RedIce interview with Jim Fetzer/Ole Dammegard on upcoming book

[Cardillac]

Hi all,

if one is interested do click onto the link; it has to do with the faked according-to-NASA moon landings among many other 'faked' topics and Fetzer/Dammegard's about to be published book-

I've always been a fan of the research of both gentlemen therefore my started thread-

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2015/06/RIR-150603.php

listen then draw your own conclusions-

Larry in Germany

[indigopete]

I can't believe they've now got into the Paul McCartney stuff.

MI5 wanted to protect british fans from suicide ? Pl...ease.

Is this the start of the toxification of all Ole Dammegard's good work or something ?

He was doing so well. Even if it was true, he's already given people enough to chew on with Olaf Palme, Estonia sinking, holocaust. Why bring Paul McCartney into the mix ?

[sigma6]

I can't believe they've now got into the Paul McCartney stuff.

MI5 wanted to protect british fans from suicide ? Pl...ease.

Is this the start of the toxification of all Ole Dammegard's good work or something ?

He was doing so well. Even if it was true, he's already given people enough to chew on with Olaf Palme, Estonia sinking, holocaust. Why bring Paul McCartney into the mix ?

Because it is scientifically valid, and therefore there is a legitimate question as to why they went to such lengths... it reveals that more then meets the eye, at the very least things go on in the behind closed doors, that the public is not made privy to... it begs many questions... why? how often do these cover ups occur? how much influence does govt have over public? just how unreal is the public consciousness? etc...

[indigopete]

Because it is scientifically valid

How is it "scientifically valid". No basis whatsoever was provided in that interview for the McCartney conspiracy that wasn't either speculative or symbolic. If you're a "sitting at home armchair spectator" making up your own mind there's far more evidence to the contrary.

McCartney is recognisable by at least 3 distinct characteristics:

[1] - his eyebrows are distinctly asymmetric

[2] - his right eyebrow “flicks” up at a steep angle, then drops sharply away in the last quarter of its length

[3] - he has a subtly lazy left eye which you can measure by noting (a) the visible portion of the upper iris of his left eye and (b) the way the left eyelid slopes away while the right eyelid is more level and erect

Those three characteristics were as distinct in 1964 as they were in 1974.

Contrary to Dammegard's assertion that the "music is completely different", there is plenty of continuity in McCartney's style from the early days to the later, at least as much as in any contemporary artists who were equally undergoing a cultural evolution that spanned some of the most significant musical episodes in recent human history.

No source was even given for the information about the car crash. There is plenty of stuff that Dammegard has researched which is groundbreaking and very credible.

This is just hogwash which I don't think even he really believes sincerely.

[indigopete]

I just discovered this interview where he's a bit more measured about the McCartney conspiracy.

http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/real%20deal%20no%20fetzer-ole%20assassinations.mp3

[sigma6]

photographic evidence, facial, teeth, ears, photos of Paul playing right handed, or using a right handed guitar upside down (why would he even own a right handed guitar?) etc... To professional photographers and forensic experts, this is indisputable, in fact they debate the issue that there may have even been more than one replacement!... (did the first one get too cocky?) Combined with a deluge of circumstantial evidence, it makes it more than scientifically plausible, not going to post all the McCartney links, if you have internet access, anyone can find more information then they could handle...

P.S. not hating on the Beatles, I love their music, and think that a lot of it had to do with the cauldron of emotional energy that must have played out in the background, I still listen to it today... but we're truth seekers... this is how it goes... appreciate it for what it is...

KBX2dySWGew

4ez99s0862c
"I'm The Greatest" at 9:36 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ez99s0862c&t=0h09m36s) once again making reference to "Billy Shears" from the famous (and controversial) Sergeant Pepper Album, is particularly interesting (apparently John was prone to mocking the whole arrangement, which would be understandable)

[indigopete]

photographic evidence, facial, teeth, ears, photos of Paul playing right handed, or using a right handed guitar upside down (why would he even own a right handed guitar?)

Are you serious ?

Photographic evidence is evidence of nothing when it comes to identity - in particular proving disparate identities. Try taking two photos of McCartney's face - before and after - bunging them into Photoshop and doing the experiments yourself. The margin for error is huge. Add to that the fact that nobody seems to have done any controls - i.e. try this for another 50 people at random and see if it's not possible to reproduce the same dimensional inconsistencies between two time periods.

As for guitar "handedness", there's a mountain of photographs showing him playing left handed consistently plus the odd few right handed ones. For example, here's an apparent "right handed one" but in fact it's a left handed guitar turned upside down. So what ? Thats just s typically muso thing to mess about with occasionally. Hendrix played his guitar upside down the whole time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tWikCSZjfs

Here he is left handed pre 1966 and post: http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/john-lennon-033-1.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Paul_McCartney_during_a_Wings_concert,_1976.jpg

There's also the odd picture floating around the internet which appears to have been reversed like this one: http://www.eirikwangberg.com/photos/RAM2.jpg The givaway is the fact that he has a lazy left eye and it's the right one in that photo so the picture has been flipped. That lazy left eye, his raised right eyebrow, nasal intonation and musical style are totally consistent throughout the entire span of his public existence.

The Album cover symbology that Jim Fetzer likes to parade as "conclusive" is nothing resembling conclusive. They also stopped wearing suits during that period, their musical diversity grew and supported more flamboyant arrangements. It's equally as symbolic of a passage from one creative phase to another. If you're going to go to all that trouble to let people know a band member died, why not just make an announcement that "a band member died". It wasn't exactly unusual phenomenon - from James Dean to Jimmy Hendrix.

Similarly for the musical disparity between the early and late sixties which according to Ole is "a huge difference" as if thats evidence of anything. Look at any contemporaries from Led Zeppelin to the Doors and you'll see the same thing which has as much to do with the revolution in recording technology as musical style.

I'm sorry. It's the same guy and I'm amazed that Ole has allowed himself to be sucked into this on such a superficial basis. He has done some great work and I've followed all his investigations till now but this just punctures his credibility for me - not because I'm not predisposed to the possibility of such conspiracies, I certainly am - but simply because you can't go around believing everything that gets served up when it's nothing but heresay rumour.

[sigma6]

Photographic evidence is evidence of nothing when it comes to identity...
news to me... never looked at it that way before ... o.O! For people who make a living studying photographic evidence, there doesn't seem to be any question... I'm no expert though...


If you're going to go to all that trouble to let people know a band member died, why not just make an announcement that "a band member died"... [?]
Given the above, precisely, that is the question... unless there was in fact more going on to this "British Invasion"... (not necessarily for all bad purposes either...) Recall, this was a band that invoked literal psychological "hysteria" in millions of young fans, when they were alive... i.e. total emotional control... what would be the effect if they died? It might have just been something that started out innocently and with good intention, that simply got out of hand.

The monkees more or less didn't hide the fact they were a "commercial creation" Although some of their music was top of the charts, in the end that didn't help their image, especially with the critics...

By now we all know how "critics" can be legless men hell bent on teaching others how to run ':-(