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 22:25:17 GMT -5
What I see when I watch that "head shot" on "assassinationscience.com" is JACKIE KENNEDY sticking a gun under JFK's chin and blowing the side of his head off (her look of concentration is AMAZING)! Clear as day! She then climbs onto the trunk and grabs the empty shell. what does anyone else see? The film was fabricated, most of it adjusted frame by frame. In grabbing shots and even painting in some aspects, things look odd in some details. Those frames with her "concentrating" include painted face (high-res shows it), and the fact she was grabbed and repeated from a point when she saw the neck shot and started to ease him up. And also no witness saw Jackie do a shot, or the driver. There were other things you would need to know about this to get the full picture. Just remember: Nothing is as it seems in the film. Almost nothing -- very little. This is mathematically proved now, as well as in other ways we had before. The other ways to know it was doctored (recreated, in fact), are now pinned as even more probably correctly interpreted as doctoring recreation, because the mathematical proof is available for some frames. This is especially true of the partial lack of lens distortion in some frames, and the problem with the one I didn't describe, which, suffice to say, has an impossible overlap in a "ghost panel" (such panels were a feature of the camera, so they had to be created as well in the extant film). The lack of lens distortion and the impossible overlap could not have come from any camera on any planet. A blurless frame could, but not in context where the whole film has blur added for a slower shutter speed. Okay? YOU CAN'T GO ON FIRST IMPRESSIONS. PIDers, of all people, should know this.
|
|
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 21:31:12 GMT -5
I came to this Paul death rumour study as an exercise in how people make perceptual errors, but I thought the perceptual error was the OTHER way (that Paul didn't die). I was rather quickly disabused of that thought, though I was careful to check my new thoughts against my old ones, for quite a while. But "B", the forum moderator, sent me a private message about also the JFK assassination case. Though it is off topic of this thread -- well, actually, it is related in some ways to Paul's actual death if it was intel-related murder for social and "magic-cult" control -- I am posting here for you all the reply I typed out for "B". "B" will soon be turning a significant number in age as related to the Beatles (64), as mentioned to me in a message, so this post is also a public/private gift to "B", for posterity for people young and old who visit this page. The simplest argument set about Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO): 1. As an adult human being who could lift his head, JFK had a spine with spiny processes in the way of a 5 1/2 inch-below-collarbone shot (the real location of the back wound) AND in the way of the changed location (just below the collarbone), which Gerald Ford changed it to. The shot, even point blank (except by a bazooka or some such) could not pass from near the spine in the back to the centre-front neck, which was the other wound. At the original back location or the lie as the back location, there was no through shot possible. This is true whether the victim was higher or lower relative to the shot and other victims and is true whether the shot was from a good or bad gun. Arlen Specter got a doctor to admit that if the bullet didn't happen to strike bone, it could go through the body from here to here -- tautologically true -- and dismissed him quickly. Since then, all reconstructions have left out the spine (its spiny processes). This does not exonerate Oswald but it does immediately require 2 shooters at least, either way, since no matter where the shot originated from or how the body was oriented in space relative to the other people, it is an interior-to-body argument. Leaving out the spine's effect was the way (and is to this day the simplest way) that conspiracy of more than one person was avoided in the public mind; though of course, one shooter can be under orders from others, too. See CAT scan by Dr Mantik (who also studied the x-rays of JFK and found they were duplicates which had been doctored). www.veteranstoday.com/2013/11/08/the-jfk-war-the-two-cyril-wechts-the-magic-bullet-and-the-hsca2. Oswald was long known in different ways to have reasonably not been a shooter at all, and the gun(s) used not being the Mannlicher-Carcano -- this one's actually having a loose scope, to boot! But he is now known to have also been caught on film in the doorway of the TDSB during the shooting. His shirts are left in (though blotchy checks are added to the outer shirt and his arm and head are further doctored). He is thus very simply -- with a few details explained, it's a simple issue overall -- eliminated as one of the two shooters for the back and centre-front neck shot and all others. (There were about 13 shooters, many assassin witnesses in the crowd and at least 6 actual shots at the scene, but these are not handled in these simple 3 points I'm giving you.) www.veteranstoday.com/2012/04/13/jfk-special-2-oswald-was-in-the-doorway-after-all(I contributed the 3 paragraphs before the last one. There are other articles by the same name, in a series. This is #2 of about 8, I think.) 3. The third important thing to know about the case now is the Zapruder film complete remaking (doctoring in the extreme, frame by frame), which has been mathematically proved in several ways: a frame with no blur; several frames (because of one botched early-published frames) with PART of the frame having no lens distortion; an overlap in another area which is harder to explain but cannot be from a natural camera either. The film itself was holding back research, which had found many things otherwise, but could not reconcile them to the film. The back-and-to-the-left which so struck many people that they woke up to the likelihood and, they thought, proof of conspiracy, was in fact an unfortunate (fortunate) artifact of the doctoring process. Jackie had eased Jack up (while the limo was stationary, neither of which are in the extant film), and then he was shot through the head. The forgers had few frames to use of Jack without the headshot, to matte and burn the bodies in -- background and car and figures are mostly all from separate places in the real event, and original film. Intro to some of the main issues: www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/introResponse of the scientist to his would-be debunkers, done as a reply to each segment of his article in the book on the subject: www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/costella1.htmlThe book, "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax" is available here: www.amazon.com/The-Great-Zapruder-Film-Hoax/dp/081269547XThere are Youtube videos and other sources also available on the details of the 2003 conference and book. By throwing out the film impressions, one can learn the other research and use the film only as a reference for what is left in, or to gauge the significance of what is missing. ============== I hope, for your Beatles-special birthday, this 3-point summary of the JFK arguments is much appreciated. I am an overall (not all aspects) expert on the case, through the work of the people mentioned above and a few others. One of these brave people is a great friend of mine now. So anyway: as with Paul's death ... if one throws out one's impressions of the film especially, one can learn a lot from the research into JFK's death, and then work through what would be true if one's impressions were false or true from the film. Much love to "B" and happy birthday coming up. You also asked about me: I was not alive when the Beatles were an item and was a child living in Toronto, when John was shot. And: Thank you for reading and appreciating my posts, "B". I put them here for posterity. Now back to Paul McCartney, dead and for the greater glory of his name & the band, denied as dead these 48 years come September, and to Sir Paul McCartney, our true fifth famous Beatle -- with Sir George Martin now being a sixth honourary Beatle, not a fifth, and Pete Best being an historical Beatle but not among the famous Fab group.
|
|
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 20:37:16 GMT -5
Quote hotman637 yesterday: There is plenty of evidence that John was replaced at least once.His style and voice DID change a huge amount. Look at website like TKIN and Paul is Dead Miss Him Miss Him and you see post after post talking about it. And there was some good pictures (although I cannopt find them) that seemed to show that Tara Brown did not die but became Keith Richards! *********************************************************************************************** I will not be changing my mind about the replacement of John: many other researchers have come to the same conclusion. You seem to be a Sir Faul fan, Clare. I also do not think it has been the same individual all the way through. The guy in Wings looked different and there is a theory that he died in 1977. Re Keith Richard (s), apparently, he was replaced and that is when the "s" was added, but I don't think by Tara Browne as Keith (replacement) has stick out ears but Tara Browne's were not. Apparently, Paul and Tara were close but NONE of the Beatles went to his funeral. I thought the picture on the cover of "Oldies but Goldies" was meant to represent Tara Browne. Tara's business partner in his clothing boutique took over Apple tailoring and there is an interesting photo of a gold brocade jacket made for "Paul McCartney" in 1967 by them. Regarding John being called back from filming in Spain; that would have meant that the Bill replacement had already been chosen/trained and was on his way to Kenya with Mal (handler) via Paris and Vatican City. Why that route? They were supposed to meet up with John in Paris but he had already returned to London by 8 November, if my memory is correct. This means if Paul died in September, the timings are out. Without meaning to sound harsh, but just speaking directly as myself: John was inimitable and remains his sudden-lively self throughout, just diminished in frequency and older, with damage from lifestyle and sadness showing -- but he never lost his sudden bursts. And I'm not going to go into what I take to be the patently slightly wrong assessments of any other Sir Paul claimants proposed on these boards, or other Beatles, Epstein, Aspinall or Mal -- or Keith Richard(s), for that matter, who also remains bone-structure-consistent and mannerism-consistent. However, on your other ideas: Am I a Sir Paul fan? No, I'm not, actually. Some Wings things are catchy, "Blackbird" is lovely, "Honey Pie" is brilliant (though a pastiche), and I always liked parts of other songs ("Obladi-Oblada", etc.), but I always felt those 1967-forward "Paul" songs had one good idea in them and repeated it, without much musical change in feeling. "Fool on the Hill" is brilliant, so much so that I wonder if it was a late composition by Paul himself, but perhaps it was an early burst of brilliance by Sir Paul. One way or another, its Hill reference and general theme lent themselves or were created to be a reference to Paul's burial site, if the other arguments are anything to go by about the backlot of the orphanage and its proximity to Paul's lovely "Eleanor Rigby" song inspiration. We can't know who he was, and this is entirely to be expected. Not only has no candidate matched the man properly yet (sorry), but his real background would be all concealed. We can derive from many different places (too long to list here): that he was a young O.T.O. (Crowley) intellectualist and magic ritual fanatic, an avant-garde "player" (playboy, man about town), possibly also linked as an intel-related spook (not maybe the simplest type of intelligence agent, though, unless he was an infiltrator who loved it all in the Swinging Sixties scene), that he was probably from Scotland (it goes beyond his preference in living there), and that of all the aliases he uses for "Paul", his favourite is "Bill", so he was likely born "William" and is "Bill" or "Billy" to any old friends or family whom he might want to contact. It is also derivable logically -- though with no direct evidence to anchor our thought -- that he could well not love his original family much and be quite happy to be free of them, or mostly so (some people are). John was not called back from Spain. He was in Germany. Epstein and Paul (so Aspinall claimed) flew out to meet John and Aspinall in Paris on their way to Spain. Paris is closer to UK than either Germany or Spain. -- If "Paul" was there at all, it would be our now Sir Paul, the replacement. However, if he was already picked by then, then this was a blackmail and murder ready to happen and Epstein must have been really blackballed into agreeing; he was embezzling and suffering protection by really creepy elements in the upper crust (we know this several ways) and ended up dead about a year later anyway from seeming murder (all pill bottles were filled and closed and the scene was clean). But it may be Sir Paul was NOT with Epstein; this would just mean Aspinall was trying to get Paul into some mention in the press during this period when they had no idea what to do -- if they had no idea what to do yet. 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.
|
|
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 20:19:53 GMT -5
So it seems you are saying that it wasn't a car crash that took Paul? Does this explain the lyrics,"Let me take you down, cos I'm going to Strawberry Fields, nothing is real?" It was saying that's where Paul was.... Would the other Beatles and his family have gone to the funeral (was it a proper funeral?)....Are the lyrics for "Eleanor Rigby" describing the scene? That is really fascinating; however, there are still anomalies, whereby, there were short and tall Pauls seen intermittently throughout the years from 1958 to 1966. Thanks Clare. Hi. You're welcome and thanks to you, too. 1. I think Strawberry Fields is about the burial -- if the line of reasoning I outlined is not only suggestive but actually true -- but also I think it's a song about John's own dissociation feelings and childhood hopes. 2. Eleanor Rigby was a rumination on death and on lonely meaninglessness; it is a humane song from a humane writer who was beginning to stretch his talent away from pure American blues-rock and pop. It was not to do with the death, which occurred in Sept 1966, by indications from many lines of argument. 3. The tall and short issue is one where one has to be very careful. Camera position and type of lens can distort people very much overall at distances. It is not as relevant for frontal portraiture, or for 3/4 views of people when not close up or strong fisheye lens is used, because the person is at about the same real distance from the camera. The general impression of Sir Paul, though, is that he is taller and a bit heftier -- not huge, though. He's medium build, when Paul himself was more slight (even when he gained a bit of weight around 1965-66) and smaller overall. Shoe size is suggestive; and we have a set of photos showing Paul and Sir Paul each with Mal Evans (with fisheye lens used, but rough heights derivable, especially for Sir Paul, who, even with heels on, has quite different proportions than Paul would, even minus the fisheye and angle in the early photo). 4. We have no idea if we are careful, to know who was at any funeral. We can only surmise from the various fool mentions, the nature of the hill itself with the Church and the Field orphanage backlot, the nature of human psychology in probably wanting some kind of pilgrim attendance (even unwitting, as duped fans), that he might well have been buried there, instead of somewhere else. And ... 5. I never said I don't take it to be a car impact. But given two photographs with John in front of a car, and the forensic aspects in the drawing, the best suggestion is strong side injury to the head, broken ankles and together these suggest side impact ON STREET instead of in a car (which could fit the forensics alone, but perhaps less easily common. If it was a hit on the street, such a type of impact would more easily guarantee death (if it was murder). If he was also shot, hatcheted, given poison, or where exactly this occurred, is unclear from ANY evidence. There is a gunshot method of death shown (among others) in "Condensed Cream of the Beatles", a 1974 film (produced by Apple, by the way). There are, however, many, many car images and though some like to take this as disinfo, the natural sense of a natural event would be to need to exorcise it again and again -- repetition compulsion. John personally acts the death in 1967 in front of his car; he plays "doctor" on the street, in front of a white VW Beetle in the 1970s (and acts the death personally another time, in 1968 as well, but without a car, just being held and noticed by the other Beatles). The rumour is reported to have been started in London, but even if he were lured somewhere else, the main rumour would be noticed in London first. The disclaimer (Feb 1967 Beatles Book) mentions the M1 motorway, but this, along with the date, could be deflections more likely than the salient car crash idea. Of course one COULD consistently mention a car crash (or any feature of the putative scenario) as a deflection and lie within a retelling of a real situation, but if there were other factors than being run over (or hit inside a car), I think it likely they would become somewhat more part of the rumour. Finally, to summarize: My current impression of what we have is that he was lured to somewhere (possibly near London) Hit OUTSIDE a car (hit "on the street") because of side-impact and spilled brains and the photos of John and the easier guarantee of death that way If any other death method was involved, it was fully covered up or largely unknown to the Beatles until later That the broken ankles and dissheveled shoes of the drawing were metaphorically treated as bloody shoes away from Sir Paul's feet, as missing shoes calling attention to the region of the body, as "feet down below his knees" in "Come Together" song lyrics, again calling attention to feet as if sitting dislocated or completely severed near the legs That the head injuries so detailedly treated in the drawing, were metaphorically simplified in most cases, to become a missing head, a cracked head, a top-severed head, when instead it seems to have been a spilled head, possibly with severing at the top, but major bone movements from the side, breaking the position of the parietals and the frontal bone. The eye injuries are, however, more accurately treated overall: even "A Day in the Life" film flashes exactly the same right-eye swollen and open, left eye crushed and more closed; and there is Sir Paul making just such a face in a photo available of him from I'm guessing the 80s; and there is the "Free as a Bird" video, also seeming to show the right eye more open in the shadowy area of the head shown in false leafy reflection (unblurred in a panning, blurred frame), on the back of a police van before a 1960s car crash scene (though John is inserted into the crowd for effect, and the image used is from early 1967). ======== I have all these things on my blog page, with the relevant images. And more. But I realize the blog page repeats some ideas and gets very badly written, then well written, then badly again. It was being edited when it bugged up. Yet it would always now be long. You're welcome.
|
|
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 16, 2014 18:50:59 GMT -5
........... I love you guys/gals for getting this.
It is a major and largely unattended conspiracy theory (a term I use advisedly and technically, not as a put-down, which the CIA started trying to get people thinking it meant, after JFK's death).
|
|
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 16, 2014 18:43:25 GMT -5
You need to look at the photos assembled by vOOdOOgUrU circa 1962 where there is a short guy with bandy legs, plain looking compared to real Paul. Our colleague has assembled some excellent photo comparisons showing different Pauls. Also the "effeminate" Paul in Hamburg... However, your description of the burial nr St Peter's Church is fascinating. Yes, I see that "Fool on the Hill" is also a metaphor....is the body still there? There was a story that it was taken on a boat to an island; the island the Beatles supposedly bought and donated to a group of hippies living in a commune.... I know people have compiled photos of Paul at different stages of his maturation (cut short though it was); as a young, less-well-nourished-looking, more insecure young man before Hamburg and at times later on, he does have a different "aspect" or seeming "look". But he very much has the bone structure and sudden energy of himself later. People do change in "look" -- it's what confuses PIAers to say "he's the same; any changes are normal impressional changes in the same man". They get it wrong one way (re. paul) and some people on the PID side get it wrong the other way (with Paul and all kinds of others in the Beatles' circle). It happens. But one can't just "look and feel a difference" (which we ask PIAers to do), but also has to get familiar with the type of head and different lighting and fat conditions the person would have, so that if there is a sameness in the real person, we also see/know that. Paul has consistent underlying look; he is more ruffian and youthful slightly insecure when 1st in Hamburg; he grew up (got some sex and success, which doesn't mean true maturity, but you know what I mean) and "looks" more consistently friendly, even fatter. We also have moving images only later in quantity. --- I don't know if they've moved the body; I remarked that if it was there it doesn't have to be there now, with John and George gone. Strawberry Field orphanage is now no longer owned by the Salvation Army. So maybe they moved him (if he was there). I merely presented the argument that there is a good case for his having been there, dead. He might even have been cremated by now. You know, to cover up the exact manner of death, the family might even have been suggested to have him cremated, though it would probably have been suggested as "closure", if anyone suggested cremation. Just saying: I wouldn't want the body around. But ... I do think he was buried on a hill and this one fits the bill in many ways, including pilgrimage effect, though unwitting.
|
|
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 16, 2014 18:38:54 GMT -5
Also, if as you are saying that Sir Faul is the one and only replacement throughout, that means he is now 78 years old; as Bill/Faul was reputedly 31 at the time and certainly LOOKED older than Paul. He said he was 30 in Magical Mystery Tour film. Unless he was born at the end of the year, it means he was born in 1937. He'd turn (or has turned) 77 this year, yes, and to me, his voice and mannerisms and face (in spite of plastic surgery) show it. -- He was not likely 31 in 66. He'd have been 29 at the time of replacement if his moment of getting real historical truth into the record was in MMT film. He looks older, yes, than John and even Ringo then, but sometimes has a youthful appearance. 29-31 has that quality in some people.
|
|
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 16, 2014 17:14:25 GMT -5
In brief: 1) Paul (early one) was playing piano as Stu Sutcliffe played bass. 2) Paul (replacement) invariably was sat behind grand piano (hands hidden, camera front facing), this was before Wings, when of course "Linda played keyboards". 3) Where did Paul get his horsemanship skills? Some people have said they thought "doubles" where used on "Help". 4) Other researchers on this forum have stated that there were other Pauls going back as far as at least 1958. vOOdOOgUrU for one. This is obvious when you study the photographic evidence. 5) Paulbearer stated that Denny Laine was first choice to replace Paul. He may have been shorter than Paul, but then so was the Paul circa 1962. If the others were 5'11" and this was stated in all the fan mags at the time, then if suddenly Paul is taller by about 3" looking at the photographs/Sgt Pepper cover, then he must have been approx 6'2"; whatever, he was taller than the others and on many photos this was the case and broader on the shoulders too. There are also photos of him wearing clothes that look too tight and trousers too short; this may sound comical but I have seen on another forum that he was given Paul's clothes to wear that were too small. 6) Why did Faul need to sit in on drums when Ringo was the drummer? Some people are fairly quick learners for horses and this is not complex horsemanship. They could well have had some lessons on very tame horses. Denny Laine does not match Paul or Sir Paul at all closely, though as "1st choice", we can't know. Sir Paul does prefer piano, it seems. Paul McCartney learned piano at home and used it throughout his short life, partly to compose and partly to enjoy banging out a song. Evidence marshalled for anything before 1966 as replacement falls apart quickly. Sir Paul was always controlling about getting things done his way; so he likes over-instructing. Paul had some of this, too. There you go.
|
|
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 16, 2014 13:58:10 GMT -5
There is plenty of evidence that John was replaced at least once.His style and voice DID change a huge amount. Look at website like TKIN and Paul is Dead Miss Him Miss Him and you see post after post talking about it. And there was some good pictures (although I cannopt find them) that seemed to show that Tara Brown did not die but became Keith Richards! Don't you mean Ringo? There is a theory that Tara replaced Ringo (pics look convincing) and it was Brian Jones who died in the car, so Brian was replaced until made to disappear. What is the significance of "A Day In The Life" unless it ties in strongly with PID? Also, at the start of "Dig It", it beings "Like a ROLLING STONE", implying a Rolling Stone was replaced. But whether this is true or not is a side-issue. Nobody but Paul was replaced. However: the Rolling Stone and FBI, CIA, BBC are linked in how intel contribute to secret lies (Rolling Stone mag and band). But BB King, Doris Day and Matt Busby were all in serious car crashes or linked to them. OF COURSE "Day in the Life" is about Paul, not really Tara, who was also a friend. -- BUT I think Tara was the first casualty of PID after Paul: Tara (unbeknownst to John, maybe, especially at the time), was into Swinging Sixties fun and scene and might have complained or gabbed and been sideswiped for it, esp. since we know the toxicology was "inconclusive" (not in the range of strong intoxication, for such things are testable), so it was more likely either a freak accident or planned.
|
|
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 15, 2014 19:10:04 GMT -5
Looky here. Another false ear, and on Letterman Show itself, during 2009 blooper interview. The images are larger than showing here when I uploaded them - they show tiny. The shadowline is NOT just along lobe, but stretches up and away from ear in flap along cheek. Click each image to open tab in which full size shows.
|
|
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 15, 2014 19:05:31 GMT -5
Re Denny Laine: I would also aver that Sir Faul only bears a passing resemblance to Paul....the mention of Denny Laine being the individual in Kenya with Mal came from Paulbearer who appeared to definitively state that was the case. Denny Laine certainly does seem to have a key role in these events; starting with The Pepperpots until having a fall out with Faul/Bill in the 'seventies whilst with Wings. The part about where Paul is buried I found the most fascinating part of Clare's testimony. However, I think the moped accident was a red herring. As I have said in a recent post (and others) that it would be most unusual, even then, in the UK at Christmas (Boxing Day) for anyone to be out riding on a moped on the dark, icy, cold streets of the suburbs. People in the UK in the festive season, particularly in 1965 would be with their families indoors or maybe visiting a pantomime. There would not be anything open then, e.g. places to eat. A person of that calibre would not choose such cheap transport, let alone at Christmas! The part about the hill, would this refer to "The Fool on the Hill"? What was the motive though for Paul's death at the age of 24? The Paul imposter made an appearance at the 1966 American press conference as Paulbearer stated. Was this a practice run to see if it would be found out or was the real Paul indisposed in some way and could not appear? To say Sir Paul is and always has been with us, I do not buy into either (and neither would many others on this forum and other forums) as there has clearly been more than one person masquerading as Paul McCartney before and after the replacement scenario. It may be he was attacked or had some other mishap than a moped accident. The hill is the physical hill on which the St Peter church (Eleanor Rigby grave location), Strawberry Fields orphanage, gravity-release watertower are, if I am correct, and is also the "Fool on the Hill" and "residing there still" expressions as references, if I am correct. That does not even mean the song "F ot H" was all about Paul; it is also a lovely metaphor of the wise man ideal and the weirdo no-one pays attention to -- as we PID-aware people seem to be treated as, quite often. Motive for death is likely from the typical groups of interest M.O.: Paul was becoming close to Mark Lane (and a fully aware Beatle might well try to make ripples about JFK death); Paul was easiest to kill and infiltrate: as a "pretty sex symbol" with less obvious personality (as quirks), people projected a lot onto him and yet was one of the two big names in the band, so for intel work (such as getting LSD at Monterey, etc.), he'd have more clout, and maybe the consideration was also that the man who wanted to replace him was closest in look to Paul; and though John was a wildcard, he was sort of deflectable through drugs (it was likely thought) and was inimitable in the public mind. Though some think John was replaced, he could not have been without having ONLY the things "Fennon" believers think differed in older John's personality; some things were inimitable and rather obvious with John. Paul had his inimitabilities, but a bit of head-bobbing and most people would be fooled, though the real energy is inimitable. It's easier to pretend head-bobs (a noticed feature of Paul's energy) than John's sudden energy exuberance with reaching-out body language, and his energetic wit in those moments. As to one or more Sir Pauls: no, it is slight mental impression change you are falling for, over time. The man had some adjustments in plastic surgery but the basic man is there. It can be as hard to pull back from seeing differences as to see differences in the first place. One has to see the similarities post 1966 but also get the major difference before 1966. Simple (one) switch was hard enough and has all the support of the contextual case.
|
|
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 15, 2014 18:52:26 GMT -5
There is plenty of evidence that John was replaced at least once.His style and voice DID change a huge amount. Look at website like TKIN and Paul is Dead Miss Him Miss Him and you see post after post talking about it. And there was some good pictures (although I cannopt find them) that seemed to show that Tara Brown did not die but became Keith Richards! Not at all. John's were maturation changes and depression, but when he exudes, it is the same flow, sudden aliveness, etc. Impressions of the general public are off for Paul but beware the same sort of mistake the other way re. others.
|
|
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 15, 2014 18:51:03 GMT -5
If you want to see the difference in the originals and later watch "A Hard Day's Night" as I did last week and the on stage presence is magnetic even now after fifty years. Paul had, as well as a beautiful singing voice, CHARM and PERSONALITY.
Agreed entirely. Not always were these present (sometimes he was calm), but when he did exude, it was large and full. The moments of a short burst of friendliness from Sir Paul are nice, but not the same. You also talked of John's nose: John's nose always had times it looked pinched but by 67 he was 26; some moments his distress pinched it more, and age, drugs, bulimia (eventually also) began slowly to transform his nose and general health. His energy and manner remain the same in the most telling emotional moments, bursts of energy, etc., though also he began to distance himself from direct emotions a bit more.
|
|
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 15, 2014 14:32:27 GMT -5
Hallo Clare, it's wonderful that a person with your expertise is posting on these boards.
I am a recent member but some years ago I noted that Paul McCartney's nose was longer, the nostrils more pinched, and the side of his nose more indented in photos after the Sergeant Pepper album came out as well as observing the bigger build and height. The height can be explained by lifts in the shoes but there is no logical reason why Paul McCartney post Melody Maker Awards in 1966 would have his nose cosmetically altered.
The apparent moped accident with the chipped tooth on display was before the Sergeant Pepper album came out and that unusual moustachied McCartney turned up in the dark to give a few brief words before going into the studio. There was no mention of broken or bent noses as the result of that accident and no thinner, more pinched nostrils on the Paul at the awards.
I believe John Lennon's nose became more bent as the result of physical altercations as John was more of a brawler than people realised. But there is nothing to explain the different nose on Paul McCartney post Melody Maker awards.
Looking at many photos taken in the period before and after the White album was completed, it is clear that Paul McCartney hasn't just put on weight - his build has altered. This Paul is a bigger man full stop. The original Paul was slight and would have looked different with a weight increase.
Last year in Japan I bought a fan magazine from the Penny Lane period for Japanese fans and it had stills of the Penny Lane video shoot. However, the majority of the photos were of the pre Penny Lane/Strawberry Fields Beatles. I was struck by how different the Paul MCartney on the horse still was by contrast with the usual Paul photos in the mag. Had I not known that was from the Penny Lane shoot, I might have thought it was an extra with dark Paul-like hair who was riding on the horse.
I look forward to more of your posts.
Hi, there. Yes, Sir Paul is not Paul. We got that far. A general thickened and lengthened proportion is present in replacement (not one image alone, but general sense of him). Nose, face, all consistently different but impression makes some similarities. We do have an image of Paul with Mal and Sir Paul with Mal; even shoes do not account for proportions differences, nor the fisheye lens in Mal and Paul, for the general proportional smallness of Paul is consistent if you account for the fisheye effect in the one. The one with Mal and Sir Paul also has some fisheye eect, but because they are nearly side to side, and the lens is centred on them, the proportions are closer to real ones. John became emaciated and aged quickly, but not suddenly (as per a replacement). He was very disturbed, scared, curtailed by marital and superstitious worries in LA and especially later in NYC with Yoko. Did she know of the death to him? Maybe yes. Was she a protector (agent, in an asset sense?), maybe. But likely also suiting her own love interests. The question of how she got separated from John at the scene of the crime is interesting: we don't know. Did she want to divorce him? Yes. Maybe she could do nothing to stop the assassination or was prevented from knowing. She MAY not have been in on it. -- Sir Paul knew: his behaviour after suggests at least that. Would he want John dead? Maybe only to protect himself, but an agent/ asset such as he has to be (from many lines of reasoning), he would likely accept the decision by others, even if it was his friend. This has happened in many instances. Paul was sometimes calm, not always buoyant. He simply tended to be buoyant suddenly if the occasion arose. I think the moped accident was an attempt to kill Paul before the main hit. However, it could be just an accident. The Sept hit and death itself is no longer in question to anyone familiar with this case and having compared it to the Paul is Alive arguments fully.
|
|
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 15, 2014 13:51:06 GMT -5
I think PID as in any conspiracy a very simple thing happened (Paul was replaced or died) and the powers that be made it LOOK complicated OR a very complicated thing happened (who knows what) and we will probably never figure it out. The thing is we will never know if something is simple or not till WE KNOW WHAT IT WAS! I myself thing something simple happened and the trick is find out what it was. They don't want us to find out because then the game would end I guess. We can know quite a bit. The main loose ends are: burial place (good, informed argument is that he originally -- even if moved now -- was on the hill immortalized in his famous song "Eleanor Rigby", for her grave is at the top, at St Peter's Church; but it would be likely that he not be buried at the church, for how would insiders visit the grave? Instead, he might well have been buriend, at least originally, inside pro-royal, pro-patriotic Salvation Army private backlot at Strawberry Field orphanage -- several lines of argument support this: "Strawberry Field" song by Lennon, though alone this could be argued to be merely childhood reminiscences mixed with Cranberry Sauce -- i.e., blood -- and grief about Paul; hill references to Paul in Fool on the hill drawing from Magical Mystery Tour booklet showing 4-fingered, no-head -- damage to head -- hand on figure with cracked skull in figure; hill reference to "living there still" linked to Fool and to Paul in "Glass Onion" mentioning Paul and Walrus as clues, with "living" meaning metaphorical "residing dead", if interpreting from PID argument; Strawberry Fields orphanage is partway up a hill at which the top houses the St Peter church and a major gravity-release watertower; Strawberry Fields is visited by pilgrims for Beatles, so the grave would be somewhat, metaphorically honoured; insiders could visit and not be bothered). murder or not (likely murder, possibly on street by luring him somewhere for rendez-vous: quick replacement, date of death gangland-intel "illuminist" type of date, motives for infiltration and compromising Beatles' circle, Paul's own close friendship with Mark Lane of JFK research fame, drawing by Lennon suggesting head and ankle injuries very typical of impact by being run over, hit personally, and pics by Lennon suggesting body was in front of car) song compositions and recordings (likely some Paul songs reworked, some new compositions by Sir Paul -- we know at least two were with Mal Evans, as well -- and maybe others' contributions, such as Denny Laine, and recordings could include a subtle form of Paul's actual voice at times, underlying or interspersed with Sir Paul -- which would need further and replicable tests) who knew how much and when (some would know immediately, some know generally then more and more, some never know re. probable murder, even the Beatles themselves possibly) Epstein's death as murder (likely murder, since all pill bottles full and caps on, no vomit mentioned by witness to scene, only 1/2 bottle wine drunk -- for Epstein was embezzling money and by vacationing at Portmeireion seems to have met many influential people, also sending to offshore accounts through Lord Goodman, connected to Cambridge 5 and Rockefellers & blackmailer o sexual "perverts" such as Epstein was, as a gay man, and also paedophiles such as Saville and others) Tara Browne's death as possibly 1st casualty of coverup (sideswiped and no definite alcohol/ drug intoxication, for he was big enjoyer of Indica/ Swinging sixties spook-infiltrated scene and might well have gabbed/complained) Mal Evans lost-book putative page in "The Winged Beatle" film (stylistically his, though handwriting analysis could be done) Mal Evans' diary unpublished (only tiny excerpts were published -- need to clamour for its full reproduction, page by page) ================ **And most important for adding further direct proof of replacement: VOICEPRINT FORENSIC ANALYSIS OF SPOKEN RECORDINGS FROM THE TWO TIME PERIODS IN QUESTION. ONLY SPOKEN VOICE IS ACCEPTABLE PROTOCOL FOR VOICE PRINT ANALYSIS. COST IS 15-25 K $US, AND IF CROWDSOURCED, COULD BE ARRANGED WITH SEVERAL INDEPENDENT FIRMS. A WIDE SELECTION OF MATERIALS OVERALL AND ALSO BEST-CASE COMPARISONS WOULD NEED TO BE DONE, BECAUSE OVERALL TESTS WOULD SHOW GENERAL TENDENCIES WHICH WOULD BOLSTER THE IDEA THAT RESULTS FOUND ROM BEST-CASE EXAMPLES ARE NOT CHERRY-PICKED OR WRONGLY CLEANED UP. Hope these points help clarify the kinds of places we could hope for more information about.
|
|
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 15, 2014 13:32:16 GMT -5
McCartney has been paying piano on stage and in the studio since his teen years. We even see him playing piano in AHDN and Help. He didn't play piano during live concerts during the Beatlemania years, because the compositions didn't call for it. Not pictured is the scene during You’re Going To Lose That Girl where it cuts to Paul suddenly playing piano when he was previously playing bass. The Paul in AHDN has detached earlobes, and during the concert footage he has a large pock-mark on his left jaw that is not seen any other time. no pock-mark. Also, during the outro to the Strawberry Fields Forever promo film, they are walking at normal speed. vimeo.com/11042052This is a psychedelic video, hence the sped-up and backwards footage. Besides, why would they speed up the walking to disguise the impostor, but have multiple close-ups of his face? And what of all the other times he's not sped up? Penny Lane promo, MMT film, etc. The line (what you call a pock mark) is in evidence in these photos though fainter in some, except last one, where angle of lighting is different. The Denny Laine pics are so different than Paul, where your personal impression is off, that I omit them for brevity. As to having close-ups of Sir Paul (the new Paul): it was necessary to dare to show him. Speeding up footage is also clever, not just concealment. Ears which are semidetached show as one or the other, depending on angle. What is consistent is that a certain angle will show the lobe more strongly than other angles. Sir Paul has very detached lobe and fake ears on at various times; the fake ears are sometimes good copies of Paul's ears, so in those cases where we can tell fakes, it is due to consistent SHADOWLINE along cheek near ear, and through tragus at cheek join, no matter the lighting angle (the ear sits over the head). Some fakes have flaps (squared blocks) along cheekline. Some fakes do not.
|
|
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 15, 2014 13:25:20 GMT -5
Thanks, Paulbearer, that really did make a lot of sense and ties in with what I've been looking at lately re the Penny Lane/Strawberry Fields/Hello, Goodbye promo films (not called videos then, of course). That does explain why Denny Laine (not his real name) left the Moody Blues when he did and the guy in Kenya with Mal really does look like Denny, not Bill. The moustache was sort of long and thin, like Denny Laine's. Also, it explains Denny being included in Wings as a kind of runner up prize and for him to do the songwriting; whilst being paid £50 a week, no wonder he was bitter. Re Bill, who as you said did the 1966 American press conference where he did all the talking; in the Jensen Rufe short film it states that Bill died in 1977. Recommended, if you haven't seen it. This would be when another Faul took over. It is obvious, when you think about it, that Lennon/McCartney could not have written all the songs attributed to them (the real Lennon/McCartney not Faul/Fennon). Considering all the material they were supposed to be writing; they did a tremendous amount of "covers" including Smokey Robinson and Holland/Dozier/Holland and others; whilst supposedly writing hits for artistes in the Epstein "stable" and others. That fits that people like Elton John and Donovan and Denny Laine or even Burt Bacharach would write songs that were attributed to Northern Songs. As for the drawing, it cannot have been done by John as by that time he, also, had been replaced. There is no Fennon. 3/4 views and emaciation do not prove the replacement of John, and his inimitable mannerisms and bursts of energy are still in evidence after 1966 until death in 1980. Denny bears only passing resemblance to either Paul or Sir Paul. Impressions without deep thought on what the impression does to one's perception are not an argument; it is the kind of sloppy thinking which also infects deniers of Paul's having died. Songwriting itself is a partly unanswerable question. If others contributed to Sir Paul's published works, we cannot know exactly. What can be shown is a general and some specific differences between a Paul trajectory of style and emotion and Sir Paul's tendencies. Sir Paul is very much with us today, though recently sick. Same man: mannerisms, poseur moments, face, voice.
|
|
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 10, 2014 23:48:40 GMT -5
By the way, I had a hard time with this interviewer. He was knowledgeable about the weirdness angle of the subject but altogether hard to get to stick to the facts of the simpler aspects of the case. It was fun to be able to cover some of the ugliness of the era and the takeover plot, in a sense, for the Beatles -- compromise, off-kilter, intel insider with ideals to come in, etc. -- but it was a bit of a "trip" to try to cover the bare bones of the case. I am glad you liked it.
|
|
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 10, 2014 23:32:05 GMT -5
I also heartily disagree that anyone other than Paul's lively (energetic) body in a calm mood is present until the death on, it seems, Sept 11 1966, or at the latest Sept 13. (The Melody Maker awards ceremony is the question there, as well as "Stupid Bloody Tuesday" line. But Mel Mak for that week could have been presented actually before the 13th to the winners and shown on TV/ in print on wrong day, and then Tuesday might be a deflection.) Note also we have a photo of a Paul figure coming off the plane for Shea stadium in late August, which because of sun lighting making odd shadows on the nose and eyes and an almost mugging for the camera wide puffy smile, and an upward angle from the camera, many people have thought was NOT Paul. However, he DID have puffy-cheeked smiles, he did have the same shaped eyes (the shadow from the hair distorts the effect in an impressional sense), and the shadow makes his nose look a bit more downturned, but if you carefully consider where the real nose it, it's Paul's slightly distorted by the smile itself). Sir Paul was more square-shaped of face, kind of oval but not yet a lot of puffy cheeks, except when carefully shown in 3/4 view at that point. ---------- Yes, Paul is very dead. I will honour the 50th anniv. in 2 years on Sept. 11. But I will also suggest the important next 2 steps: getting some people aware of the larger sinister nature of this quick and symbolic replacement process (murder and agenda). It is also important (and moreso right now) to get a crowdfunding for 3-4 independent voiceprint analysts. They need to be instructed to take a large part of the spoken recordings as a whole, in different media and qualities available to us -- spoken word is the only protocol, it turns out, not song -- as well as what they would usually do: take their best-case recordings. The analysis of more of the whole set of evidence available would give a general context for the best-case for the specific formal proof. It costs about 15-25 K $US per analyst. I suggest that we push them to do a global analysis (overall stats) as well as their best-case recordings, because we need it for public opinion, not merely the best-case and cleaned up recordings. For the latter would be claimed by many to be "cherry picked", because the jury of public opinion is not instructed by a judge. Also, I concur that Sir Paul is not the natural buoyant musical talent of Paul; but there is merit in his work, especially some moving single musical ideas within his songs. I have been accused of going too easy on him; I do so deliberately, to bring more people to the case and to point out peace includes all the people, all the reasons, even murderers. We want more openness and peace here, though we won't formally get much, likely. But we need more public readers calm about our position and we need insiders to "sleep at night." It's only right in the long run, I think. Faul (Sir Paul) is a mixed bag; we have to recognize that. Hating on him -- even for murder if he knew or was involved -- will not exactly do for peaceful discussion. He was not alone in the decision, in the band, in the arrangements or in the intel side. Those are my thoughts. Love to you all.
|
|
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 8, 2014 22:21:46 GMT -5
Sorry if this has been posted before but I did a quick search on the forum and couldn't find it. This sounds like a woman with her head screwed on about PID. She sticks to what she knows. Thank you. (Note the Lennon drawing image -- below -- is sometimes not displaying and I don't know why. I have re-added it.) Hello all and respectfully! 1. Someone on Twitter was attempting to spoof Pid and my work, by using cLairekuehn and now is using ciarekuehn, which on Twitter, because it appears in Arial font, looks like CLARE. My name is CLARE KUEHN. Also, 2. In my strong opinion, Paul is dead, plus replaced. I heartily disagree that Paul died before Sept 11, 1966, or anytime in 1969 when the rumour hit the USA in a big way, but not when it started. 3. John was not replaced. (Yes I have worked hard to see/ not see all Beatles and Eppie replaced, just for sake of argmt but in my utterly strong opinion, only Paul is, and there's a massive case in support of that.) In no way was John replaced; the argument is from 3/4 photos, etc., as he lost weight and his inimitable responses in his body and heart remain. --- ---------- Hi. I am honoured for the thread. Thank you very much, everyone. Actually, my dear friend Jim Fetzer found this thread. (Dunno how.) And I joined in gratitude and to make a quality post about my work in the Beatles issues (incl. John's death) early into the thread. ---- For a full overview of the case, go to all items at the Facebook link given in the Tweet here & consider the argument generalities in the comment at the Facebook link: The interviews with most substance, besides the summary at spreaker.com listed among many things in that link above, are at: radiofetzer.blogspot.ca/2012/01/clare-kuehn.htmlradiofetzer.blogspot.ca/2014/01/clare-kuehn.htmlradiofetzer.blogspot.ca/2014/02/nick-kollerstrom-clare-kuehn.htmlAnd a new one for the 48th anniversary (in 2014) of the death on Sept 11, 1966 -- for he's now dead twice the number of years of his short life: radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2014/09/clare-kuehn.htmlYou can go to any of these links on that archive & search my name in the field at the top left, so that you can hear these other shows and my other topics, as well. (To hear the actual interviews, click on the box at the top of the blog that reads "The Real Deal with Jim Fetzer podcast" at the links above. - edit by B) -- Actually, B, to hear the interviews, click the green name of the show's guest (for any of his shows), or right-click that green name to save & listen on your own player, which is best (since the slider if you only click the green name, is less sensitive). -- Edit by Clare
My blog page about the Paul death case (and John's drawing of Paul dead, which was privately done, forensically accurate) is at: youcanknowsometimes.blogspot.ca/2013/12/paul-is-dead-new-j-lennon-clue-ignore.htmlThe drawing alone is archived at: 2.bp.blogspot.com/-wMMrhC-vIbE/UwFFQ0fpgBI/AAAAAAAABog/Ky9LLN9SS08/s1600/john+best+copy.jpgHere, below, is a copy of John's drawing of Paul dead. It is no doodle (though it is simple). There are multiple forensically accurate things about the head and ankle injuries and it was done privately, not when given to the collector, who didn't know what it was. Note the gap on the figure's left side, pulling up the left eye (our right side in view). This has to be injury, serious injury. In that line of reasoning, the man is dead or nearly so. The zig-zag above the face, at the top, is therefore the top of a broken head (done as though eggshell top), and the zig-zag is therefore not the bottom of a dark hat. More info below the drawing ... He snuck it out to us: it was a private drawing, is blunt-trauma forensically accurate, though simplified. He must have done it to exorcise the vision and memorialize the funeral (shovel, dirt), etc. As one item in many, this is strong evidence of personal knowledge of a death. Its details are supportive of direct knowledge. But it is also atypical for the artist (John). It is not "the proof" -- it is part of the total, but the most personal, poignant statement of them all, if seen within the case for PID. In reply to someone on Youtube, a supporter of my work in general posted this, where the detractor had stated John was self-absorbed and surreal and that explains everything: "I never said the drawing is overall accurate; I said it conveys features accurately for certain types of head and body impact. - As to "me me me" [for John Lennon's own character], it's irrelevant for this issue. The types of wounds and areas match all other Paul-related clue references in detail and sense, as well as being even more detailed in where damage shifted for bones in the head, which is, as I said, accurate. For example, frontal bones (forehead bones) are one strong bone, behind the eyes and crossing the upper nose (bridge). If shifted, indeed an indent and the beginning of a shift would become noticeable at the nose bridge (as in the drawing), shift or pop the eyes out, and cut or split the temple and the ear would likely be affected by temporal bone (side circular bone) shift as well; temple and ear on left are split and hanging with gore or ear flap. -- Not imaginary but yes, a concept in the mind as everything in life is when argued. It's called inductive (as opposed to pre-set, deductive math reasoning). -- Open your mind and learn more about the drawing and its relation to very specific items in the clues references, repeated over many years. The eyes are shown in that configuration (right bulging, left crushed or smaller and overall dislocated), in 4 items. You should be more careful and less on one side before deciding. The case overall is extensive and the drawing is a wonderful lynchpin as well. -- Surrealism is one claim someone (you) can make; but the interrelatedness of this drawing and its sadness, carefulness in injury areas and specific additions it makes to the clues are striking, too. As such, it is in the PID argument. Saying something would normally be "surreal" is merely putting down the idea. You handle no details; I do. As to the idea it might be surreal, think of this, as well: his other drawings are usually far less representative, do not deal with gore and when more accurate are friendly and hopeful. Hm." It shows the body from above (blood spilling out), but also representing the digging of the grave after death, with a comforting God and flower or magic mushroom for dreaming/ visions. He snuck this out to an unsuspecting collector who asked for the album itself and a signature (which John did on the front). - The bone movements are surprisingly accurately represented, if he'd never seen a smashed head. The frontal bone's (forehead's) dislocation through the mid-eyes and noticeable irst at upper nose bridge, as well as cutting the temple region, and the parietal bone's (top side of head) hanging open, are the main accuracies; however, the flat jagged top edge is also evocative of frontal bone behaviour. The shoes (Beatle boot style) are dissheveled, ankles broken (common in impact on street or in vehicle). The bruised, partly dislocated eyes are also carefully drawn. -- The discussion is on my blog (link above). ============== (Note to PIDers: Note my avatar here. I made it! Heart eyes, fake ears, glasses which look like skull, Beatles haircut, sewn mouth, kind of Beatles suit. ) And interview regarding sources on and what's known about John Lennon's death (hour 1, with another interviewee on same topic in hour 2): radiofetzer.blogspot.ca/2012/12/clare-keuhn-total-info.html(Note: other interviewee is great but misunderstood my point re. elevator man/ repairman. I suggested he, who was first suspected by police, could have been an unidentified hitman, passing John and spinning back to shoot him, with Perdomo the outside doorman -- who seems to have been the same Jose Perdomo as the head of the CIA Anti-Castro Bay of Pigs Operation 40 assassination squad -- as backup behind him. The other interviewee thought I meant the elevator man/ repair man shot toward the front, but as he and I know that is not tenable, from reports of the blood and risk to Perdomo. ----- Also note: Salvador Astuccia, whose site is now down, also scanned the reports he got when he contacted NYPD to get the two reporting officers' notes and for those he was refused each time; he also scanned his request for the crime scene photographs, but those were marked "NOT FOUND".)
|
|