View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Paul McCartney was replaced by a double in 1966, experts say

Discuss Other Topics not related to the Paranormal or Conspiracies (within reason of course).

Re: Forensic experts say Paul McCartney was replaced in 1966

Postby NinjaPuppy » 16 Dec 2012, 20:23

Has no one done a simple fingerprint test yet?
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44






Re: Forensic experts say Paul McCartney was replaced in 1966

Postby The23rdman » 16 Dec 2012, 20:37

A good way to determine what can be learnt from two different photos is for us to post various photos of other people. I think (and I'm saying this as a professional photographer) that you'll find a marked difference between what the camera captures depending on hairstyle, distance from camera, lighting and facial expression.
If you think you know what's going on you're probably full of shit - Robert Anton Wilson
User avatar
The23rdman
 
Posts: 97
Joined: 16 Dec 2012, 17:57

Re: Forensic experts say Paul McCartney was replaced in 1966

Postby Fritzy99876 » 13 Jul 2013, 10:59

no, i dont think so. but i have probally discovered where paul may be buried. listen to the lyrics in "Glass Onion", its sang by john about paul. here are the lyrics:

I told you 'bout strawberry fields; You know the place where nothing is real; Well, here's another place you can go; Where everything flows; Looking through the bent backed tulips; To see how the other half live; Looking through a glass onion; I told you 'bout the walrus and me, man; You know that we're as close as can be, man; Well, here's another clue for you all; The walrus was Paul; Standing on the cast iron shore, yeah Lady Madonna trying to make ends meet, yeah Looking through a glass onion; Oh yeah, oh yeah, oh yeah; Looking through a glass onion; I told you 'bout the fool on the hill; I tell you man he living there still; Well, here's another place you can be Listen to me
Fixing a hole in the ocean Trying to make a dovetail joint, yeah looking through a glass onion.

the song has 4 songs: Strawberry Feilds Forever, I Am The Walrus, Lady Madonna, and The Fool On The Hill. it has 3 locations: where everything flows, cast iron shore, a hole in the ocean. the song metions a type of wood structure called a dovetail joint, its used to connect corners. it also gives away the walrus which the song is saying is paul. i researched cast iron shore which got the name cast iron from St. michels (i dont know if i spelled michel right) built in the 1800's made of cast iron. its in south liverpool near the mersey. the church is near a river called "river mersey". Cast Iron Shore was the end of many famous ships. i was thinking that since it says in the song "a hole in a ocean" mabye means a hole in a ship. i dont know where but it would be nice if someone went to go check out that area. if he had a casket to be buried in then it was probally put together with "dovetail joints" but it would have to be made of wood for it to be possible, it works better with wood. this was a song i dont think anyone every thought to listen to. the song is just john singing and george and ringo payed too. ringo just got back to be on the song, this was his first song on The Beatles White Album Disc 2. download it on i tunes or whatever music thing you use but its a wierd song and a little spooky, kinda.
User avatar
Fritzy99876
 
Posts: 3
Joined: 13 Jul 2013, 10:21

Re: Forensic experts say Paul McCartney was replaced in 1966

Postby NinjaPuppy » 14 Jul 2013, 01:10

Very interesting information!

Welcome Fritzy!
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Forensic experts say Paul McCartney was replaced in 1966

Postby Fritzy99876 » 14 Jul 2013, 06:13

thanks, this is mostly from my head, I don't know if this is true or not but I am happy im helping out find paul's grave if he is dead.
User avatar
Fritzy99876
 
Posts: 3
Joined: 13 Jul 2013, 10:21

Re: Forensic experts say Paul McCartney was replaced in 1966

Postby Fritzy99876 » 14 Jul 2013, 06:18

I was listening to the song over and over again to find out more. I am still researching it but I hope im getting close! it like a puzzle, there are many twist and turns to finish. it says in the song "look in the bent-back tulips" which could mean in a field of tulips or in a ship called "Bent-Back Tulips" or just "Tulips". I will give updates on how I am doing on this!
User avatar
Fritzy99876
 
Posts: 3
Joined: 13 Jul 2013, 10:21

Re: Paul McCartney was replaced by a double in 1966, experts

Postby Scepcop » 06 Sep 2013, 01:38

Check out these photos of Paul McCartney before and after 1966 that show a difference in height.

http://www.indianinthemachine.com/waspa ... laced.html

1963

Image

1964

Image

After 1966. Notice that Paul McCartney is noticeably taller than the others.

Image

Similar height with his girlfriend before 1966.

Image

Much taller than his girlfriend after 1966.

Image
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Paul McCartney was replaced by a double in 1966, experts

Postby NinjaPuppy » 06 Sep 2013, 01:51

Heels vs. flats?
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Paul McCartney was replaced by a double in 1966, experts

Postby Scepcop » 06 Sep 2013, 06:26

NinjaPuppy wrote:Heels vs. flats?


Maybe. But heels don't make that much difference on a guy. I've tried them and they don't improve my height much. lol

Plus if you look at the photo of him in the light blue shirt above, you'll notice that his shoes are flat heeled, yet he looks taller than the rest. The difference is too great to be due to heels anyway.

Also his face looks different in that it's more elongated and oval shaped.

Usually, I don't put much stock in cryptic clues from songs or album covers. Those are too subjective and can be dismissed as looking for patterns and seeing what you want to see. What's more important are the physiological differences between the Paul before 1966 and the one after. That's where the real evidence lies.

Nevertheless, if you are into looking for clues, I know a brilliant lady named Clare from Canada who has studied this Paul conspiracy a lot. Here is her latest post about a new "Paul is dead" clue.

http://youcanknowsometimes.blogspot.ca/ ... -from.html
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Paul McCartney was replaced by a double in 1966, experts

Postby NinjaPuppy » 06 Sep 2013, 23:14

Scepcop wrote:
NinjaPuppy wrote:Heels vs. flats?


Maybe. But heels don't make that much difference on a guy. I've tried them and they don't improve my height much. lol
Plus if you look at the photo of him in the light blue shirt above, you'll notice that his shoes are flat heeled, yet he looks taller than the rest. The difference is too great to be due to heels anyway.

I was talking about her, not him but it could also be both.

Scepcop wrote:Also his face looks different in that it's more elongated and oval shaped.

Usually, I don't put much stock in cryptic clues from songs or album covers. Those are too subjective and can be dismissed as looking for patterns and seeing what you want to see. What's more important are the physiological differences between the Paul before 1966 and the one after. That's where the real evidence lies.

Nevertheless, if you are into looking for clues, I know a brilliant lady named Clare from Canada who has studied this Paul conspiracy a lot. Here is her latest post about a new "Paul is dead" clue.

http://youcanknowsometimes.blogspot.ca/ ... -from.html

I'm not much into the clues either but since the information in available on that blog, I'll have to check that out.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Forensic experts say Paul McCartney was replaced in 1966

Postby Clare Kuehn » 08 Sep 2013, 13:37

Fritzy99876 wrote:no, i dont think so. but i have probally discovered where paul may be buried. listen to the lyrics in "Glass Onion", its sang by john about paul. here are the lyrics:

I told you 'bout strawberry fields; You know the place where nothing is real; Well, here's another place you can go; Where everything flows; Looking through the bent backed tulips; To see how the other half live; Looking through a glass onion; I told you 'bout the walrus and me, man; You know that we're as close as can be, man; Well, here's another clue for you all; The walrus was Paul; Standing on the cast iron shore, yeah Lady Madonna trying to make ends meet, yeah Looking through a glass onion; Oh yeah, oh yeah, oh yeah; Looking through a glass onion; I told you 'bout the fool on the hill; I tell you man he living there still; Well, here's another place you can be Listen to me
Fixing a hole in the ocean Trying to make a dovetail joint, yeah looking through a glass onion.

the song has 4 songs: Strawberry Feilds Forever, I Am The Walrus, Lady Madonna, and The Fool On The Hill. it has 3 locations: where everything flows, cast iron shore, a hole in the ocean. the song metions a type of wood structure called a dovetail joint, its used to connect corners. it also gives away the walrus which the song is saying is paul. i researched cast iron shore which got the name cast iron from St. michels (i dont know if i spelled michel right) built in the 1800's made of cast iron. its in south liverpool near the mersey. the church is near a river called "river mersey". Cast Iron Shore was the end of many famous ships. i was thinking that since it says in the song "a hole in a ocean" mabye means a hole in a ship. i dont know where but it would be nice if someone went to go check out that area. if he had a casket to be buried in then it was probally put together with "dovetail joints" but it would have to be made of wood for it to be possible, it works better with wood. this was a song i dont think anyone every thought to listen to. the song is just john singing and george and ringo payed too. ringo just got back to be on the song, this was his first song on The Beatles White Album Disc 2. download it on i tunes or whatever music thing you use but its a wierd song and a little spooky, kinda.



Hello! And thanks to all who take an interest in PID and my blog at http://youcanknowsometimes.blogspot.com (which started out on another topic than PID but has now stopped at that topic). I am the author of the PID article there.

May I note:

FOR ALL WHO DO NOT WISH TO LOOK AT THE CLUES AND FALSE EARS AND SO ON AS "PROOF":
The article discusses why it is important to understand them, their role in proving the case:

They prove the pre-case, the justification to look for forensic proof.
They also, if they were in fact done as revelation, are telling a story of what went on and express feelings.
In fact, they tell more than forensics do, even "if"/"when" forensics prove a replacement.

And they are how we came to know of the issue -- other than for those who saw or noticed differences, right off the bat, or were told.

Finally, they also show many things about how to argue, how to open the mind without losing one's mind, and so on.

-----------------------------------

Thank you to Fritzy99876, regarding the cast iron churches (very interesting!).

As to the place of burial:

It had not occurred to me to try to find local topography for the important symbolic references we have in Beatles lore connected to the PID issue.

John says in that song, "I told you 'bout Strawberry Fields."
So, let's look:

Both locations -- Strawberry Field and Eleanor Rigby's grave at St Peter's, shown in the heavy PID-referencing "Free As A Bird" video -- could be mere symbols of his burial.
But they are on a hill, as it turns out. And it is this possibility which I am exploring.

(Eleanor Rigby, the song, was, of course, written before the death. That song itself is not what I am referring to here.)

Cast iron shore is the general Merseyside region where Paul grew up.

Oceanic imagery is, of course, associated with that.

The main imagery of "fool on the hill" and "living there still" and even an image (from Magical Mystery Tour booklet showing a dead man as Paul's left hand, under a hill) suggests to me he's actually buried on a hill.

There is a major hill RIGHT BY STRAWBERRY FIELD. In fact, it turns out that the Church where Eleanor Rigby herself is buried (Paul was still alive when that was written), is very high in the local area, and that church is at or near the top of it, and Strawberry Field gates are near the bottom. All this is in the Merseyside region, but not at the banks of the river, of course.

This hill -- and I'm not sure how the Strawberry Field property actually lies on the hill ... if it covers some of the mid-hill as well as nearer the bottom part -- is a major feature in the area. It even has the tallest water reservoir in all of Liverpool, using gravity-assisted flowing, for extra water needs.

It is in the diocese (Anglican) for Liverpool, and Paul was actually raised non-denominational, while his father was a Protestant agnostic (and only his mother was Catholic, and had him baptised as such originally).

The "fool on the hill" and "living there still" are key, I think, to turning us away from a literally close oceanic location.
ANY church and ANY oceanic location in Mersey (or elsewhere) would do, otherwise.

However, I certainly could be wrong; but then what of the living there still?

There was also someone in Australia who thought there was, in fact, a "Strawberry Field" cemetery, and one is mentioned on http://merseyside.com Webpage, on the homepage. It is not listed under cemetaries; is this a "subtle leak" of information, or is it a mistake about "Strawberry Field" itself?
"Strawberry Fields cemetery also lies within the city."

One way or another, if Paul is buried at the actual Strawberry Field, and it is not normally a cemetery (it was an orphanage, now closed formally, though still owned by the Salvation Army, according to this:
http://beatles.ncf.ca/strawberry_fields_orphanage_closes.html), then the Merseyside.com site is leaking a tiny bit of truth. It is hard to know if it is an error, though.

Now ...

In the now partly censored (see my blog) 1995 video for "Free As A Bird" -- the official Youtube Beatles video channel has that one video listed as "unavailable" -- are many PID references. One of the items is an "Eleanor Rigby" gravestone (not necessarily the real one) and some graveyard, with a tall figure (ghostly, death?) walking through the cemetery shown, with a sheepdog, symbolizing Martha, obviously -- Martha was Sir Paul's famous dog -- running by. (She was supposedly also the real Paul's, as a pup, though that is debated as later disinfo.) If this is indicating St Peter's churchyard (as a literal filming location or just by association), Paul could be there. Sir Paul plays Paul's ghost, it seems, just outside the graveyard, leaping along a rock fence, unnoticed by a 60s-dressed woman, as if he is a ghost. And leaping is what he did in the famous "Fool on the Hill" scene. See the blog for images of "Free as a Bird" -- use your search "Find" option; go to the segment where there are a whole bunch of images from the video, to see the stuff I'm referencing here. Other imagery is discussed before those are shown, so it's not the first reference you'll get under "Find". You can also see Sir Paul leaping, in Magical Mystery Tour, at other places in the blog.

I am rewriting the blog, so perhaps I'll do a segment on the burial question, and use what I'm putting here, right now, plus the images in the appropriate places for this discussion.

But for now, I will have to describe. ...

Or Paul could be buried partway down the same hill at Strawberry Fields, without too much of a stretch in saying he is buried "on a hill", if that is what the references say -- and again, in thematic symbolic context, they must be. That is, if one understands the song as being about Paul's death, then "living there still" can only mean his burial site, unless there were some other defining factor -- for example, if John were always talking of Paul's favourite pub, named "The Hill", and he were living on in memory at his favourite pub, say, among his surviving friends. But we do not have such a qualification and also, we have a drawing from Magical Mystery Tour booklet showing a dead body under the hill of "Fool on the Hill". (The dead body is a four-fingered, lax hand, i.e., four-limbed dead body, connected to Paul's arm -- Sir Paul's face, though, of course. Sir Paul stands there in the cartoon drawing, with a cracked head, on a hill, and he is labeled as "Fool on the Hill". His eyes are shut, too.) The hand is drawn under a hill; so burial is what is meant. See the blog for an image of it.

Both could be unrelated to the burial, but I find it fascinating that Fritzy99876 reminds us that the song "Glass Onion" covers place of death suggestions.

Further:
"Strawberry Fields" (the song) is, of course, the first post-PID song, as well as a reverie on emotional dissociation and poignant or even sad memory. It also has the first audial "clue", probably: the backwards "I buried Paul" ("Cranberry Sauce"). Neil Aspinall "seems" to hear "I buried Paul" in the track -- of course, he would have known Paul died ("if" he did), and so if Paul died and if Aspinall "seems" to hear burial in the track, it is burial.

Knowing that Paul died, I can say that's what it all is. But anyway, the point here is:

if the song is just about sadness and appended to it is the burial reference (or putative burial reference), it does not mean that Strawberry Field itself is the place of burial. But if the song is in fact directly about the location of burial and the clue itself is about burial, well, they support each other. Or if the burial was at the churchyard at the top of the hill, the audial burial statement ("I buried Paul") and Strawberry Field are still geographically close.

They could all be symbolic, but with the "Glass Onion" support which Fritzy99876 reminds me of, it seems way less likely.

"Near the bottom of the hill on the left is the much-visited gate to Strawberry Field children's home [21]. At the junction with Menlove Avenue, Calderstones Park is on the opposite corner."
http://www.allertonoak.com/merseyWalks/GreenBeltTrail.html

And the hill itself?

"If you are walking back to the start of the Green Belt Trail, this is a pleasant route. Cross over High Street and turn right. Turn left into Quarry Street South, right into Allerton Road and left into Church Road. As you go up the hill, St. Peter's Church [19] (with Eleanor Rigby's grave) is on the left. At the top of the hill, by the entrance to Reynolds Park, turn left into Reservoir Road. The reservoir [20] marks Liverpool's highest point at ground level, a vertiginous 292 ft (89 m). Turn right at the end into Quarry Street and pass the ancient looking sandstone buildings of Newstead Farm. Turn left at the end into Beaconsfield Road."
http://www.allertonoak.com/merseyWalks/GreenBeltTrail.html

A final very local candidate comes to mind:

In Woolton itself, near to Strawberry Field and so on, is a hill, a large hill, called "Camp Hill".
It is the hill at the end of a ridge, and was where an Iron Age fort was (mostly destroyed now). According to http://www.allertonoak.com/merseySights/SouthLiverpoolWO.html :
"Camp Hill
Camp Hill is at the end of the ridge that runs out through Woolton. It is named after an Iron Age fort (of which almost nothing remains) and offers fine views over to Wales including the Clwydian Hills and, on clear days, Snowdonia and even the distant Aran mountains."

Now here we have 3 possibilities, all of them local, on two different tall hills in the area near John's home, and as near Paul's home as possible, since his own home's area seems not to have nicer hilly areas (though of that I am not sure).


But ...

since it turns out the Strawberry Field location and St Peter's church themselves are on a relatively major hill (even closer to John home than Camp Hill), and Strawberry Field and St Peter's are private property, I think Paulie's dead body is right there in one of them, likely even Strawberry Field.

And as mentioned above, that hill on which St Peter's stands, with Strawberry Field near the bottom, and where Eleanor Rigby's grave is at the top in the actual churchyard, is actually high enough that it has the gravity-induced tower reservoir for the whole area -- the tallest point in Liverpool, measured from its ground level, and the hill must help and must be why that location was chosen for the reservoir.

"The reservoir [20] marks Liverpool's highest point at ground level, a vertiginous 292 ft (89 m)."
http://www.allertonoak.com/merseyWalks/GreenBeltTrail.html

-----

"Everything flows"? Reservoir?
"Hill"?
Local Mersey ocean; cast iron shore Liverpool; lady Madonna trying to make ends meet (Paul's Mother was rather poor) local area Woolton, close to Lennon and McCartney's homes -- though the song, "Lady Madonna" is sung by the 2nd Paul, and possibly he wrote it. Of course we don't really know the provenance of all songs; some could be from the original Paul's unpublished songs, or adapted.

So:

I think he's buried right there, either in St Peter's or at Strawberry Field.

But I bet he's right there, at Strawberry Field or in a back area near St Peter's. Either way, even if it's at Camp Hill, he is very near home AND on a hill in this hypothesis. (I didn't know there was a hill at Strawberry Field and St Peter's until tonight.)

And my personal hunch? That he's actually at Strawberry Field. Not because it was John's playground, but because it is maybe connected closely to the church, and is very, very private. I don't know, of course, for sure, and the song could be referring to the fact it is very near St Peter's and he's buried there.

Have a look at each location on the map:
http://www.allertonoak.com/merseyWalks/GreenBeltTrail.html
And for more info on each click here:
http://www.allertonoak.com/merseySights/SouthLiverpoolWO.html


If he's at Strawberry Field, it would be even more private than the Churchyard. Though one must admit, the church could authorize a substitute name, and tend it, so he could have a stone and be on consecrated ground. But ground can be consecrated anywhere, too.

And all the tourists not even knowing but visiting anyway. What a beautiful thing, a silent thing, instead of having him buried in some weird place where no one would go from Beatles fandom.

Supporting, possibly, the Strawberry Field location would be that John's own memorial (ashes, too, I think?), are at "Strawberry Fields" in Central Park, New York, New York, a location Yoko had designated. This would be like burying him near Paul, symbolically, if Paul was buried at Strawberry Field.

But of course, showing Paul's type of dog, like Martha in a graveyard with Eleanor Rigby's name on a grave, and later Paul, played by Sir Paul, leaping (unnoticed by a passerby, like a ghost) outside the graveyard, suggests a St Peter's location, if anything.

Again, both locations could be mere symbols of his burial.
But they are on a hill. And it is this possibility which I am exploring.
Thanks for the push, Fritzy99876, for me to bother to look for local topography.

Well done.
We may have found the Fool on the Hill, and he may be quite at home, near bent-backed tulips, indeed.
Poor John. He always sounded desperate to me, when he sang, "Listen to me" (the meter and something in his voice), long before I knew of PID.
Love to them both. "[They were} as close as can be." And maybe are, again.
Good night.
Last edited by Clare Kuehn on 09 Sep 2013, 00:20, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Clare Kuehn
 
Posts: 1
Joined: 08 Sep 2013, 13:11

Re: Paul McCartney was replaced by a double in 1966, experts

Postby NinjaPuppy » 08 Sep 2013, 19:16

Welcome! Thanks for the information. I have not had a chance to get over to your blog yet, but I will.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Paul McCartney was replaced by a double in 1966, experts

Postby Scepcop » 25 Oct 2013, 16:04

Maybe I was wrong about the whole Paul thing. Check out this playlist of video clips from interviews with Paul McCartney from 1965 to 1968. They all look like the same person - same face, same voice, same mannerisms, same tempo of speech, same facial features, same facial expressions, etc. So I guess maybe I was wrong about him being replaced?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkKYgX2F ... kKYgX2Fu-U
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Paul McCartney was replaced by a double in 1966, experts

Postby NinjaPuppy » 25 Oct 2013, 21:02

Scepcop wrote:Maybe I was wrong about the whole Paul thing. Check out this playlist of video clips from interviews with Paul McCartney from 1965 to 1968. They all look like the same person - same face, same voice, same mannerisms, same tempo of speech, same facial features, same facial expressions, etc. So I guess maybe I was wrong about him being replaced?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkKYgX2F ... kKYgX2Fu-U

With something like this, there's really no right or wrong. It's just speculation and/or fodder for discussion. While there is a right or wrong answer to the basic question, it's still interesting to review the possibilities.

It's pretty much the same with CTs and all of the other paranormal subjects. Is there? Isn't there? No scientific proof. Plenty of personal experience. You name it, people can come up with it. I'm sure that questions like this have bought plenty of unusual things to light over the centuries.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Paul McCartney was replaced by a double in 1966, experts

Postby Clare Kuehn JL » 06 Mar 2014, 03:05

NinjaPuppy wrote:
Scepcop wrote:Maybe I was wrong about the whole Paul thing. Check out this playlist of video clips from interviews with Paul McCartney from 1965 to 1968. They all look like the same person - same face, same voice, same mannerisms, same tempo of speech, same facial features, same facial expressions, etc. So I guess maybe I was wrong about him being replaced?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkKYgX2F ... kKYgX2Fu-U

With something like this, there's really no right or wrong. It's just speculation and/or fodder for discussion. While there is a right or wrong answer to the basic question, it's still interesting to review the possibilities.

It's pretty much the same with CTs and all of the other paranormal subjects. Is there? Isn't there? No scientific proof. Plenty of personal experience. You name it, people can come up with it. I'm sure that questions like this have bought plenty of unusual things to light over the centuries.


Nonsense -- no offense intended, actually -- both of you.

Scepcop: if you think the most contained version (that is, resistant, calm) Paul McCartney in the press conference who does flash smiles suddenly is the same as the flatter-faced poseur who gave the LSD interview, with very different eyebrows when worried, you are quite mistaken. However, let me note to you ... given that Sir Paul is often more self-contained, head-oriented (intellectual-type), less animated, it would be better maybe if you didn't compare the most sedate Paul with the Sir Paul who is often sedate. The overlap for you in impression is obviously too much.

NinjaPuppy: if you think this is not in a general or specific sense proven, or that every case for big (important in some way) conspiracy is unprovable, you are utterly wrong. Some cases are quite clear, others are less, and some are outright unprovable. JFK had a spinal column and was hit in the back 5 1/2 inches below the collarbone, just to the right of the spine, in a shallow shot. (We know these things from the autopsy reports, visual reports, shirt, and the admission of Gerald Ford, that he "raised the location" to just below the base of the back of the neck.) The whole premise was to imply that a shot could get through the body without hitting bone. (It was asked in the Commission to a doctor from Parkland, whether if a bullet had entered in the back and not hit bone, could it have a trajectory which would come out the front centre, which of course is yes.) But it had to have hit bone on the way up from the location below to the centre front above, since there are spiney processes which stick out. EVEN POINT BLANK, with no other considerations of where people were sitting, the bullet could not transit in the body that way unscathed, undeflected or at all. Thus, there had to be at least two shooters, a conspiracy.

Oswald is not exonerated thus far, in the argument, but it does demolish the idea of "no conspiracy", even a couple of buddies, putting the word back in people's minds, which they did not want to have in people's minds at all. Why? Because then they might think of bigger conspiratorial groups. (Of course, even two shooters or one could be part of a larger conspiracy, but fending off the type of thought was paramount.)
User avatar
Clare Kuehn JL
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 06 Mar 2014, 02:51

PreviousNext

Return to Off-Topic Board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests