Monday, August 15, 2016

Paul McCartney's Son Says Paul Died in 1966

Paul McCartney's Son Says Paul Died in 1966

22 comments:

  1. Look, folks, it takes all of a half an hour to look at some boyhood photos and understand that Paul and Mike McCartney were/are twins, and each stepped in and out of the role of "Paul" until 1990 or so, when Mike took over for good. Don't be misled by Mike McGear, he was someone else inserted to allow the twin, Mike, to leave his life and become the other Paul. That's all that is going on. Twins. Fetzer knows this but as a spook is told to keep the psy-op going as long as possible, a nice distraction. It's all there, easily discoverable and understood. Paul/Mike McCartney, twins, each played "Paul" at various times. (it was original Paul in the movie Hard Day's Night, and Mike in Help!)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. you don't mention the 9/13/66 car crash where news was released about Paul in a car crash. If Paul (current) is the father of these paternity suits then why doesn't the dna match? If he's a twin it should match. The Halliday Paul does look like he could be the real Paul. But he looks short unless that woman is over 5'10". And doesn't anyone know what this Halliday does with his life and his comings and goings? Someone living in the area has to know. It still doesn't account for all the mystery. There isn't reason enough to cover up a death. there are still lots of things that don't add up. what ever happened to the gal that dated the real Paul (shorter paul with the better voice) People in LIverpool would know. People that have lived there all their lives.

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Being that the CIA developed fast acting soft tissue cancer in the early sixties it would seem that is how Steve's mother died. They were working hand in hand with Tavistock to create the hippie.
    What would be wrong with the title faux Paul?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I just started listening to this and right out of the blocks Paul's "son" says that he was born in July of 1967, months before Paul supposedly died. I remind you that the title of your show is "Paul McCartney's Son Says Paul Died in 1966". Well, he just said he died in 1967. Which one is it? I know the general consensus is that Paul died in 1966. Speaking of 1966, the two side by side photos that you have posted on your blog as both being taken in 1966 are in fact from 1964 and 1969 which is why, in your words, the photo of Paul on the left "has a decidedly younger appearance" and the photo on the right "presents a more mature countenance." In scientific terms that you should be able to understand, Mr. Fetzer, he looks younger on the left because he IS younger and he looks more mature on the right because he is 5 years older than he was in the photo on the left. I know you know this and you have knowingly presented this false "evidence" to your gullible fans. Science? The science of lying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK. Just backed it up to the beginning. He said he was conceived not long before his (Paul) death. I stand corrected. Am I the only one who thinks he could be George Harrison's son? He looks more like him. Don't get me wrong. I don't believe it. I'm just sayin'. Of course whatever you want to believe is your truth for yourself. Believe it, and it's true.

      Delete
  5. So, this guy claims he was visited by the "Beatles" when he was 7 years old. That, by his own math, since he says he was born in July of 1967 would have been at least july of 1974. The Beatles broke up in April of 1970. Am I to believe that the Fab Four reunited 4 years later simply to show up at this kid's house? Why? I'll tell you what,.. if the Beatles showed up at my house when I was 7, I would remember every microscopic detail! Ok…sure…….

    ReplyDelete
  6. I believe Stephen Dickinson's testimony.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Like I said, if you believe it, it's true.

      Delete
    2. Stephen Dickinson is without
      doubt the son of Mr Spock.
      Stephen has Mr Spock's ears and also has that Vulcan look - the hair, eyes and mouth. Stephen Dickinson is beyond doubt Mr Spock's son. Stephen appeared alongside his real life father Leonard Nimoy and screen father Mr Spock in the original Star Trek in 1966 (age 6). Stephen went on to play other roles in Star Trek usually as an alien dressed in various costumes. In one of his most famous acting performances Stephen played the part of a radioactive jam butty on planet Judy.

      Stephen is perhaps best remembered for his early Diddy Man years in Knotty Ash.

      Delete
    3. Star Date -307668.1

      Qagh SoH. Stephen tlhIngan mung.

      You are mistaken. Stephen is of Klingon origin.

      Delete
  7. Star Trek and the Beatles….. Both 60s' phenomenons… Coincidence?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hmmm....Interesting.


    You could be onto something here.
    Was Paul McCartney replaced
    by renegade Vulcans and
    Stephen cloned by surly Klingons?

    Nothing is real.


    Think about it.....

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well, Paul and Spock had the same general haircut so I would have to say this this is a slam dunk. Mr. Fetzer, are you on board yet?

    ReplyDelete
  10. All Sounds very plausible.
    But where do the Cardassians
    and the Borg fit in?
    Answer that.


    Get a load of this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OptLgGtZ9_E

    Mr Spock laying down those
    jam session vibes! In 1969!!

    Suddenly it all makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  11. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApBTNDKoX6c&index=6&list=WL
    at 2:22 is someone living at Paul's home. Who is he? Has anyone talked to him? I find it hard to believe there are no people to talk to. Paul had classmates did he not? He graduated from high school, did he not? What about church? Places he worked? Someone is still around. You make no mention about the news breaking in Liverpool the night of September 13, 1966. (the night the first episode of The Monkees appeared on US TV and had the news blurb. No newspaper people you can talk to in the US or England? No paramedics in England? No hospital personnel? You need to get a good investigator on this story. Someone like Jim Marrs.

    It's really a shame if Paul did die. That means everything the Beatles did after words is sadly and mourning of his life and a tragedy spilled upon the fans whether they knew it or not. There is no reason to hide someone's death like this.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I believe steven. Over the years hollywood has been on strange things...like jennifer hudson family being murdered and acting as if everything is ok. Or whitney houston and her daughter dying the same way. Brittany murphy and her husband dead the same way....anna nicole smith and her son...c'mon people wake up. Hollywood is satanic. Why else do writers' and singers keep leaving clues in there work? Seriously I'm done with hollywood...this is just sad.

    ReplyDelete
  13. A couple of things raised a red flag. I don't think a mother would have a conversation with a seven year old and say that she "didn't throw herself at Paul McCaertney."

    He claimed that when the four Beatles visited including 'Faul', Stephen aged 7, whose mother had passed on, said to Lennon "You will never get away with it." Sounds like fantasy to me - but still open to the possibility of a Faul/Paul conspiracy....I also struggle to see a resemblence

    ReplyDelete