After outlining the major theories regarding the replacement
of Paul McCartney of The Beatles in 1966, we would like to progress to a
tentative theory of our own regarding his murder. We admit that the physical
evidence is slim, but there are other sources of evidence which lead one to
piece together a plausible narrative of his assassination.
The Evidence
We acknowledge that there is no corpse, making a case of murder a bit more challenging than usual. The primary fact is that Paul was replaced in 1966, a fact confirmed by the forensic work of Carlesi and Gavazzeni published in 2009 showing that the individual masquerading today as Paul McCartney is indeed a different person than the Paul of 1966 and prior.
We acknowledge that there is no corpse, making a case of murder a bit more challenging than usual. The primary fact is that Paul was replaced in 1966, a fact confirmed by the forensic work of Carlesi and Gavazzeni published in 2009 showing that the individual masquerading today as Paul McCartney is indeed a different person than the Paul of 1966 and prior.
The evidence that we have about the circumstances of his
death relies in part upon the lyrics and clues from Beatles albums beginning
with Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. Although many so-called clues are
ambiguous and could have alternative interpretations than those put forth by
the Paul Is Dead community, we believe that their cumulative weight, bolstered
by various statements of former Beatles, Heather Mills, and Sir Paul McCartney
support the thesis that Paul is Dead.
The Publicity Stunt
There are many who claim, frothing at the mouth and shaking
their heads more violently than Baby ever shook It, that the Paul Is Dead rumor
is a gigantic publicity stunt. That allegation is a complete and total
non-sequitur. We could concede that
someone perpetrated a publicity stunt without at all undermining our contention
that Paul is dead.
Did the Beatles really need a publicity stunt c. 1967-69
when Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, Magical Mystery Tour, and Abbey Road
albums had rocketed the Beatles to the apex of their fame?
The bottom line is that a publicity stunt neither proves nor
disproves death – the argument is almost infantile.
The Theory
The theory we maintain concerning the sequence of events
preceding and following McCartney’s death may be briefly stated. McCartney was
assassinated sometime between August 25 – 27, 1966, somewhere between Seattle
and Los Angeles – our hunch being San Francisco - and returned to England where
the body was staged in a fake automobile accident discovered September 11.
Beginning as early as August 28, McCartney imposters were
used until a permanent replacement could be doctored to resemble the dead
McCartney, the switch operation completed in late November by the time
recording for the Sgt Pepper album began.
The Explanation
The last known appearance of Paul McCartney was at the
August 25, 1966 Seattle concert, after which date he is seen no more. What the
public does see is a cavalcade of Paul imposters all of whom look distinctly
different from the others. This person is often known as Faul, but we will
identify his real name following.
If Paul was last seen on August 25, it would be reasonable
to assume that he died near the place of his last known presence. He was en route
to Los Angeles that evening, where on August 28 a fake Paul gave a press
conference with the other Beatles.
That his managers had an imposter in place so quickly
suggests that certain parties had planned the murder well in advance. And the
fact that a fake one was seen landing in San Francisco suggests that he had
died August 25-27. But of course this is not necessitated by any of the facts -
simply a reasonable conjecture.
The Dates
We are aware of other dates given for his death, especially
the one provided cryptically in the drum on the cover of Sgt Pepper. The drum
date is said by many to be November 9, 1966, but others argue that the day and
month should be flipped to give 9/11/1966, a matter to which we shall return.
The Body
Some allege that the walrus reference by John refers to
Paul’s body, to which a rescue worker likened Paul’s condition when it was
recovered from its death scene. While the story is certainly apocryphal, we
could run with it by stating that a body submerged under water would bloat,
coming to resemble a walrus, meaning that Paul was dead quite a few days before
being discovered.
More critical skeptics will dismiss the walrus clues as merely
a reference to Lewis Carroll’s poem, but we will show how Beatles’ communications
are layered with meaning, making fixation on a singular interpretation fraught
with error.
We accept the 9/11 argument
because it corresponds with the time of decomposition required to assume the
state of a “walrus”. Brian Epstein also announced on October 3, 1966 that The
Beatles would tour no more, meaning that the November date of death is too
late.
Why would a manager announce to the world that a band of
monumental popularity would stop touring, especially when Paul commented that
they would continue to play before fans? Was he lying? Certainly life on the
road was a pain, but to abruptly state that the band would stop touring when it
had heavenly bills to pay is absurd. The only reasonable explanation is that
Paul was dead.
Death of The Beatles
Not only was he dead, but so were The Beatles. The
difference between 1966 Beatles and 1967 Beatles is stark and chasmic, the two
irreconcilable. Clearly someone wanted the band and its influence for reasons other
than entertainment.
The Beatles were a shock and awe band, inspiring and
promoting behaviors in teenagers which were alarming to older generations. They
were the wedge which higher powers wanted to embed in the social structure of
America - and the world - for divide and conquer tactics. Besides, the world
needed to be distracted from the murder of President Kennedy.
Some say that the Beatles were a product of the Tavistock Institute
founded in part by Aleister Crowley. Although a reasonable proposition, one
which we have come to endorse, it has limited evidence. Yet it is hard to
imagine such young men wielding so much power without a wizard behind the
curtains pulling levers. Indeed there is abundant evidence showing that crowds
were paid to show up for The Beatles appearances, especially in America,
meaning that these powers were very anxious for this band to succeed.
Our best guess is that Tavistock gained control of the
second, post Paul Beatles.
The Rosetta Stone
Wizards there were indeed as one sees on the Sgt Pepper
album cover. Perhaps the most disturbing figure on the cover is that of
Aleister Crowley. Why would a monstrous, vile, Satanic person such as Crowley
appear on the cover of the Beatles’ album?
The standard and best answer is that the cover represented
favored characters of the Beatles, the cover designers, and perhaps some
executives at record publisher EMI. Numerous accounts given by John Lennon and
George Harrison support the claim that these persons were heroes of the band
members. Supposedly the album cover was the brain child of Faul who also
claimed that the characters on the cover were band picks. Adolf Hitler was
dropped at the last minute as too controversial.
As such, it is very clear that the Beatles – certainly John,
George, and Faul – were Satan devotees to varying degrees, the most convincing
evidence being their endorsement of Aleister Crowley, a somewhat remote figure
today, but even more obscure, especially to American audiences, in 1967. We
suspect that the Beatles thought that they were being clever with their veiled
references to Satanism, but time has divulged fully the truth of their
loyalties.
Now there are those who say that the characters on the cover
also represent those which the band disliked, but this is a stretch belied by
the statements of the various Beatles and an eisegetical reading of the event.
Redwel Trabant, author of the Sgt Pepper
Code, stated consistently in his essays that the persons selected were
those whom they admired in some fashion, Adolf Hitler included.
An argument against our Satanic readings of the Beatles’
religion is that their interests were more those of dabblers and curiosity
seekers than that of true believers. More importantly, we would argue that Faul
was the prime mover of this development – the true believer.
Paul the Satanist
Now regarding Faul, there is one argument that he was Ian
Iachimoe, an owner of the occult art gallery Indica where Yoko Ono exhibited
and met John Lennon. William Shears Campbell is said to be Ian Iachimoe, and
Billy Shears is the band leader introduced at the beginning of the Sgt Pepper
album, which in turn would be Faul McCartney. Lennon, incidentally, publicly
met Ono in 1966 at Indica around the time of McCartney’s death. Did he know her
prior to his public meeting with her? Ono is a witch and intelligence agent –
making her a perfect Tavistock client or agent.
The Motive
Perhaps the most puzzling aspect of the McCartney murder is
motive, of which many have been put forth. We believe that The Beatles’
apparent opposition to the Viet Nam war is a plausible explanation for his
death, but we think it is too shallow.
Others have noted that Paul, after an encounter with Mark
Lane, became convinced that President John Kennedy was murdered by a conspiracy
rather than through the idiotic lone nut theory manufactured by the
perpetrators.
Offering to lend his talents to a musical on the subject,
authorities may have feared that the popular entertainer would open way too
many minds; so they murdered him as they did so many other witnesses.
The realization that a band this powerful needed to be
controlled probably inspired the Powers That Be that they could hijack the
group for their own needs. In particular, with the Viet Nam war escalating, and
the Bush Crime Syndicate needing a market for its drugs being shipped out of
the Golden Triangle, the Beatles’ advocacy of drug use could be a huge boon to
their trade.
Thus Faul’s interview in 1967 admitting that he used LSD was
basically a paid advertisement for drugs being sold by the US government
imported from Southeast Asia.
As we have noted elsewhere, the post 1966 Beatles were
worlds apart stylistically and musically from the pre 1967 band. This
difference, then, is what the cover of Sgt Pepper symbolizes – the death of the
old Beatles and the birth of the new, an evolution which probably could not
have occurred with Paul still in the band.
There were also the messy underworld connections of the
Beatles, due in part to manager Brian Epstein’s heavy gambling habit, wherein
ownership of the Beatles may have passed into new hands as a settlement of
debt. Perhaps Paul was the fly in the ointment whose presence and objections
were no longer needed.
While all of the above are probably part of the stew, we
believe that Faul’s lust for fame and fortune fueled his conspiracy to remove
Paul from the band in order to remake it into a blatantly Satanic outfit to
lure millions into the dark world of Lucifer.
In any event, unless Paul was a human sacrifice, his
elimination may have been required because he would not go along with the new
direction the band’s handlers wanted to take it. He was the fool on the hill
thinking he could chart his own course.
The Beatles ended their US tour in San Francisco’s
Candlestick Park, San Francisco being the frothy home of Anton Lavey, Ken
Anger, and the Church of Satan.
The Culprits
So where are we? We are at the point of nominating a
murderer – if not a group of murderers. We believe that Faul was the front man
of the coup who was assisted by Paul’s brother who has gone along with the
conspiracy for pecuniary and religious reasons. Both are Satanists, and human
sacrifice is part and parcel of that occultic faction. The motive was fame and
money for their part, and for the handlers, a vast new drug market whose supply
was brought under the control of the Bush Crime Syndicate.
Many state that Beatles’ albums and lyrics are replete with
clues about the murder of Paul. To a point we agree, though many are
intentionally misleading and may well reference the death of Tara Browne. But
the scariest part of that phenomenon is that there are so many knowledgeable
clues that one must wonder how anyone but the murderers could know so much. And
we cannot rely upon them to be entirely truthful – only half truthful as a good
Satanist would be.
One of the principles of the occult is to hide meaning in
symbols which only the initiate knows. Speaking forward and backward was one of
the many skills Crowley urged upon his adepts. Indeed the Beatles albums are
replete with these artifacts, a fact which Faul acknowledged in the Beatles
Anthology.
We don’t expect many supporters
of our view, to put the case mildly. The details are gruesome and a shock to at
least 2-3 generations of music lovers. However, we must follow the facts and
fit them most consistently with the personalities and actions of the people
involved. To suppose that Faul murdered Paul seems an outrageous claim to most
Beatles fans and observers, but Satanism, to say the very least, is entirely
outrageous itself.
The Art
Thanks to Clare Kuehn, we
discovered an astonishing work of art, executed by John sometime during 1966 –
71, in which he depicts a dead man bludgeoned death, holding a shovel, attended
by his dog, on a bright sunny day. Kuehn likens the drawing to the fool tarot
card, linking it to The Fool on the Hill song.
We agree that the picture
sympathetically depicts the death of a loved one. We would argue also that the
picture evokes painful loss and clues relating to the death. The shovel in our
mind indicates that Paul dug his own grave, so to speak, by attempting to defy
powers who had other ideas for his life or band than what Paul may have had in
mind, or broached subjects they wished to remain covered up.
In short, the art work was John’s
extraordinary record to us about the events on and around September 11, 1966
which took from the world The Beatles and gave it Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts
Club Band.
The only point upon which we are
dogmatic is that Paul McCartney was murdered on or before September 11, 1966.
Others are subject to new interpretations, and new clues. The power of the media
is enormous, and we are gullible to its seductions. What the media gives, the
media takes away.
ReferenceClare Kuehn, Mass Shootings & Paul Is Dead, http://youcanknowsometimes.blogspot.com/2013/12/paul-is-dead-new-j-lennon-clue-ignore.html, accessed 2/21/2014
Copyright 2014 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.
46 comments:
Well, thank you for referencing the John Lennon drawing and my blog site.
There are 3 shows I have done with Dr. Jim Fetzer, archived under my name at radiofetzer.blogspot.com
I would have some corrections to your very calm narrative, however.
Paul attended Melody Maker awards -- boppy, smiley, same. The date of airing of the footage is Sept 13, but it was, it seemed, filmed Sept 10. He reasonably died as the drum-skin on Sgt P and 2 years of anniversary behaviour indicate: on Sept 11. (Anniversary behaviour: 1 year later Mag Myst Tour film starts filming, filled with eulogy Paul is Dead references, including Paul in cameo in older footage in the 2 clips of wizard tower scenes, and 2 years after Sept 11 1966, John recorded "Glass Onion", about the death and mentioning that references and clues could be found.)
There is no good case (sorry, in the final assessment with all things considered) of a USA death.
Also, the idea of a murder is likely -- from the fact that someone came forward with a replacement within a month or so, and subsequent interest of Sir Paul in the OTO of Crowley, mean he was likely connected and it was planned.
However, to posit that Beatle success was due to Tavistock, etc., before the death is a bit untenable. Where could such persons have helped? In PR, yes, i.e., advertising. But not in the basic excellence of the band. Screaming once started does tend to become contagious.
Finally, the car crash is the likeliest scenario, with one glitch: he was probably run over. To posit that the car crash is disinfo is irresponsible to the intensity of the evidence, which goes on and on. Even the beloved producer, Sir George Martin's, coat of arms represents the covered-up death by a tire-tread. It is white (a white car may have done it), has 5 tread lines for 5 Beatles in total (also mimics music notation), has 3 stag beetles (for Sir Paul and the other two living after John's death, but also of course for the 3 original famous Beatles living after Paul's death).
The issue is that he died, was likely murdered, other murders and seemingly faux-suicides (murders) happened and there was intelligence service cover up, protection, and almost certainly cultic activity from groups linked and probably considering themselves higher than intelligence services.
I cannot argue all of this here, but this is my deeply informed and careful position. The claims of other Beatles' being replaced do not (even prima facie) hold up, when the forensic overlays of the heads are done, or in so many other ways. However, people are now going further than Paul and getting uncareful, in the end. RIP John and Paul and the others.
About the drawing:
It is, as you say, grief-ridden. It is also accurate to head injuries if not merely bludgeoned (which would not tend to dislodge the frontal bone, which is dislodged here), but rather if splattered by sideways whole-head blow from landing on a road.
The shovel and freshly dug earth combine time after (the burial) with the moment of death (the head and broken ankles, dissheveled boots, which are also themes here and elsewhere and typical of being thrown from being run over, say in a rendez-vous to which to lure him, since a car crash itself would be no guarantee of death).
The man is alive (in memory), dead (in head injury), in heaven (comforted by dog and flower), and witness or present to his own burial (shovel/earth).
This is typical mourning in a vision. Many icons and secular artworks have this element of a dream of all times and hopes and memories in one image.
The Fool tarot card is a tricky thing in the argument I make: I do not merely liken it to the dog, flower, sun in the Fool Tarot restart/resurrection card. I argue that since the song "Fool on the Hill" is constantly linked to Paul and resurrection in the Magical Mystery Tour film and afterward -- even if the song may have been originally written by Paul, not Sir Paul, which we don't know -- it may be that John was thinking of the Tarot in his drawing, but not that the drawing is primarily about that at all.
It is primarily a vision of hope and despair, memory of a death and of burial.
Finally, it is ironic that you posted your article at 3:33 p.m. (33s play into many cult murders, including in so many ways the attempt on George Harrison's life: 33-year-old attacker at 3:30 in the morning. It was the day before the new millennium, Dec 30-31 1999. It involved massive injuried: 40 stab wounds or so, minimized in number in the first reports. The attacker was crazed, but had obviously had help getting in. And was obsessed that Harrison was "a Satanist", which, of course, in any simple sense he was not -- though to some, anyone New Agey is Satanic. It is likely the assassin was duped and trained/mind controlled by those who were Satanic in reality, to believe he, as a radical Christian opposite, a mirror image of the Satanist themselves, should go kill Harrison.)
These killings -- including elements of John's death by the CIA, which is another argument, covered in the radiofetzer.blogspot.com interviews if you search my name -- have cultic elements.
But interpreting the motive as MERE sacrifice would be irresponsible. Propitious cultic dates for doing other business, plus the sacrificial element, plus the business of why the killers or some of the killers want the person dead, are all likely in play in such deaths.
thank you for taking the time to post at length on certain elements in my essay, as well as on the topic at large. I encountered you on fetzer's program through a reference from tina foster's site.
together I consider the two of you to be the most thoughtful and cogent of the many commentators and analysts on the subject, even if you have areas of disagreement. your views are certainly influential in my thinking.
if we accept Occam's razor as a useful tool, I agree that your insistence that paul died not in the usa is the most helpful comment you made, although it does raise questions about his disappearance at the tail end of the 66 tour. for example, why did he disappear - perhaps to add additional confusion to drawing a narrative of his death assuming that it was planned?
I also accept the idea that a proxy - as with lennon - may have murdered paul, but do not consider it essential to the narrative, any more than I consider the names of Kennedy's assassins the main interest of his murder - as interesting as it is. ie, who was pulling the strings?
I did not intend to argue that the beatles success was derivative. I agree that both versions of the band triumphed on the merits of their members' talents - not the gifts of tavistock. nevertheless these types of groups love to co-opt talent for their own nefarious ends, and I believe did so to a considerable extent with the beatles. their control wasn't perfect, but if they could reflect some of the bands' glories to their own purposes, then they achieved something important. in the end, much of the rock music of the 60s' militated against much of the pro-war mind control agenda of these fascist groups. in other words, large tracts of the music was anti-war and that was not a welcome development in my view. what a lucky man he was.
For me the manner of death is not critically important, and if the evidence leads to a car accident, then so be it. I follow the evidence rather than my feelings - or at least I hope that I do.
I assure you that the timing of my posting was unplanned. this mystery is one I plan to pursue because I think with careful detective work a very satisfying narrative can be constructed from the clues.
Hi. The manner of death -- as with any case's specifics -- is interesting in order to simply know what happened, but is actually important as well:
often the whodunnit, if there was a whodunnit, and, in the case of Paul's death, the very fact of the event at all, come clear when the facts of the event specifically become known.
In other words: knowing how accurate that drawing is to a sideways head injury, either by decapitation or by being hit on the street, shows that the drawing is not likely idle doodling.
As such, it seriously supports the very event of a death at all, and by implication a replacement. Other than forensics, it is one of the most direct pointers to the rumour's reality.
As well, then, a whodunnit emerges more strongly: could it be an accident? If there was an "it" (a death) then the date and timing to get or train a replacement become part of the issue.
Well, Sir Paul was "found" and "worked in" very fast. So someone must have not only suggested the idea but provided the raw material (Sir Paul before he was a Beatle).
That means someone or several persons was or were likely prepared. Who could help them, suggest it, and provide someone? Cultic-religious intel operators, who would also choose a gangland style date: 9/11.
And how do we know it was 9/11 (Sept 11, UK)? From the date on the drum-skin of Sgt Pepper album, plus 2 eulogistic anniversaries: the start of the MMT film 1 year later and the recording of Glass Onion (the only mention of there being clues). We also know it because any later leaves less time to fix up Sir Paul.
More than this, though, we do not know reasonably at this time.
I hope you keep plugging on at this issue. Best wishes. And thank you for your compliments. There are 3 shows about this on Fetzer's site. People can search my name, Clare Kuehn, at radiofetzer.blogspot.com to find them. Their dates are Jan. 2012, Jan & Feb 2014.
the McCartney case shares many features of the kennedy case - ie a coalition of the willing conspired, each for parochial reasons, to murder someone, and still expends substantial efforts to cover up the details of the crime. I use each case to help analyze the other.
the point is that those looking for motive should expect many, each leading to different members of the criminal operation.
in that vein, I believe that murdering McCartney required a cabal, perhaps with some in the dark regarding the specifics, but each doing an important part of perpetuating the fraud. they are drawn to it for various motives, just as with jfk.
motive - eg cui bono - is a good starting point, and I believe that I have addressed those matters and do not have too much more to add other than to reinforce your idea that McCartney was murdered as an intel-occult operation, possibly with ritualistic overtones.
I am glad that you have pointed out that there is much more evidence than some are willing to admit. namely, the date of death, the album covers semantics, anniversary events, and the drawing - all of which are probative evidences which make a solid case for premeditated murder by a cabal of conspirators - it is more than just a theory.
I go even further to state my belief that sir paul - aka faul - was a principal who benefited enormously from the crime. I think the occult is the thread which ties all of the parties together as sir paul displays without embarrassment aleister Crowley at his concerts.
could I take these data to a court of law? maybe not yet. so the question i pose is, what more do i need? can i take this argument to the court of public opinion? absolutely and it is not based upon gossip or wild speculation. the case is philosophically and intellectually sound.
i think a good exercise would be to pull together all of the evidence and see what gaps exist in order to direct further research. the next step would be to determine who paul knew, and associate them with the various motives. no one is above suspicion.
Yes, I have been doing what you suggest.
Indeed cult-intel-gangland crap is involved in this case, even if only after the death, but likely in the death.
Sir Paul is accessory or knew or helped.
However, he is still a Beatle and duped in other ways for intel. We have to remember this when introducing the simple aspects of the case to people. You and I can discuss the rest, but in fact, the first thing is the mere fact of replacement and death.
Also, of course JFK's and other murders and cabals teach us a lot.
Finally, don't misuse the term "theory" by stating something is a "mere theory". A theory is an explanatory work, a concept of how something was done or that it was done; it can be either tentative (being more an initial notion, which you really mean) or it can be a complete understanding and proof (methodical, worked out understanding).
So it is better to say that something is not an unproved or is not an undeveloped theory; otherwise, you add to the CIA's attempt to derail the word theory into meaning mere notion or nonsense.
Best wishes. You can also Skype me to discuss this PID case, its holes and its proof areas, if you wish. Contact Jim Fetzer for sending me your e-mail and I will reply when he forwards yours and tell you my Skype name and you can call me there. Cheers.
I have forwarded my email to jim, asking him to forward to you.
Someone has written a piece that John Lennon faked his own death too. Apparently a film called Let Him Be was made about a John Lennon impersonator who is actually played by the still alive John Lennon. Very clever.
Apparently, EMI has close links with British Intelligence.
Kerdasi Amaq: the argument against John's faking his death is sound, though not completely direct.
The photo of him dead and the horror of the scenario, plus how excellent the hit was (typical CIA ambush with no witnesses), etc., are all part of (not the whole of) the argument.
Don't make things unnecessarily complex; there was an assassination and the motives are easy to think of (mostly), but to render unnecessary complexity -- black ops here is not unnecessary or badly complex -- such as that John faked his death (to leave his son? when feeling better? on the last day of having no security?) ...No.
The most definitive clue in the death of James Paul McCartney is embedded within the Beatles' 1995 video, "Free As A Bird". After finally locating 4 postmortem photographs depicting the corpse of the real James Paul McCartney, I was literally stunned when I discovered that one of them is actually used in the Beatles' "Free As A Bird" video [Freeze the frame at exactly 2:22 seconds into the music video; the image appears very briefly (think of this as a subliminal, sub-conscious mental implant on the part of the video's creators). The image is "reflected" on the rear window of the black police "paddy wagon", and it is quite gruesome, even in black and white. The entire video basically tells the esoteric story of "The Beatles", if you realize what is actually being conveyed here. Why would any band (especially "The Beatles") insert an actual photograph of a dead man into their "music video"? There is NO credible logical answer, except for one: That, yes, this is an encoded clue that the real James Paul McCartney is DEAD, and in fact, "We are telling you, and we are leaving you clues for this historical record, if you are astute enough to pick up on all of the occult messages that we are forbidden from overtly telling you!" By the way, if James Paul McCartney actually died on September 11, 1966, then he died exactly 13 days after the final Beatles concert in San Francisco, on August 29, 1966! Also, another giant clue to the occultism at work here in this sinister affair is this: Exactly 13 years to the day prior to the assassination of John Lennon (on December 8, 1980) two significant albums were released (on December 8, 1967): "The Magical Mystery Tour" (in the movie version, the Beatles portray spell-casting WITCHES!); and also on the same day, the Rolling Stones released the album, "Their SATANIC Majesties' Request", wherein, on the front cover, the 4 Beatles are depicted in the 4 circles. In Satanism and Black Magic Occultism, "timing is everything". The reverse symbolism depicted on the "Sgt. Pepper's..." drum logo is also significant, because on November 9 (1961) the Beatles' future Manager, Brian Epstein, met the Beatles for the first time, at Noon, at the Cavern Club, while on November 9 (1966) Yoko Ono supposedly met John Lennon for the first time at the Indigo art gallery show, where she is dressed as a WITCH in the flyer! [Of special note to Occultists: Indigo is the final color on the color spectrum before you get to the color Black]. In case Yoko Ono hasn't made it clear enough that she is a WITCH, her 2007 solo album is titled, "YES, I'M A WITCH". And to cement the claim, consider this occult fun fact: the final scene in the SATANIC movie, "Rosemary's Baby", takes place at the EXACT SPOT where John Lennon was Ritually Murdered, outside of the Dakota Building (called the Bramford in the movie) exactly 13 years after this scene was shot in 1967 --- the camera flies up and away from the future assassination site, much as a newly departed Soul might leave its dead body --- and all of this is carefully coordinated and planned well in advance. Clare Kuehn, I am very proud of your research into the fate of the real James Paul McCartney, and its wider implications regarding the manipulation of the social masses by the esoteric elite. We just need to pin down the EXACT time, date, and location of his demise...and we will soon enough, with more dedicated Truth-seekers, such as yourself. You should be very proud of your historic research, and I salute you!!!
Thank you for your compliments. I won't go into all that you've posted, but the gist has to be correct.
By the way, I do not think the image in the van is the death photo, but rather a doctored live photo made to look leafy, then inserted in the right place to be sinister, as if the head were up there in the van, a police van, in the semiautobiographical video right before a 1960s crash scene.
Also, I doubt we will ever know (without a leak) which road and time he was killed ... or if it was made to look that way when the Beatles saw the photos, but he was killed on some back lot of Mi5. But one way or another, he died that night and effectively head-smashed, ankle-broken.
I know of the 13s.
It is not a pleasant subject.
We are getting to more info about the OTO and the Beatles, but there is a lot of dross and initial speculation which may remain in the picture we have, simply because some things are a gist, in this case, not exact.
I am glad you care.
RIP to the lovelies who were manipulated, though some of them outright lied.
hi I respect hard work about PID,this people try to help mystery dead paul... but in my particular opinion, last view original paul mccartney was in melodymaker i think is september day 10 or day 13... in 1966,maybe , after original paul not anymore, in candlestick park for me its original paul, last concert beatles was 29 august 1966 in candlestick park, no doubts original paul mccartney, real paul is dead, maybe to die in end september day 11, 20, 25 september 1966, maybe october 1966...but in kenya africa its not paul... in 1967 paul not anymore...
forgive my english...
Hi again. I wanted to inform you that in addition to isolated references as possible references, Kubrick's "The Shining" can be now definitively identified as the largest tribute to Paul's death (likely through knowledge, not just the rumour, given the extent of the material which flowed from doubles, which most people do not even know is in there, and inversions and direct Paul numbers and facts). http://youcanknowsometimes.blogspot.ca/2015/11/paul-is-dead-and-kubricks-shining-plus.html
It seems now that the death date clue in the Sergeant Pepper cover (drum-skin as tombstone) corresponds to multiple witnesses of a news broadcast on earliest morning, just after midnight and up to two hours after that (in different time zones, repeated and elaborated slightly), Tuesday September 13, 1966 (UK time).
"Bloody Tuesday" of "I Am The Walrus", and "morning" (but not 5 o'clock and Wednesday), of "She's Leaving Home", which George's figure points to on the Sgt P cover.
Turn IIIX (I ONE I X) around and it's XIII (13).
"I ONE I X ^ HE DIE" is the look of the up-down mirroring of "LONELY HEARTS" on the drum-skin on the front of Sgt P. -- Note also that the typeface which was used for the real album was altered for the CDs and many later objects for sale, to obscure the message.
What is your view on the death of Nirvana frontman Kurt Cobain?
he was most likely murdered. Here is a broader treatment we did on the topic of murdered musicians a few months ago.
http://www.americanchronicle.info/Home/TabId/514/ArticleId/51/the-day-the-music-died.aspx
Mark Lane describes in his book 'Citizen Lane' how a would-be hit man called to warn him that he had been hired to assassinate Mark when his JFK assassination book 'Rush to Judgment' became a #1 best seller, which was within a 1-3 week period of when Paul was killed, i.e., between August 16 and September 6, 1966, while Mark was on his book tour.
And leading up to this Paul McCartney had developed a very close and open friendship with Mark in support of his book, meeting with him at least 4 times to discuss it and Paul actually auditioning to do the musical score. And if the murdering powers that be were threatened enough by Mark Lane's book to try to take him out, there is no doubt in my mind that they were even more threatened by Paul McCartney and his extreme support of the book, considering how popular and powerful the Beatles' were at that point in time.
So unfortunately, though the murdering assassins were thwarted in taking Mark out, they obviously succeeded in murdering Paul a very short time later.
"The theory we maintain concerning the sequence of events preceding and following McCartney’s death may be briefly stated. McCartney was assassinated sometime between August 25 – 27, 1966, somewhere between Seattle and Los Angeles – our hunch being San Francisco - and returned to England where the body was staged in a fake automobile accident discovered September 11."
This is the theory that I have espoused, yet, my research is not credited, nor is my blog mentioned in the references. I have spoken about this on many interviews. I lean towards Seattle as being e place where Paul was offed. I also think that the body was dumped at sea.
Tina Foster, Esq.
Plastic Macca ~ Paul is Dead
plasticmacca.blogspot.com
that means that TINA is dangerous for all who want to know the truth about PAUL
To Ms Foster - I have taken pains to credit you in other articles and acknowledge that the PID community owes you a deep debt of gratitude for your work. In fact I consider you the dean of PID studies.
This is such an excellent blog with so many great insights and comments, very glad I found it.
I'm not a researcher, just an ordinary person - a Beatles fan since childhood. I remember the furor around the PID rumors in '69 (IIRC). People, including DJs, talked about it endlessly and were going over all these clues. I didn't take it too seriously at the time, I was only about 13 and even at the time it seemed too intricate and almost an hysteria to me. Well, age increases understanding!
I've been examining this topic for the past few years especially through YT accounts like Mike Williams (Sage of Quay) and others. Read the absolutely mesmerizing book "The Memoirs of Billy Shears", which I actually think WAS written by Faul through Tom Uharriet. It's far too detailed, to be a complete work of fiction, and Mike Williams also seems to indicate that Faul (Billy Shears) actually seems to listen to some of his broadcasts, which I find fascinating.
Some of my own thoughts on the matter for what they're worth:
For me this comes down to 2 parts. 1. Was Paul replaced, what's the evidence? 2. How and why (and when) was he replaced - the plot itself?
Was Paul replaced? This seems unquestionable to me, there is so much evidence to this effect. We have the Italian Wired study indicating that these are 2 separate people. They did not start with this bias, in fact it SURPRISED the researchers who actually thought they would debunk this idea.
I believe voice studies have also been done indicating the same thing. Two different people.
We can examine photographic evidence that shows a difference of appearance not only facially, which can be deceptive (and there probably have been a few doubles, even of the other Beatles too - we know this from other contexts), but in HEIGHT which I think is the strongest factor. You can debate chins and ears and eyebrows, but it's hard to debate HEIGHT. With the coming of the Internet, we can also access several videos that show various people, from George & John, to George's widow Olivia, calling this fellow Faul, or the 3rd Beatle, or several calling him William or Billy or Beatle Bill. There are several examples of him being called William or Billy including, IIRC, by Dana Carvey (or is it Mike Myers, I always get them mixed up). I don't recall Wm or Bill being nicknames for Paul, certainly not prior to Sgt Pepper!
Other things - Beatles not touring with Sgt Pepper and beyond for example. Obviously everyone ELSE tours, even oldies like Fleetwood Mac. Why wouldn't they tour? Because of the height difference that would be obvious immediately and possibly difference in voices or ability to play left bass. Why take the chance of fans spotting this - as they spot almost everything eventually. In fact, in videos we see that Faul is right handed, this mistake crops up occasionally until he catches himself and remembers to use the left.
We have the abundant clues and backmasking in all the Sgt Pepper & post albums, why keep including repeated clues about Paul's death or absence? No point to this at all, they didn't need publicity and this just creates questions for no purpose. And it was obviously an OBSESSION to do this. I think it's strange that this was allowed at all by TPTB that controlled The Beatles, but it seems to tie in with their obvious devotion to the occult, and perhaps their need to vent grief over Paul. And maybe to pretend they were being honest with those who were astute enough to spot these things.
Little clues like "Paul" in Magical Mystery Tour giving the wrong age for himself - 5 years older than he was. Why would he do that? There are so many things like this, one can only conclude on examining ALL of this that Paul was indeed, for whatever reason, REPLACED. We can see this, we can hear this, we can examine evidence, we can do analysis but they all lead to the same, I think, inescapable conclusion, as bizarre as it might seem.
Part 2 next
Part 2
2. The Plot - when, where, how, who, etc.
Ah, this is the sticky wicket. So many possibilities. The Billy Shears, William Shepherd or whatever his name is, of The Memoirs gives a certain scenario. He says that the bio Paul McCartney, original Paul, had started having vivid dreams and premonitions about his death, and that this cast a real cloud over his life and his music. IIRC, I believe these started around mid 1965 per Shepherd. In accordance with these premonitions Paul started the idea that a replacement for him would be needed and a look alike contest was even held. Apparently over the year, year and a half, Paul made increasing plans for this change-over to a new Paul, including making financial arrangements for his survivors (but NOT for his several illegitimate children, alas).This melancholy obsession showed thru music like Yesterday, Eleanor Rigby, etc, with sad or even morbid themes and culminated in Paul's death by car crash (with a young lady hitchhiker) on Sept 11 1966, a few minutes before midnight.
Immediately after that, Shepherd, who was a session musician and who had done covers of the Beatles and fronted his own (less successful) bands, was given the nod by his FreeMason uncle to replace Paul, because of his musical talent, his somewhat similar appearance that could be modified, his controllability through his Masonic and occult connections (allegedly taught in childhood by Aleister Crowley himself). His uncle called up Epstein and told him to use Shepherd as the replacement. So for the next couple of months, negotiations were made, arrangements with the McCartney family made (who were just so happy to have some semblance of Paul's continuance), reporters (Sailor Sam) silenced with payments, others paid per JPM's instructions, and plastic surgery/injections began in the run-up to recording Sgt Pepper. Sgt Pepper was supposed to be a complete break from the band's musical past - no more silly LOVE songs and no more touring....instead complex instrumentals & other studio effects not to be duplicated live. As well as pushing the drugs and the New Age messages.
Paul supposedly has continued influencing Shepherd via some kind of spiritual channeling process and has been a part of his life since and almost became like a religion to the other Beatles. Under the pressure of dealing with grief over Paul, and changes wrought by Shepherd, the band broke up and Shepherd became a solo.
That is the story he tells us.....and I don't buy it. Part 3 next.
Part 3
I don't buy the idea of Paul having such morbid obsessions about death and these kinds of continuing dreams unless some kind of mind control was being used. AND THAT MIGHT BE TRUE....especially if we consider that Jane Asher's father was, IIRC, a notable psychiatrist and possibly someone who might work with a Tavistock. Paul was so close to Jane & her family he frequently stayed over night at their house. Maybe he was being experimented on in some way.
I don't believe these were spiritual dreams of an organic cause, at any rate, or a psychic premonition. If he was having these, they must have been induced to create a state of acceptance of a replacement, an acceptance of his death for Paul and even those around him by laying a groundwork.
But why go through all that? To me it seems, as Shepherd indicates, the band had 3 phases - the 1st being the very rough rock n' roll phase in Liverpool, Hamburg, etc. with other bandmates like Stu Sutcliffe. The 2nd being the period of fame with the hits and the band solidified with the Fab 4 we know. The 3rd being Sgt Pepper and beyond. The 3rd did not last long once Paul was replaced - maybe it wasn't intended to.
Certainly even if the Beatles started off in Phase 1 as an organic band with their own music, that does not preclude them becoming an MK-Ultra/Tavistock/Intel psych experiment to see how far music could be used as a means of social control - or to BREAK DOWN social control and also to introduce elements like drugs to the largest generation in history.....the Boomers. Aside from the money involved, the degree of social control that might be achieved could be irresistible to these social engineers. So even if the Beatles started off organic....it's unlikely that such a big phenomenon could STAY that way. And we know there was an element, at least initially, of fakery in Beatlemania as media images of crowds were manipulated and busloads of young girls paid off to act hysterically to promote them. Also, the Beatles were a British National Security interest as they drove a lot of the British economy at that point - Fab London, English movies, other bands - a LOT of money became involved. That always brings out the worst in people.
So this would not be some haphazard plan brought about by Paul's psychic dreams and also throwing a studio musician into the mix as his last minute replacement. Something this big, this degree of control, would have to be carefully planned. It would take time.
Actually Shepherd might be right that the others, like Paul's family and band mates might be told of these dreams, which could be induced, because that would prepare them for a switch. It would be less traumatic and they wouldn't fight it if they EXPECTED something to happen on some level. Part 4 next
Part 4
Why Paul? Well, Ringo and George were not that significant, certainly musically, at that time. John was too idiosyncratic to be easily replaced, both physically (that nose!) and in personality. Paul (to me anyway) was more generic, and didn't have as strong a personality so someone might replace him physically more easily. And if Paul didn't want to go along with the Phase 3 idea of the band as proposed by a Tavistock (perhaps through a controller like George Martin, who did so many musical arrangements for the Beatles), well he'd have to be removed.
I think personally the WHY PAUL is because of the Mark Lane connection and I think Paul is actually one of the victims of the JFK assassination. There were so many in that period. Suicides, car crashes, etc. If Shepherd's "dream" timing is off, maybe that really started in 1966 after Paul read "Rush to Judgment" and met Lane and had a real and genuine interest in him and in the JFK story to the extent he wanted to do a MUSICAL SCORE. Considering what a firestorm John's comments were about the Beatles being bigger than Christ (and I literally remember the day that hit the news stand - I got the paper for my grandmother, and I remember it - that's how angry people were and how much of an impact it made), if Paul had come out saying as a BEATLE that the Warren Commission was full of shit and Oswald was innocent and we needed to listen to Mark Lane...well, that could not be allowed to happen. He WOULD influence people, especially young people.
So I believe Paul's interest in this topic sealed his doom. Somehow maybe these dreams were induced or he was psychologically manipulated to believe his own death was coming and to give these ideas to his family and band-mates to prepare them. Paul was also experiencing some health problems, I understand. I forget exactly what - I think they were stomach problems? Perhaps he was being poisoned or drugged as well, and not with LSD...although consider...perhaps LSD could be used to put certain ideas in his head. Certainly all the Beatles were vulnerable to psychological manipulation.
As to when and how and by whom? I would go along with the time frame of AFTER the return to Britain. The Sept 11 date seems rather pat to me and seems orchestrated to go along with the occult narrative Shepherd has set up. But....maybe it's the real date they picked. I tend to favor this date because I can't imagine Paul being killed at the tail end of the tour in the USA and the other band-mates just going about their business. They don't strike me like that and I don't think they would have gone along with it. Cold blooded murder of their mate? Perhaps if he died of an overdose or some apparently natural cause, maybe, and they would accept his death and replacement. But I think they just used doubles on that trip possibly because of his sometimes ill health. I don't see anything that indicates to me anything in that August period that would indicate his band-mates dealing with Paul's death.
After the return to the UK would be a more vulnerable time for Paul as John was away and I think Ringo was at his home in Sussex. It would have been very easy to rig a car accident for Paul, maybe with a floating date, maybe they decided on Sept 11 because they like that date (and they DO!) and he was more alone then. So just arrange an accident for him on a lonely stretch of highway - who knows how it was actually done and with a fiery car crash, the evidence would not be worthy of examination and would look pretty straightforward. And who would want to kill sweet little Paul anyway? Part 5 next
Part 5
So Paul is killed, murdered, I do agree, and William Shepherd is engineered into his position, because he knew this was coming for some time for whatever reason, and the rest is....secret history. I don't know if he's ever going to come completely clean - this Memoirs may be our best shot at it. I doubt if a book like this, including lyrics, could be published without some tacit consent, considering how strict the Beatles org has been about copyright. But I think the book is not only Shepherd's bid to get his own name and legacy before the public in some way, but also to massage a truth that is becoming increasingly obvious with modern technology - that Paul McCartney was replaced and most likely, murdered.
If true, it is interesting to consider that 3 out of 4 Beatles, all died young. All except Ringo (who has been said to publicly acknowledge that Paul is fake.) John shot, George with "cancer" (something that can be induced) and Paul in some manner as we suspect.
I did not take into consideration the financial issues (Seltaeb?) that the Beatles and their organization may have been involved with. There's a lot here that would certainly create motives for replacing Paul rather than acknowledging his death. It is interesting to consider the suicide deaths of Epstein and the Beatles lawyer David Jacobs, and Mal Evans, who would know everything about the Beatles and had a violent death. Also, I note that the Memoirs book came out in its first edition AFTER the death of Neil Aspinall, who was known as a Beatles fixer, and who might have something to say about Faul putting all this out there.
Here's a question some might ask....why would the OTHER bands like the Stones go along with this charade? They knew Paul personally and would know of a replacement, they could obviously tell and DID according to Shepherd. He says much of their music has PID clues as well. Donovan and many others, perhaps much of the music world as we can see by people casually calling McCartney Bill or Billy, know this. This reminds me of the comment Joan Rivers made before she died about Obama being gay and Mrs. Obama being a transgender and "Everyone knows this". Whether you believe these things about the Obamas or not isn't the issue here, but the fact that SHE believed this was common knowledge among a certain class. And maybe that's true. Maybe there is knowledge that is routinely kept from us but known among a certain class. It's privileged info. Undoubtedly there are risks involved with exposing these things or being too open about them. Also, they might also use doubles or have secrets that they don't want exposed. It's like its own secret society.
That's my current take on things for what it's worth. Thank you for the opportunity to express them!
What of the Butcher Cover? By all accounts McCartney pushed for that cover to be published. Why? Could it be he was outing the Savile Crowd and other elite as the cannibals, pedos and murderers they are? 750,000 copies were sold before it was recalled. I've heard people explain it away as being symbolic of trauma based mind control, I don't see it that way necessarily. That could have been the stunt that finally got him killed. The Mark Lane angle is very tenable as well. In any event there is really no doubt that JPM was replaced.
Mehitable Storm
I disagree with the idea that Paul was generic and John so enigmatic. John, though talented, was really troubled. I point to an outtake from an early recording session as support for my thoughts. As John is singing it's obvious that he is frustrated. He pauses and begins to complain about every thing seeming really agitated. Paul's voice comes in calmly saying John don't be nervous. I suspect that he was able to read John's moods and help him overcome his anxiety. Paul is always characterized as having had impeccable manners and a strong intellect. If John was the leader, Paul was the heart of the band. And did question authority etc.. As Clare Kuehn recently said Paul McCartney was the first John Lennon. I feel Paul's death was the straw that broke the camel's back. He survived the deaths of his mother and Stu Sutcliff and a beloved Uncle who was a father figure. Then the Beatles' unimaginable success, which very likely buoyed him until Paul died. He likely felt star crossed by it all. That Paul, so young and beloved by millions could be killed is tragic. The remaining three developed substance dependencies and their marriages failed. May Pang's description of her time with John gives picture of what he was like after Paul died, sometimes fun, often erratic and angry.
What an interesting blog. I remember bio Paul very well, having fallen madly in love with him at age 12. It was very obvious to me, when confronted with the Sgt. Pepper album cover, that I was looking at someone other than Paul. I was called 'crazy' for saying so. To this day, those of us who can SEE are still called nutters. Struggling with the 'why' of it has been a problem. There are many angles to the answer.
The Shears Memoirs seem odd, even though I've only read excerpts.The geschtalt of it is to create confusion; Paul's death, clues on album covers and in songs, Lennon's alleged 1980 murder, Faul's decades-long escapade, and now a book allegedly by him, using his 'real name'....psychological manipulation at it's ugly epitome.
I read in many places during the course of my research, that Lennon signed a contract with 'il commandante', circa 1960 (see Bob Dylan interview, link posted below.
It's infamous, and has mega-millions of views. Dylan admits he signed such a contract).These days, so-called rock stars and rappers openly admit to these deals with great pride. They also confide that they don't write their music, but that it's handed to them through dreams and/or occult avenues.
If Lennon did what Dylan did, the piper had to be paid somewhere along the line, i.e., poor Paul.
Why Paul? Perhaps because he didn't support the Warren Commission's conclusions; who knows? However, he was absolutely a sacrifice.
The biggest bands all suffered the death of a member, and I don't believe this is coincidental.
Why the 9-11 thing over and over? Bible historians have placed Christ's actual birth date at 9-11-3 B.C., allowing for the change to the Gregorian calendar from the Hebrew calendar.They arrived at this date via blatant statements in the New Testament, and knowledge of ancient Israelite customs and culture.
9-11 has become associated with tragedy, evil, danger and emergency situations.The factions of darkness hate Christ, remember this, and love to defame His character.
Back to Paul......miss him! He was a deeply flawed man, yet he touched a young lady's heart in the sweetest way! There will never again be anyone like him, and the impostor is a sad travesty.
The first link is Dylan making a confession: The second link is about Lennon's sinister contract. You Tube may well be one of the final bastions of truth on the internet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_wAZ02JUtM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_ziekwrlJY
Hats off to Clare and Tina for elucidating many obscure portions of this dark, long and winding road about James Paul. I read Tina's tome and for the most part, agree with it. I tend to think that killing a foreigner on foreign soil, even a famous foreigner, is a better choice for conspirators. Why put the dead body of an Englishman into a staged car crash in England? To me, this makes no sense. I'm not evil and have a difficult time thinking wickedly. However, it makes more sense to have killed Paul in Seattle, and then have put 'cement boots' on him. Dumping a body in water, weighted down, is a time honored method, as the body decomposes rapidly. The cement or rocks used to weigh the corpse down prevent it from surfacing. Salt water will degrade a body very quickly, making identification difficult, just in case it does surface.All of these stories about Paul's body being found here, there, and everywhere by anonymous 'workmen' just don't fly with me. The album clues and such appear as red herrings, designed to confuse. Perhaps the other three were coerced into providing these false paths, and to shut up or else.
As to the other Beatles not going along with it in Seattle: Did they have a choice, really? They may not have even realized Paul was abducted and murdered until after the fact, for instance,when arriving in L.A. They may have been given a story that Paul was 'lagging behind' and would catch up with them for the L.A.press conference. This L.A. press conference video on You Tube is highly suspicious; Tina thought so, and this caused me to view it. The black and white version of this L.A. thing is the original and unedited; there is a CGI tinted fake floating around as well.
I don't believe it's Paul we see. The other Beatles look strangely calm and disconnected, while the impostor makes numerous nervous, strange gestures and odd body language moves. An astute reporter suddenly brings up the subject of DOUBLES during the interview, and the impostor reacts instantaneously and vividly in the negative. I immediately realized that perhaps this reporter had seen the real Paul during previous interviews in other venues, and he sensed a double was sitting at the podium. To my knowledge, DOUBLES were never mentioned in any other interview/press conference.
I was sickened and I cried when I watched 'Paperback Writer', to see Paul's face. His left front incisor was badly chipped and his upper lip was swollen. His complexion is bumpy and grey. He looks very sad to me.The whole band looks incredibly mournful and somewhat frightened in close ups. The song itself is telling: Could indicate Paul's desire to leave the band, having realized he was in danger, and to take on another career. It appears that Paul was threatened and roughed up, then finally dispatched. He was the loose cannon and I love him all the more for it.
To discover all of this 53+ years after I first noticed the false Paul on Sgt. Pepper's album sleeve, is an horrible shock, to say the least.
Forgot to mention: That Dylan video where he confesses that he made a contract with the devil has been chopped up and altered. I looked at it recently, at least ten years after having viewed it initially. It literally had millions of views years ago. Now the view count is very low, and the video has been edited into three confusing portions, although his original statement is still intact. Now there is a 'debunking Dylan's contract' video along with it all; what next?
In 1966 I was a regular in Greenwich Village, NYC. It was well known that Bobby rode all over the Village on his motorcycle. I never met him but knew Jimi Hendrix fairly well before he became famous. I distinctly remember a member of my group of friends rushing up on us one day and shouting, 'Dylan's dead, man! He crashed his bike and flew over the handlebars and broke his neck!"
Well, we all were sort of freaked out, to say the least. My parents pulled me out of the Village scene shortly thereafter, and I forgot about Dylan altogether. I was never an admirer.
I have lately seen on the internet that it is suspected that Dylan was replaced. I seem to get these shocks decades after the fact. My point: IT IS VERY POSSIBLE. I heard with my own ears a first-hand report in Greenwich Village in 1966.
Many thanks to all of you who have contributed to intelligently piecing together the puzzle of Paul McCartney's demise. We know that he died not in vain.
'To this day, those of us who can SEE are still called nutters'. S. Holmes, you forgot to add 'by nutters.' The ultra-orthodoxers are hypocrites, of course, they constantly do projection.
There is also the French connection. There was a film in '61, The Greengage Summer (based on Rumer Godden's semibiographical coming-of-age novel of '58, set on the banks of the Marne in the 1920s), starring Jane Asher as Hester, in which a man named Paul died in France accidentally. And there is a character named John and one named George. Hester, however, did not have a crush on Paul, it was on Elliot.
One of the places proposed for the fatal accident (in his blue Aston Martin DB5) is between Outreau and Boulogne-sur-Mer, coastal towns in Picardie. McCartney was apparently there alone for a holiday in September after the American tour. Another clue pointing to this location might be provided by David Bowie, as Malocco (p. 368) points out the song Life on Mars, from '71, where it says, "From Ibiza to the Norfolk Broads/ Rule Britannia is out of bounds". Ibiza (in the Balearics), Norfolk Broads, and Picardie are all lined up geographically, the last two are coastal, and England is excluded, leaving Picardie. As well, there is the Marseillaise played at the beginning of All You Need is Love, which could be another clue in support of the Gallic scenario, although it could be a nod to Nice, where part of the MMT was filmed, which is not too far from Marseilles, about 100 miles. The Beatles Bible says the trip by McCartney to France was in early November '66, but this is considered revisionist by Malocco, and it is held to have taken place on Sept. 11, '66, this being also proposed as the date of decease, which is in line with the date clue on the Sgt. Pepper's cover, and which is also significant numerologically in black magic secret societies. He would have arrived in Le Touquet in Picardie, and his car would have been flown over by air cargo from Ferryfield (now Lydd) in Kent. September in Le Touquet has the least rainfall, and I imagine it was the same in the '60s, so it would be a propitious time for a vacation in that region. It would be interesting to track down the passenger lists for that day and place if they still exist, but what airline he used, if indeed this scenario is right, is unknown.
There is also Walter Baroni (Malocco, p. 231-32), who restored McCartney's blue Aston Martin, and who says that he is 100% certain that it was in an accident in '66, but also says that it probably was not fatal. I don't know if McCartney had this car in the US.
All of the variants are based on speculation and interpretation, because the details are so murky.
Mehitable,
The illness McCartney had was IBS (Malocco, Beatles Conspiracy, p. 195-96).
There were 2 reliable and credible witnesses to a double or doubles used for McCartney for the American tour in August '66: Pat Conroy, Epstein's frequent visitor, and Joey Armato, who worked security at Candlestick Park (Beatles Conspiracy, Malacco, p. 197-202). The first spoke of a lookalike named Bill, and the 2nd of a 'bad double.' The former never saw him again in person but did in photos but not after '67. Epstein said, ''Paul isn't always well.'' The latter witness said it was like a funeral, the Beatles being very sober and somber, but said the press conference the next day, Aug. 30, had the real McCartney, which tends to contradict the West Coast theory. Also, reverse speech isn't something I consider scientific, and much of the evidence for the West Coast theory comes from it. It's more probable he died in either England or France, possibly more likely the latter. It's also logical to assume it would have been on a lonely, remote stretch of road, if it was arranged. And it would have been in September. The culprits would have been MI5 agents. If the car crash was not fatal, presumably MI5 agents finished him off. And the body would not have been thrown in the sea. And he would have to have been alone. The other Beatles were elsewhere, but Jane Asher presumably would have been with him unless she was in some play, TV production, or movey. I don't know where she was in September, but she apparently was not working. Billy Shepherd disappeared from the public record in '66, but Pictrieve has the similarity at 0%, and his son said that it wasn't him who was the double (Plastic Macca, 2019, Foster, p. 119). So we seem to be far from being able to theorize more precisely the who, when, and where of McCartney's decease with any degree of certainty.
As a huge Beatles fan I have to say that from the earliest photos we have of Paul, he always looked in some of them like the Paul that is called 'Faul'.
When that is pointed out, there are hardcore theorists who assert that there were a number of Paul McCartneys from an early age and the teenage photos of Paul that look like their idea of 'Faul' are actually not Paul. Do I believe that? No, just like other assertions made on this topic there is no evidence such as primary documents and hard evidence first-hand from those who knew him back in the day.
Were there Paul and Beatle doubles? Probably as decoys but the notion that we are continually seeing double, triple and even quadruple 'Beatles' according to some, is just that, a notion.
Just like all the assertions about Paul's 'death' including the badly written one floating around on the internet somewhere saying he was found dead on a beach and looked like a walrus. The basic problem of all this is his supposed death and circumstances amount to speculation instead of anything approaching real proof and a smoking gun.
Yes the pictorial and lyrical 'clues' are fascinating but could also be interpreted as other references and not Paul is dead and could simply be the Beatles enjoying messing with their followers' heads - as John Lennon said they did.
Look at Paul before he supposedly was replaced due to death or whatever - non brushed up photos show a lot of lines around 1965- 1966. He certainly didn't look his age in those photos - he looked older already.
All those sleepless nights, drugs and alcohol as a teenager in Hamburg and again as the pop phenomenon aged him and the others. You just can't abuse your body that way and stay young looking.
Every untouched photo of all the Beatles before 1967 shows lines on young faces, they
simply weren't that youthful looking for the same reason. The 'new Paul' has lost weight in the face but as his teenage and some other photos show, he wasn't always rounder faced. LSD use also can explain the way he seems different - it also affected Lennon and Harrison to seem different because they all were. Ringo doesn't seem to have used it much at all which explains why he always seemed himself.
LSD is a hard drug, not some soft experience, and the personality/perceptive changes it
often makes in users seem to be present in the Beatles. They had access to every kind of drug and this leads to the question of Paul's changed nose - yes, it does seem to be less broad towards the end and have more flared nostrils but nose re-constructions are more common among rock and pop stars who use cocaine than you'd think.
Paul's nose might have needed that due to cocaine use or simply because his moped accident knocked his nose about. As for the eyes not changing colour - most people's eyes change colour as they get older.
The idea that brown eyes can't change colour is just not true - a few of my relatives with brown eyes as youngsters developed hazel colours as they got older. Voice changes? Paul was a smoker like the rest of the Beatles and then he started smoking marijuana - any kind of smoking can and does change your voice. Along with significant alcohol consumption.
Ah but the Wired article proves Paul is Faul due to facial proportion difference, ear difference etc........I'd accept those conclusions if Paul had actually been observed in person by the experts. But they are going on photos alone and some of the quality is not good.
Paul's ears look different in mostly unclear photos but about the same in clear ones. Height? He is wearing higher heels in some photos, in some the perspective just looks different owing to the photograph. Remember too, there are people who can grow taller in their 20s - height doesn't always stop at a certain age.
Sometimes the most simple answers are correct.
We're so sorry, uncle albert, but you haven't proved a bloody thing all day.
the height difference and the facial recognition analysis prevent the conclusion that the fake paul is the original paul. the photos are indeed adequate for the analysis.
please publish some material from competent authorities who refute the thesis or who provide analysis confirming identity for the two images.
I understand it is difficult for you and others who promulgate the theory that Paul is dead/was replaced yet can't offer up anything except the study which uses poor quality photos and no direct real life study of Paul McCartney's physical features, to accept the logical points I made in my post.
You and the other PID or PWR don't want to accept such points but want to make big assertions without providing the kind of proof that is needed for such big assertions.
All of you need to come up with some real evidence taken from a real life assessment of Paul McCartney. No - poor quality photos don't cut it. They never did and they don't now.
Feel free to demand 'competent authorities' blah blah blah. It is the PID/PWR camp that needs to come up with material that can justify the theory.
Poor quality photos with blurred details and perspective prove nothing. The two 'facial recognition etc' experts from the Wired article are no doubt sincere but had nothing directly to work with, never met McCartney in person, never could check anything but used second-rate photos.
Lennon continues to chuckle in the after-life, people are still obsessing over a theory that has been assisted by misleading 'clues' planted on album covers and in songs. Never mind.
ABSOLUTE PROOF of Beatle James Paul McCartney’s DEATH by MURDER is shown in Dr. James Fetzer’s 2 Interviews with Richard Balducci, which includes an AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPH of his fatal head wound, the MURDER WEAPON itself,and the naming of his MURDERER, the MI5/MI6 Super Spy, MAXWELL KNIGHT. See: “The Assassination of Paul McCartney”, and “The Paul McCartney Mystery Part 2”. UNDENIABLE & ABSOLUTE PROOF is shown, which many cannot take. WARNING: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC IMAGES ARE SHOWN. 🍸
Regarding the allegation that the photos are poor quality, the claim is nonsensical. In this case I rely on the professional medical examiner Carlesi over someone running around the internet as unclealbert. Do you really think that I would take seriously an anonymous troll parading around as unclealbert? You have used up your time here. Go someplace where unclealbert is considered an authority.
@Tony Bonn yeah lol although it kind of makes sense that the images are low quality you can see a great deal of real differences...height being a big one
Post a Comment