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 18:50:59 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).
|
|
|
Post by cherilyn7 on Jul 17, 2014 16:55:13 GMT -5
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. Last Edit: 21 hours ago by clarekuehn ***********************************************************************************************
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.
|
|
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 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 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.
|
|
|
Post by hotman637 on Jul 17, 2014 22:04:48 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?
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Bearer on Jul 17, 2014 22:40:18 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.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Post by hotman637 on Jul 18, 2014 17:51:48 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 things should know this. 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.
|
|
|
Post by cherilyn7 on Jul 18, 2014 18:13:17 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)....
|
|
|
Post by cherilyn7 on Jul 18, 2014 18:23:40 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.
|
|
|
Post by cherilyn7 on Jul 18, 2014 18:43:35 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.
|
|
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 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 19:14:24 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 ... ?
|
|
|
Post by cherilyn7 on Jul 19, 2014 16:54:45 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?
|
|
|
Post by cherilyn7 on Jul 19, 2014 17:13:33 GMT -5
Thanks for the JFK/LHO info; these people DO have doubles so it is not untenable to think Linda may have had one too. There is a piece of footage of two John Lennon (doubles?)it may have been at the recording of "All You Need Is Love" at the BBC "Our World" event 1967. Also, there is a photo on the set of MMT showing THREE Pauls in one photo, and another on a boat of two or three Pauls on the boat.
|
|
|
Post by eddy on Jul 19, 2014 17:17:31 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? ------------ She couldn't sing.
|
|
|
Post by hotman637 on Jul 19, 2014 17:27:56 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!
|
|
|
Post by cherilyn7 on Jul 19, 2014 17:29:11 GMT -5
Thanks, Eddy, was someone having a laugh springs to mind when she was put in the group?
Probably there to keep the groupies away (or whomever) who may discover their secret.
|
|
|
Post by cherilyn7 on Jul 19, 2014 17:37:36 GMT -5
Hotman637, I must say I had never heard that theory before until you mentioned it!
I thought from old footage of interviews with Zapruder, that he did look as though he had been told what to say. Am I the only one who has always felt that the "hoarding" or "sign post" in front of him was blocking out something to stop us seeing what really happened?! It seems that the main shot happened as the car passed that point.
|
|
|
Post by cherilyn7 on Jul 19, 2014 17:39:08 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.
|
|
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?
|
|