jpg - 4.bp.blogspot.com/-kP9XMx1_LuE/UwYmQ80k7zI/AAAAAAAABPI/H6qSlu2Yquk/s1600/PAUL+McCARTNEY+PIANO+SHEET+MUSIC.jpg - marinasanches2005.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/paul-em-rain-2-1966.jpg - marinasanches2005.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/paaaabcwp0mb-x3svomxhjfi6kwj4cns4t0-_0sutjqp_3zcc7xoenkehrto_tetgesujrblrebgkhxmzoij4kd6ftqam1t1ugeubpydlxz9uaqo-mktbrntii6t.jpg - marinasanches2005.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/paul-em-rain-1.jpg <-- this one is longer b/c of expression but same overall face/ head. Here, get it? www.thebtls.co.uk/tbyesterdayandtoday45-booklet.jpg ----- Can you see the consistent look in them? Faul never achieves this look. How did they try? The Sgt P gatefold over-round doctored face of Faul, the White Album wide-angle closeup of Faul (distortion). Etc. -- Get it? -- You have to ask, what general look does each have, what outlying examples, where the overlap is & where not. Paul died long ago. RIP Paul, 48 years, Sept. 11 just past.
|
|
clarekuehn
Hard Day's Night
Yes he died. Yes 1 man replaced him. Yes that was it. Yes wasn't so well done. Yes big implications.
Posts: 46
|
Post by clarekuehn on Aug 30, 2014 0:52:23 GMT -5
John was not replaced. Not only do photos match consistently, but yes, he mellowed while keeping his utter buoyancy bursting out. He also was strung out on heroin, bulimia, stress. But when he bursts, it's the same.
Goodness gracious.
& It wasn't overnight.
|
|
clarekuehn
Hard Day's Night
Yes he died. Yes 1 man replaced him. Yes that was it. Yes wasn't so well done. Yes big implications.
Posts: 46
|
Post by clarekuehn on Aug 29, 2014 17:46:26 GMT -5
Hi, B. Happy Birthday!
|
|
clarekuehn
Hard Day's Night
Yes he died. Yes 1 man replaced him. Yes that was it. Yes wasn't so well done. Yes big implications.
Posts: 46
|
Post by clarekuehn on Aug 22, 2014 0:14:23 GMT -5
I will be on Dr Jim Fetzer's broadcast again, on Sept 8, to talk of Paul's death, in time for the 48th anniversary on the 11th. The 11th itself was already booked for the 2001 fraud. www.revereradionetwork.com 6-8 pm EST, Sept 8. Archives will be available a few weeks later at www.radiofetzer.blogspot.com
|
|
clarekuehn
Hard Day's Night
Yes he died. Yes 1 man replaced him. Yes that was it. Yes wasn't so well done. Yes big implications.
Posts: 46
|
Post by clarekuehn on Aug 19, 2014 0:12:59 GMT -5
May I point out: clearly they're using a darker, less rounded form of face to suggest Paul (complete with disjointed upper head, by shadowline), but this is definitely our 40-ish Sir Paul. They've attempted, with the darker & more sweet look of the distortion, & upside down, to give some impression of Sir Paul & his original "self" (real Paul) but, having no 40-something pics of Paul (of course) & not being able to use a 24-year-old Paul picture or it would be too obviously not real footage in an otherwise real-footage movie, they did it this way. Slightly undistort the image and it's a darker-haired version of mid-80s Sir Paul (Faul).
|
|
clarekuehn
Hard Day's Night
Yes he died. Yes 1 man replaced him. Yes that was it. Yes wasn't so well done. Yes big implications.
Posts: 46
|
Post by clarekuehn on Aug 12, 2014 22:25:50 GMT -5
Finally, we need to make a ruckus even without the PID overtones, with people on regular Beatles sites, to agitate to get ALL PAGES (all pages) of Mal's diary released, in original form. This is the true "Beatles Bible". The diary pages were never shown and only tiny excerpts given. Where is the fan outcry? Use social media, etc. Our goal are the Paul death references, but if "neutral" agitation is big enough, we could get shots of the pages. Transcriptions will not do, for our purposes. This document should be studied by Beatles scholars. Put that out: we want to see it, all of it. (Don't announce your PID aspirations.) xo ;;;;;;;;;;; Clare, as much as I would love to see the Mal Evans diary/book, to whom exactly would we appeal for its release? If the screenshots for the IAAP video's are genuine then we should assume that Mal's manuscript now resides with either/or Apple or McCartney. In Billy and Me, Billy Martin alludes to having read it so someone on the 'inside' must have given him access. Either way, if they wanted the book released you have to think that it would have happened by now. My guess is that Mal may make claims as to how much Beatle material he actually contributed to, and therefore, it has been supressed for this reason rather than any overt PID clues. Alternatively, as I wrote here, if the 'they did a good job in Nairobi' comments allude to PID, or trepanation, or something else, why doesn't he explicitly spell this out rather than make subtle hints? We have to consider then that the document is possibly a fake. I would be more than happy to assist with a social media campaign but who would we direct it at? As I said, we should NOT (not) mention the BOOK (book). We should just go everywhere mentioning the DIARY (diary). Just mention it everywhere. Create a big, embarrassing buzz. That should do the trick. It's for publicity of the issue of how the diary is not published & reproduced; that's all. See? ---- Of course the Mal page is genuine (the persons at the meeting are not those one would expect, nor are they in a predictable order, or slightly rearranged from expected order, but rather are how Mal's mind might just list from seeing them in person & edit later; the manner of writing & thinking fits Mal's level of intellectualization -- i.e., not much -- & his very emotional way, his types of concerns, & the sorts of things he'd resent). It's also the climax of the film. & Of course it's not made absolutely certain for us: it's still an f-ing coverup, just one with leaks!!!! XO
|
|
clarekuehn
Hard Day's Night
Yes he died. Yes 1 man replaced him. Yes that was it. Yes wasn't so well done. Yes big implications.
Posts: 46
|
Post by clarekuehn on Aug 12, 2014 2:04:51 GMT -5
Terra Incognita - Paul is Dead, il caso del doppio Beatle.mpgwww.youtube.com/watch?v=d2Jhd5DEtekSome new things in it: Sketches (those found by JoJo) investigation about the Aston Martin (that really had an accident in 1966) I'm in it too! (sorry about that ;D ) 1. We NEED (need) an Italian transcript & then English translation. Or subtitles. We need it for the formal case. Will someone please contact the videomakers ... or do it? 2. Also, what are the documents shown (Sir Paul diary pages) & how did they get them? 3. Finally, we need to make a ruckus even without the PID overtones, with people on regular Beatles sites, to agitate to get ALL PAGES (all pages) of Mal's diary released, in original form. This is the true "Beatles Bible". The diary pages were never shown and only tiny excerpts given. Where is the fan outcry? Use social media, etc. Our goal are the Paul death references, but if "neutral" agitation is big enough, we could get shots of the pages. Transcriptions will not do, for our purposes. This document should be studied by Beatles scholars. Put that out: we want to see it, all of it. (Don't announce your PID aspirations.) xo ;;;;;;;;;;;
|
|
clarekuehn
Hard Day's Night
Yes he died. Yes 1 man replaced him. Yes that was it. Yes wasn't so well done. Yes big implications.
Posts: 46
|
Post by clarekuehn on Jul 28, 2014 0:02:40 GMT -5
I just feel like saying that though it's a bit macabre, I am proud of my little creepy, but friendly, dead Paul avatar. I think he's laughing in Heaven.
|
|
clarekuehn
Hard Day's Night
Yes he died. Yes 1 man replaced him. Yes that was it. Yes wasn't so well done. Yes big implications.
Posts: 46
|
Post by clarekuehn on Jul 27, 2014 23:47:01 GMT -5
But wasn't 1st issue of IT in apr. 66? Maybe it was just the newsletter before that. Thanks. So it was Sir P dressed up ... very clever.
|
|
clarekuehn
Hard Day's Night
Yes he died. Yes 1 man replaced him. Yes that was it. Yes wasn't so well done. Yes big implications.
Posts: 46
|
Post by clarekuehn on Jul 26, 2014 21:31:35 GMT -5
"Paul's name is unmentioned otherwise as being anywhere specific, until Kenya trip period. We have one mention of a Paul in attendance at an avant-garde music event a little while after the death, but this mention is either a complete cover story, or the beginnings of weaving in Sir Paul's behaviour into the story." It's nice to see the board back on track. Thank you and welcome, Clare. It might be hard to find at this point but in early 1970s articles about Syd Barrett and Pink Floyd, one or two mentioned that "McCartney showed up, dressed as an arab", and "McCartney was there, his head wrapped as an arab". This would have been at the UFO shows in late '66/early '67, I believe. Will try to find and link at a later time. Thanks MT It was the International Times launch party that McCartney attended dressed as an arab. Also in attendance was Yoko Ono - even though, at this stage, she claims to have never heard of the Beatles!
IT launch should be from April 1966. I meant something from Sept. It's mentioned on one of the Beatles history sites, beatlesbible.com, I think. Yes, Ono knew Sir P before & seemingly John & Paul. Well, Sir P says by accident in 2004 on radio (Howard Stern) that Yoko came to his house asking for Beatles original song page & he sent her to John. Is it Sir P or Paul? Likely Sir P himself. However, it does mean he and at least John knew each other. -- By the way, in this line of reasoning we can also wonder if the Paul "dressed as an Arab" was actually Sir P already mimicking his desired target. Just wondering. No way to know right now.
|
|
clarekuehn
Hard Day's Night
Yes he died. Yes 1 man replaced him. Yes that was it. Yes wasn't so well done. Yes big implications.
Posts: 46
|
Post by clarekuehn on Jul 21, 2014 20:39:41 GMT -5
It might be worth posting some q's from a private chat, name withheld.
"Is this why The Beatles were said to be virtually bankrupt by 1966? [In reference to my comment that Epstein was linked to Lord Goldman and Portmeirion, Wales crowds, who reportedly got him to embezzle to make good in tax havens. I bet they then took much of it.]
Do you mean Epstein had to agree to what happened to Paul?
There is a theory that they were groomed by the Frankfurt School during their time in Hamburg. How could they have thought that by playing in grotty bars in the red light district that they could ever become big stars? Something else had to come into play. Also, there seems to have been a connection between Ringo joining the group and their rise to stardom. Just on the cusp, Pete Best being swopped for Richie Starkey, though Pete Best was a better drummer and better looking. Also, part of the mystery is Rory Storm (Alan Caldwell)and his death with his mother in 1972."
My reply:
-- Pete Best is nice but, in the emotional sense, he's a nice doofus guy. He's not as hardwired to be witty, fun as the others, or emotionally astute. Ringo has some of these qualities, though he hangs back in times of trouble. Pete was also less experienced as Ringo on the drums at the time.
-- Ringo is a far better drummer than most out there: he plays perfectly to the song, for the song and little more.
George wanted Ringo.
-- I know little of what happened re. Rory & his mother.
-- The Frankfurt School & Cambridge 5 are very connected. But when these 4 unknowns (later with Ringo instead) were in a low part of town with the mob running the joints they worked at, is not where the FS/C5 could have gotten involved in the story.
When getting quite famous, the Beatles, with cultic intel would be wanting a part in it all. That would be when the money men got involved w/ Epstein (there is lots of suggestion of this part), and, it seems, around then, some people started grooming their spook-intel-cultist-musician, Sir Paul.
-- No, I am not saying Epstein would know or approve of what happened to Paul, but happened to the Paul figure as a continued idea: a double, a new bandmate.
Not that Eppie knew of what happened to Paul, but that it was prob. orig. thru Eppie that intel-cultists worked their pushy suggestions in, about getting a double.
However, maybe Eppie supposed it was murder.
Epstein was already somewhat compromised, I think. Not that he liked these ideas or necessarily suspected murder, but if I'm right, it was through him that intel elements got the idea out to the rest, maybe even proposing the switch as permanent but the lie as temporary?
I think, right now, that if course Epstein would have to push this idea initially, or approve it somewhat, to run by John in the shock for all of them, including Epstein. He was the only one in charge of affairs in London, when the death happened -- with George effectively on his way within days, to India and Ringo not the leader type. John and Neil Aspinall were in Germany, preparing for the movie, "How I Won the War," which would be mostly filmed in Spain.
That is the likely timeline, it seems to me.
|
|
clarekuehn
Hard Day's Night
Yes he died. Yes 1 man replaced him. Yes that was it. Yes wasn't so well done. Yes big implications.
Posts: 46
|
Post by clarekuehn on Jul 20, 2014 18:37:48 GMT -5
About Sir Paul and his family (also because this was asked in a private message): Some pics were doctored (not Photoshop, of course), some not. Usually a few promo pics might be doctored for Sir Paul if he needed to be looking a bit more like Paul. Really, after time, he did NOT need to look much like Paul. And about Brian Epstein, who, I think, was blackballed into proposing a new Paul initially (though everyone may have been scared in their own right that continuing without Paul was impossible for them and for the public): Brian was embezzling; he was syphoning to the Cambridge 5 (Rothschilds affiliates) to find speculative tax havens (especially through Lord Goodman, it seems, and others at the Welsh elite Portmeirion region, and through other such friends of Bertrand Russell, whose relative's estate is what the Tavistock Institute is named after). Aside: note that Bertrand himself had a very mixed attitude toward public good. Brian was also gay at a time when it needed protection. He died for all of this combined with the Paul death coverup, it seems. All pill bottles were full with caps on and only a 1/2 bottle of wine was drunk, with no signs of vomit, etc., mentioned by the one observer, other than the policeman who initially went into the room with this observer, a friend of Brian (I forget the name -- I could look it up -- he wrote a book mentioning this scene and his feelings about it). So when Paul died, I'm sure intel came to Brian to offer the idea but that someone said, "Do it." It's not a normal thing to think of, to do a replacement, even if he was not blackballed into it. It was done quickly. It would require intel help forever to some degree anyway as well. Cultic and intelligence infiltration elements are all around Sir Paul's interests (high-up interest in Crowley, OTO, etc.) and some of his later behaviour suggests a double life as a spook-cult affiliate as well as, er, an actual double. RIP to all the people who lived and died with this stuff in their lives.
|
|
clarekuehn
Hard Day's Night
Yes he died. Yes 1 man replaced him. Yes that was it. Yes wasn't so well done. Yes big implications.
Posts: 46
|
Post by clarekuehn on Jul 20, 2014 18:28:31 GMT -5
I should add about the "Harvey and Lee" thesis for Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO), a.k.a. "Alek K. Hidell", because someone asked me in a private message: I am very familiar with the thesis. It seems to be whittleable as follows: there were some people impersonating LHO near the end, to give people the idea for later witness statements that an LHO was making a ruckus, was unstable, etc. -- and the Life "Backyard Photo" crap used a Dallas policeman (we know who it was) for the chin and parts of the body. LHO photos were also doctored with his wife and so on, seemingly because he was unavailable for good pics, being mostly on operations (including this one: doctormarysmonkey.com/index.htmHe remains the only person, so to speak, whose tax forms (W-4 and W-2 forms) have been not found, and whose other tax forms are doctored. This does not mean there were two of "him", but it does mean they couldn't allow his actual whereabouts and accounts receivable to be known. Here is a summary, though it uses the "Lee and Harvey" thesis as its backdrop. www.mindserpent.com/American_History/books/Armstrong/Taxfraud/taxfraud.htmHere is Judyth's good summary of part of the way the "Harvey and Lee" thesis goes wrong, though it is based on attempts to hide and doctor Lee's photos, signature, whereabouts documents (such as tax forms), etc. The simpler (though still complex) explanation of ongoing operations and a later coverup for the JFK death operation itself, is quite sufficient. judythbaker.blogspot.ca/2010/03/measuring-up-lee-and-harvey-photo.htmlHere is info on the Backyard Photo fiasco: www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/19/framing-the-patsy-the-case-of-lee-harvey-oswald
|
|
clarekuehn
Hard Day's Night
Yes he died. Yes 1 man replaced him. Yes that was it. Yes wasn't so well done. Yes big implications.
Posts: 46
|
Post by clarekuehn on Jul 19, 2014 23:04:40 GMT -5
Clare said: Eek! Hey: There is one Linda. Where on earth have PID people gone so off the rails? Sorry, but really: not only does it SEEM odd; it's untenable. Sometimes Linda, who was a bit of a player and surly, like Sir Paul, was effusive and loving, like him, too. They have their moods. I think she was very happy but slightly abashed on the wedding day. Nothing odd. Moving on ... ************************************************************************************************ Where did the idea come from to have Linda in Wings? She could neither sing, play an instrument or have any on stage presence. She often seemed to be "spaced out" in photos, however, some pictures show her with no make up (the eau naturelle look) and other times she wore make up but in some pictures she seems to have very thin legs and knock knees; other times she has more shapely legs. She must have been very pushy to arrive in the UK from America unknown and find herself in the centre of the social whirl of the top musicians of the era (taking the cover photos for "Electric Ladyland" too). Also, the suicide of her first husband, Melville See after her death. Why did Faul adopt her daughter Heather when she had a father living? I think he loved Linda (but I also get the impression from his controlling side and from some things Iamaphoney did, especially in the private video section of his Cloud site, that he may have abused her at times). I agree she had a spaced-out and sometimes unwell aspect; I think she was not emotionally completely stable, especially around him and the power around him both as a Beatle and -- if he was abusive as well -- as an abuser. Certainly he drank a lot; they both did a lot of drugs (especially weed and hash, and he LSD for a while). People's aspect (legs, etc.), changes with their emotional wellness as well as their eating and carousing, over time. Sometimes good lighting and bad lighting and angles do have some exaggerating effect, too. She is she, however in all other ways. He wanted his partner, woman, sidekick (all of these things) to be in his dream, his band, with him, etc., live his life with him. It's not all bad, but it is kind of bad in some ways. He adopted her child so they could raise a complete family for her, not formally separate the child and act formally as if he didn't care about it. It was a good thing to do in that way. Yes, she was pushy, had a high (and power-brokering) sexuality to "determine to get Paul"; but I have no problem with her being sexual -- as such -- and recognize some people would never meet or sleep with a powerful person without pushing their way into their life. C'est la vie, sometimes.
|
|
clarekuehn
Hard Day's Night
Yes he died. Yes 1 man replaced him. Yes that was it. Yes wasn't so well done. Yes big implications.
Posts: 46
|
Post by clarekuehn on Jul 19, 2014 22:59:31 GMT -5
I find it interesting that people say one thing for years and years and then when that thing is refuted instead of admiting that I may have a good point they all of a sudden CHANGE THEIR STORY! For example Christians have said for THOUSANDS of years that God is a man. When I say "God is a woman" they all of a sudden say "God is neither man nor woman, God is spirit"! I NEVER remember a Christian saying it before and they ALWAYS referred to God as a "he". It is the same with the Zapruder film. People have used that film has evidence for all sorts of theories over the years and that is fine because it is a good piece of evidence in my opinion. Then I mention that I think it shows "Jackie did it" and all of a sudden the entire video has been faked! if it was faked then it cannot prove Jackie did NOT do it! Hi. God or goddess or all-is-love-and-creation ... I am fine with your deity comment. Let's turn it to a woman for a while, so that we can really flesh out that idea to contrast with the Man and Spirit-only versions. Of course you are right the Zapruder film as a fake does not exactly disprove your case, but: a) it is the film alone which was used to implicate Jackie -- though yes, there are things which can derive from the film which are mentioned by witnesses or can be reasonably assumed to be details they'd miss and which fit the general lines of reasoning b) no witnesses concur and they do indicate quite the timeline in full, if we discount where the film radically disagrees (and if we're careful in other ways about the witnesses). Best wishes.
|
|
clarekuehn
Hard Day's Night
Yes he died. Yes 1 man replaced him. Yes that was it. Yes wasn't so well done. Yes big implications.
Posts: 46
|
Post by clarekuehn on Jul 19, 2014 22:54:11 GMT -5
I was also amazed to read that the car itself was refurbished and used by Presidents for many years until Jimmy Carter was the last President to use it. It is now in a museum. Oh the car was very much refurbished; it (and especially the windshield) were completely redone. The main issue was the windshield, which had a through-hole in it, long denied and still officially denied. There is much now known about this -- even from a witness participant in the changing of the windshield, a senior manager at the Ford Motor Company, George Whitaker, who didn't realize for some time what his work was being used for (coverup), thinking it was merely for FBI practice, and who later spoke up, but had asked for his name to be withheld until after his death, which occurred in 2001. Here is some information: jamesfetzer.blogspot.ca/2013/03/tampering-with-limo-in-jfk-altgens6.htmlBut for the full info on Whitaker, you'd need to go to the book: Assassination Science (1998) www.amazon.com/Assassination-Science-Experts-Speak-Death/dp/0812693663In addition to that, the science is available for other aspects in two other books edited by Jim Fetzer: www.amazon.com/Murder-Dealey-Plaza-Didnt-about-ebook/dp/B00GJVZ8H4and www.amazon.com/Great-Zapruder-Film-Hoax-Deception/dp/081269547XThese 3 contain all you'd need to know to get quite up to date about much of the science, including the full Zapruder information, the Dr Mantik findings about the different X-rays, about the windshield, etc. However, the info on Lee in the doorway is only on line, and I've given you the link for that (article # 2 of about 8 with the same title there, which you can search for). I gave # 2 to you partly because I contributed to it: I wrote the last 3 paragraphs before the final paragraph; and because I think that of all the articles, it's the best summary of the gist. www.veteranstoday.com/2012/04/13/jfk-special-2-oswald-was-in-the-doorway-after-allAnd Doug Horne's masterful 5-volume "Inside the AARB" is also useful for finer points, such as the young morgue assistant who somehow got into the autopsy and didn't realize until he was at the AARB that what he'd seen (the doctor taking the cranial saw to the head of JFK) had been used to describe the enlarged huge hole, as if from a top shot, as if it were the "condition" of the head (equivocating on the terms, thus the doctor knew he was telling, in effect, a lie about the original condition). www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1?ie=UTF8&field-author=Douglas+P.+Horne&search-alias=books&text=Douglas+P.+Horne&sort=relevancerankOr one can just listen to all the old broadcasts on www.radiofetzer.blogspot.com (which I have, but it takes a lot of time and also patience with how people do or don't do good interviews sometimes, or information is corrected over time). You're welcome. Now back to Paul?
|
|
clarekuehn
Hard Day's Night
Yes he died. Yes 1 man replaced him. Yes that was it. Yes wasn't so well done. Yes big implications.
Posts: 46
|
Post by clarekuehn on Jul 18, 2014 19:14:24 GMT -5
Hi Clare, it is great to converse with you. So, here's some more information. As you correctly surmised, John's meeting with Yoko was arranged. She was his handler; her job was to keep him in control so he wouldn't spill the beans. In the late 70s, John began a secret project, the album "Double Fantasy", which means "fantasy of a double". He put in many songs exposing Billy; however Yoko found out and went ballistic, replacing all those songs with her own, and only leaving the album title. But John was breaking away from Yoko's grip; she could no longer control him and had a hand in his assassination. Faul was also happy that he'd been silenced so he could continue pretending to be Paul unhindered. ********************************************************************************************** Thankyou for all your careful explanations Clare. Taking into consideration the above; does it not necessarily follow that Linda (and there seems to be two Lindas) was also there to "keep an eye on Bill"? She never let him out of her sight and was always "clinging onto his arm"; however, in tv interviews they seemed to have little or no body language or chemistry between the two and would sit apart, with them both seeming humourless, surly people. Even on her wedding day, when asked how they felt, Linda replied, "We're very happy", but did not look it. It seemed to ring hollow for the woman who had snared the world's most eligible batchelor (or so we were led to believe).... Yoko's specific wishes to bag a Beatle, a top Beatle, are well known. BUT she was also into Indica avant-garde and would have toyed with some of the alternative religion concepts there (such as Crowleyite thinking); she's not an intellectual about religion, though: too superstitious and too fickle about it, so I doubt she was a real devotee. Could she "be intel"? Depends what we mean. However, could others have warned her to keep an eye on John, etc., so that we can IN SHORTHAND BUT NOT EXACTLY ACCURATELY call her a handler (with her own controlling tendencies played a role in his 1970s life)? Yes. John's "double fantasy" is also the name of the incredible flower he found in a greenhouse (if I recall) and also very much about his marriage. Could he have had also Paul in mind (with Sir Paul)? Maybe. But really we should not read in in this way: if references are thematically clear and constant, then fine if grief comes in for another reason into a song yet the person might have had all griefs on their mind at once, including Paul, and there is some reference to him there, then fine Eek! Hey: There is one Linda. Where on earth have PID people gone so off the rails? Sorry, but really: not only does it SEEM odd; it's untenable. Sometimes Linda, who was a bit of a player and surly, like Sir Paul, was effusive and loving, like him, too. They have their moods. I think she was very happy but slightly abashed on the wedding day. Nothing odd. Moving on ... ================== Diana death scenario interview (best 1/2 is 2nd half for details of findings, but 1st half gives some overview): radiofetzer.blogspot.ca/2014/06/john-morgan.htmlRight-click green name to save and listen, or left-click green name to listen on line. ================== Returning to Paul now ... ?
|
|
clarekuehn
Hard Day's Night
Yes he died. Yes 1 man replaced him. Yes that was it. Yes wasn't so well done. Yes big implications.
Posts: 46
|
Post by clarekuehn on Jul 18, 2014 19:07:18 GMT -5
Quote: hotman637 Jackie killing JFK is not my "first impression" not by a LONG SHOT! I have studied the JFK murder since the seventies. I have read tons of books and seen many documentaries about the Kennedy's in general and the assassination in particular. My birthday is the same day (Novemeber 20) as RFK and Jim Garrison (he wrote "On the Trail of the Assassins" the book that is the basis of the movie "JFK") I am not claiming to be an "expert" on the JFK murder but I am a "fanatic". I have also spent years studying 9/11 and PID and they are ALL CONNECTED! I did not realise this till I recently happened to see a video on YouTube explaining how "Jackie did it". Then I realised that ALL THREE are connected to ancient "Goddess Cults". 9/11 is the "unveiling of Isis" ( the Statue of Liberty is Isis). PID is connected to Kali the Hindu Goddess of death in the movie "Help". Jackie Kennedy was called "The New Durga, Goddess of Power" when she went to India in 1962. Durga is the ultimate God of the universe and she kills the demons/men when they get out of control. So I am not simply saying "Jackie did it" off the top of my head! ALL THREE of the greatest conspiracies ever are CONNECTED and behind them all is God who is a woman. With all that in mind go back and look at the Zapruder film and tell me what you see. *********************************************************************************************** I have also studied much re JFK but mainly focussing on LHO the enigma. What you say re the goddesses also holds good for the death of Princess Diana re the goddess Diana, the huntress..... Time Life magazine went to see Abraham Zapruder early next morning when they realised he had filmed the grassy knoll sequence and gave him an offer he could not refuse to sell the film to them. It subsequently went out of the public domain for the following 25 years (that is why they wanted it). That it was "doctored" should not be a surprise to anyone. It was more than doctored. It was completely redone, frame by frame. Even Zapruder, who likely was asked to film it and may have known of the assassination coming, didn't recognize his film and was caught off guard about it in the Warren Commission Hearings. The sale, how the film was taken to Hawkeye Works (CIA) and so on have all been worked out now. The main point for you, and most people, is to know how we know of the doctoring (utter remaking) in the most mathematcially absolute sense that any piece of inductive evidence can have. As to the Cultic-Intel aspects of major conspiracy events: Yes, there are such elements involved in almost all such top events, sometimes just the special choice of the day, or where the funeral happens, or whatever. Not just "female" aspect, however.
|
|
clarekuehn
Hard Day's Night
Yes he died. Yes 1 man replaced him. Yes that was it. Yes wasn't so well done. Yes big implications.
Posts: 46
|
Post by clarekuehn on Jul 18, 2014 19:03:11 GMT -5
Following on from all these revelations it is obvious that the "Paul and Jane engagement" was just a sham as he was already dead by that time (Christmas 1967) and so the story that Jane found him in bed with another woman and broke off the engagement is all PR. Also, the photos at the farm in Scotland supposedly of Paul and Jane were of Bill and a Jane double (plainer, shorter and plumper). However, it was the real Jane who accompanied Bill to Rishikesh (once again, no body language between the two and they were the first to leave saying they were bored). It also becomes crystal clear why he did not attend his "father Jim's" funeral and later broke off contact with his stepmother and stepsister as they were no relation. Agreed.
|
|
clarekuehn
Hard Day's Night
Yes he died. Yes 1 man replaced him. Yes that was it. Yes wasn't so well done. Yes big implications.
Posts: 46
|
Post by clarekuehn on Jul 17, 2014 23:44:32 GMT -5
This is OT, but from what I understand of the JFK assassination, the DRIVER shot him. That is why Jackie was crawling along the back of the limo towards the boot - she was trying to get away from him. Had it been a shot from outside the car, she would have ducked down between the front and back seats. The grassy knoll thing - noise and smoke had been created as a distraction and it was when peoples' heads were turned away from the limo and towards the grassy knoll to se what was going on, that the shooting occurred. This is my theory on the matter. That most likely comes from the redone film; the driver's image is split from other times, with the car. The background keeps moving but the car and people are all grabbed from different times. Jackie had eased Jack up. She was holding him when his head exploded. There were shooters behind and in front. (And on the side, in the Grassy Knoll area.) However, if the driver was a backup shooter, it's possible. But Jackie was not up on the back of the car until after. Once his brains exploded (with such force toward the left rear, that the officer at that corner of the car thought he himself had been hit), she crawled up in shock, trying to save the pieces, as if they could matter when they got to the hospital. She also offered some of it (bone fragment roughly) to the doctors there, asking if it would help. The Grassy Knoll was a shot which the shooter pulled at the last moment because it would hit Jackie (she'd moved) and she was beloved even by some creepy characters. Anyway, please read the 3 points. It is important to understand those, not the full case, so that the confusion of how we can know that there was more than one shooter, Oswald wasn't one of them and why to turn to research not the Zapruder film (and that there was a coverup) are clear in your mind in ways that mean you can never be fooled again by the gist. If anything even seems to make the case that LHO was involved or there was one shooter (whoever), or the film should be used directly without great care, you can stay straight about the gist. Some other argument might confuse you or be wrong, but these three will never be undone in ways which are reasonable. If they could, they would fall, but they are not undoable in a reasonable way. And now, back to Paulie and Sir Paul. Sorry for the digression, but it was intended to help in general.
|
|