Monday, October 6, 2014

Richie Allen / Tina Foster

Terror hoaxes / Beatle hoaxes


  1. Dear Jim.

    I would seriously rather see your discussion boards closed down than we had to any longer suffer these clowns spewing their disgusting race-hate bile about the place at any given opportunity.
    I have listened to almost all of your shows; I speak as an admirer of you and your work. I hate to see what you do used as a platform to push an agenda that champions and incites such nasty shit, basically.
    Having your blog used in this way does you no favours, and does your work, your integrity and your reputation every kind of disservice imaginable.
    I believe I speak on behalf of the vast majority of your listeners who pride themselves on being "progressive thinkers" and would do anything in their power to distance themselves from beliefs and attitudes such as those displayed by "Freeride" and "Apsterian".

    I can see the response this will get now. They'll play the "free speech card". But this isn't a question of "free speech". It is a question of hate speech.

    Please distance yourself from this in any way you can, Jim.

    Yours in good faith.

    Peace and love.

    1. Truth is hate to those who hate the truth, ho ho ho o ho ho

    2. I have no problem with what Apsterian et al are saying, but it would be nice if it wasn't displayed on all threads. I think that the Paul/Faul investigation is very important - as is JFK. I think that we are close to reaching a Rosetta Stone like uncoding of the world - like a unified field theory. It isn't trivial. I am even leaning toward Ebola/ISIS etc is a deflection from the gathering evidences of the truth.

    3. @ Nigel Kneale,

      Just consider your own reaction to the type of antisemitism posted here. It doesn't make you hate Jews, it makes you hate antisemites all the more than you did.

      Do you really think anyone is going to be turned into a race-hater of Jews by the arguments on offer? Then you have a very low opinion of the readers of this blog. Much more likely is that they will come to hate antisemites, which presumably pleases you as much as it displeases me.

    4. Yes, let's celebrate the first amendment by exercising it to tell others to "shut the fuck up"! If you enjoy weeding through the same anti-semitic claptrap *every single blog post* then, I submit, you have more patience than most. He's a troll that has essentially taken control of the comment section with the same drivel over and over again. I guess if you want to treat trolling of the most childish sort as "free speech" you are free to go ahead. See what happens to a comment section when "anything goes"?

  2. What is it with these middle-aged women who loved Paul McCartney when they were teenagers, who in their mature years become convinced he was replaced in 1966? Plenty of photographic evidence of multiples before 1966, and plenty afterwards. Yes, you can cherry pick and contrast the shorter earlier one with a taller straight tooth later one and observe they are not the same person. Except that one who supposedly died, the sweet bad-tooth Paul is in plenty of photos as late as the 1990s. Please move on.

    1. The Cultural Impact/Significance Of Paul/Faul

      Not only that, but supposedly the real, original Paul was allegedly significant, notable, outstanding talent, somehow--like musically.

      So what happens?--he's just, suddenly, simply replaced w. some schlabotnik--ho ho ho ho--and very few notice any difference or change in the quality of the so-called "art"/music. Ho ho ho ho

      What it really tells u is the actual worth of the "pop culture"--nothing but idiotc distraction for the idiots. Ho ho ho ho ho ho

    2. I didn't "love Paul when I was a teenager", Bill. I did love the Beatles (mostly early Beatles, but less exclusively than Tina & some others seem to have); but I loved the Beatles since I was little.

      I noticed something very "mature & posed, not poised" about "Paul" in Magical Mystery Tour -- except the Wizard Tower scene -- when I was a kid, but assumed it was years later than their concerts.

      I didn't have context for or willingness to think that Paul was dead by the filming of MMT, which was not years after the concert. The Tower scene is older footage & is Paul, himself.

      He simply died & was replaced. It is a cultural historical correction.

    3. There are plenty of men who noticed, too.

    4. I never liked Paul McCartney - I was a child in the sixties - came of age late seventies. I always gravitated to John Lennon and George Harrison. McCartney struck me as phony and "off" - but now that I'm older and found the earlier pre-67 stuff - I can see that charm of McCartney.

    5. I'm not a middle-aged woman Bill and I'm not even a Beatles fan.

      However, all "The Beatles" had doubles, which continued when they became "Beatles." The bald truth is that Paul McCartney was killed or died in 1966. The people who replaced him are quite obvious replacements. It seems that, rather than actually perform some research by at least reading Claire and Tina's works, you provide us a Pavlovian-sexist response that amounts to nothing more than ignorant bloviating.

  3. Back to the Topic, if I May

    What was said in effect, by Jim Fetzer to Richie Allen, podcast of 10/6/14 on "terror hoaxes":

    Mini-nukes, given to Israel by GHW Bush, were brought secretly by submarine to the US and used to destroy the WTC towers. The range of the explosion of these bombs is adjustable. For the WTC, having a width of 200', a radius of 100' would be used for exploding the nukes placed in the center of the 47 core columns. A number of these nukes would then explode the towers outward into a fine dust (as seen in the videos--top to bottom).

    Allen responded by saying this was a theory of Gordon Duff's and had not been proven.

    Just one more example of how the only hard evidence of 9/11, the archived broadcast footage of that day, is being ignored by major researchers. Then, we have the testimony of James Mariano, a building contractor, who said plans of a demolition would have been required by the city building code in the 1960's and that "thermate" was used to cut the core. Later, he and Jim talk about the possible use of mini-nukes because the debris pile was practically non-existent and the building turned to dust.

    Just a reminder: what we know of the debris piles comes from the videos and other professionally produced photos. Anyone who has looked at this material knows how inconsistent it is. Also, the idea WTC7 was a "controlled demolition" and the towers were not is working from the forged videos.

    Judy Wood made the mistake of accepting all of the video footage of 9/11 as direct evidence. After Sandy Hook, has she realized she analyzed special effects such as the smoking, smoldering towers, holes in facades where non-existent planes entered, were faked and therefore not evidence since we now know there were no planes.

    When is a demolition expert coming on to tell us how a professional CD company would demolish the WTC towers? Also, what happened to buildings 3, 4, 5, &6?

    1. There are two main topics in the show, Compass.

    2. Compass - Jim actually said the nukes provided were "re-worked" - which means they were remade and not in their original missile casings. Accuracy is important and seems to be an item eschewed by you to make a negative point. Hopefully, there will always be people who will out people attempting to cherry-pick-edit and recontextualize others' words to fit their own agenda, or one prescribed for them.

  4. John was not replaced. - he is very much the late John, caught in an unflattering image.

    He had bulimia -- I've sent to Jim younger John in serious poses to show his bone structure. He had a wide bridge slightly crooked, mostly straight in profile but the sideways "break" (busted it once?) gave a bump to the lighting in 3/4 from his right, plus his hook was slight but present, low on nose, yet when lost weight & badly lit, his nostril extreme downturn gave effect ("looks like") major downturn. Smiles raise nostrils further in most poses for anyone, too. Have also shown similar moods.

    His playing & body language in live concerts, however more often subdued after Paul's death remain the same: stretching for the mike, tending to be stilted when standing & playing. (Yet we must note, he never again had to truly jam in harmony and fervour. The Rooftop Concert of 1969 was hardly a concert stage with dynamic interaction between the players and they never played except air guitar on camera for 1.5 years after Paul's death, giving time to adjust.)

    Sgt Pepper album cover is a gravesite, but also, yes, all look more sombre & older because of grief. Costumes & moustaches do detract from the new Paul. But no other Beatles were replaced, in my strongest view.

    John is John.

    (FYI: anything with long hair or obviously older is the supposed double. The "How I won the war" image was in bad light, odd expression, stressed. -- Re. Double: it is, in the end, a grave mistake, which came about because of thorough questions, but is ultimately debunkable mistake in my strongest considered opinion.)

    RIP & I'm guessing the FBI's taking John's fingerprints was overzealous crap, not suspicious (though if one were on the trail of a double, one would use it to support one's contention & Tina has).

    However, thank you personally to my fellow researcher & blogger for most of her compilations of information on Paul.

    1. I should add, John, we now know, also continued a fair amount of heavy drug use through much of the 1970s.

      & It's bizarre, but I happened to get "166" as the code to prove I am not a bot, when posting my last message. It is ironic, since the year of Paul's death was 1966. - RIP to John, George, Eppie, Mal, etc.

    2. I tend to agree that only Paul was replaced although there are a lot of photos of Ringo that seem way odd. Too bad Tina sounds like such a Valley Girl. It's hard to get beyond that accent. She sounds bored or like she's just waking up/going to sleep. I am from Venice so I guess I am a big prejudiced against Valleys.

    3. Hi, Linda. I lived in Venice, CA, for a while.

      Tina does sound nervous but also has an accent, yes.

      Ringo gained & lost weight & drank a lot in the late '60s-'70s. He had a floppy, odd looking face at times; it's one of his looks.

      People have different tendencies in impressions ("looks"). They do not actually change bone structure, of course, but can seem as if they have.

      This is how people try to explain the loss, entirely, of many of the looks Paul had, with the gain of ones he never did. But for Ringo & John there is no loss of an impression they "used to have"; they simply become more often or less often a type of look, as they get thinner, fatter, age, get more stressed more often.

      Best wishes.

    4. I don't believe Manson murdered anybody - in fact I don't believe that anybody murdered Sharon, Jay, Gibby or Voytek. Leno and Rosemary were probably taken out by the mob. But if anybody has the stomach to examine the autopsy photos and reports against the crime scene photos and photos of the living victims, you'll have some questions if you aren't completely blind. Poor Manson was another perfect patsy just like Sirhan Sirhan and Lee H. O. That - or he was playin the game for mulah and has never served jail time since '68. One thing's for certain. Sharon Tate isn't dead Fred.

  5. I'd like to really see a delving into the whole Manson debacle. Future show, I hope so!

    1. History Isn't Difficult If One Proceeds Purposefully

      Well Linda, we start by adducing the facts. Evidently, Charles Manson (assuming he was what u were referencing) was something of a satanistic sort, who yet was clever enough to get and keep together a group of people.

      Manson also was quite conscious of the under-lying cultural race-war which is something ZOG uses to keep people distracted.

      So when the incident in question, the Manson "murders," happened, ZOG used it as a distraction as the war in Vietnam continued.

      Note the Manson 'murders" was also excellent distraction fm the recent assassinations, as of RFK and MLK. Attempted assassination of a real populist, George Wallace, was up-coming, along w. Watergate.

      All along, ZOG's phony economic system, built upon legalized COUNTERFEITING, continued to prosper, next step was raising-up China to take-over fm USA for manufacturing, creating yet another military/economic power, etc.

      Goal of ZOG and powers thereof is world dictatorship by which they exterminate most of the world's pesky population, they, the powers becoming "gods," as by means of merging w. machines, etc.--"transhumance."

      So u see, history merely requires the proper framework for major facts and circumstances to obtain necessary context so as to grasp particular events within--genus, differentia, according to Aristotle.

    2. Hi, Linda. McGowan makes some great points about Manson in some of the pages below.

    3. I've read all of McGowan's stuff unless he's updated it recently. I'd like someone to explore the CIA/intelligence angle. Things do not add up. Just one I noticed that I haven't seen anybody else catch is the autopsy photo of Steven Parent. His hair is combed straight back revealing a perfectly straight hairline, but all of the photos of the living Parent show a distinct widows peak. Lots of things change after death, but to my knowledge hairlines stay the same.

    4. @FTM You can't dance around every topic presented to you. She wasn't asking about the jews. She simply stated the question. You don't give a toss about the jews either. It is only that you use it to dodge subjects. You see, I've been researching disinfo for long. I know what you are going to say before you open your mouth.

      As for 911, there is nothing "fishy" about it any more. Anyone who follows Fetzer's blog should be familiar with norwegians systematic, and, we can say now complete conclusion to this particular psy opera. The only thing fishy is your mental approach or maybe we are talking here condition of a diabolic sort.

    5. simian: what country are u fm?--tell us, ho hoh o ho hoho

    6. Linda:

      You are concerned by the straight hair line on the forehead of Steven Parent, in death photo, vs. a slight widow's peak -- or greater one, in some angles -- in his photos in life.

      I agree, the commonly shown, likely funeral, death photo shows none, or seems to. Yet they could have put a wig or combed his hair down in the death photo.

      (In *one* death photo, it is clearly he. However, the photo is from a very grisly link, so here is the general page, for those who dare -- I don't recommend it -- whereas the image itself is given below, with others.

    7. Mae Brussell gave the most accurate and comprehensive account of Manson and the intelligence and social milieu in which he operated. She broadcasted her shows at the time of the Tate murders and not 40-odd years later. You can find her Manson and Manson-related broadcasts at or at You Tube at the Conspiracy Scope channel.

  6. yes the lie is on many levels. The semantics game, distractions, omissions.

  7. Though there are many crimes by Jewish people, the religion (as with Muslim/ Christian religion) is many things to many people.

    If we look at the worst elements in the writings, take them literally, label all followers of any of these cultural trends, look at only the worst fanatic cabals, we will not get the right picture of the situation.

    There are fearful members of all of these groups who justify wrong actions because of group-mindedness (conspiracy of mind, not of plot). Conspiracy covers all people who "breathe together" in a group, thinking alike in some way, thus ignorant of plots or not, tending to ignore counter arguments or counter actions. This is where good people can end up otherwise aiding, protecting, not fighting against something.

    It's why one can talk of "conspiracy of whites vs blacks or men vs women" in the general sense, even when many of the abetters do not realize the full consequences of their actions, or see or help directly most plots which form in their groups.

    Richie Allen is merely suggesting we remember these things, not get fanatic ourselves, but rather fight real plotting and justifications by (in this case) Jews, without over-broadly defining the problem as some do on this forum.

    Jim Fetzer himself does not include religious spirituality in his points about Zionism. Some on this forum forget that though Zionism, like physical (killer) Jihadism, are built into aspects of Holy Writ in each religion, there is rich social history and deep spirituality in each religion, as well.

  8. 5 mins in and I had decided this Richie fellow was a bit of an idiot. He likes David Icke - oh dear, that's a big black mark, Icke is controlled opposition. He likes A&E for 911 Truth, another big black mark, they are 100% controlled opposition. Then he complained about anti-semitism...

    First show I've failed to listen to all the way through, sad to say.

    1. I'm sure you'd say there's no anti-semitism prevalent in some of the blog comments either.

    2. Jew psychopaths are at end of their line, sucker--get ready.

    3. Ian, remember: Icke is maybe convenient to intel agencies (for his more extreme forms of credulity about aliens, though aliens themselves are not nec. something people do not believe in & still be regular, sane), but that does not make him consciously controlled opposition, nor unworthy of attention for other things he covers.

      & Only people following Jim Fetzer & Judy Wood (or Simon Shack) tend to think of AE911T as limited hangout operation. Furthermore, some following Jim in general are grateful for the WTC7 campaign they've done -- including Kevin Barrett, who does not conceive the need for nukes to explain parts of the demolition process & wants more pedagogical approach on hot-button WTC7 (such as AE911T does). Sure, many in AE911T don't think outside of the regular types of demolitions (explosives & enhanced explosives), but many, including Richie Allen, do not realize this.

      This response of yours is not justified.

      As to his "anti-Semitism" comment, he's focussed on how the generalized anti-Jew, not anti-Zio comments, truly bring down the level of the forum. It is one thing to point out flaws built into the religion (or Muslim or Xian or other religion), leading to Zio or other fanatics, but it is another thing, even though Euro Jewry is not Semitic, to emphasize the whole spiritual tradition as sick.

  9. Compass said : "...Just one more example of how the only hard evidence of 9/11, the archived broadcast footage of that day, is being ignored by major researchers....."

    Yes, and don't expect that to change any time soon, Compass, for any number of reasons :-).

    Compass said : "..what we know of the debris piles comes from the videos and other professionally produced photos. Anyone who has looked at this material knows how inconsistent it is. Also, the idea WTC7 was a "controlled demolition" and the towers were not is working from the forged videos. ..."

    True, but again, don't expect this to change.

    Most "name researchers" are too arrogant to ever admit that it was/is procedurally incorrect for them to initially assume that the footage and stills from the many allegedly diverse sources was authentic.

    Fetzer, Wood, Hall, Fox, Ward, Prager,Johnson, Khalezov, Reynolds, Baker, Jones etc.etc. have all made this same fundamental error .

    Once their own individual "irrefutable" explanations of what happened on 9/11 were made public, [and even books written], all are either too arrogant, or simply too lazy to ever admit that :

    1] They have almost entirely ignored well established scientific investigative procedure [ by pre-assuming, without serious investigation, that any videos/photos were authentic].

    2] [And even if they did admit ever that [1] ], they _still_ individually have no knowledge/experience with what to look for regarding clues/signs of video and photographic fakery.

    See: "911 Scams:Professor Jim "First Blush" Fetzer's Trashing of The Scientific Method":

"Compass said : "Judy Wood made the mistake of accepting all of the video footage of 9/11 as direct evidence"

    Yup, and she ain't the only one :-) [see partial list above].

    And so it goes....

    Regards, onebornfree

  10. Well, "one-born-brainless," surely u understand that lots of folks know what u're saying already.

    U talk about others being smug--u are amazing for ur blithe, brainless, but typically Jewwy presumption, ho ho hoho.

    U can't seem to grasp that 9/11 was psy-ops, and that lots of folks understand this. Fact that vids were largely faked is simply a part of this psy-ops--which perhaps many under-estimated, but are fully capable of grasping, Fetzer no less.

  11. That's good. It will help him to grasp that the photos and vids from nuke events were also faked. The vids and photos from JFK too. This further will help him to grasp that all these events were movies like hollywood movies or musicals. Following that it gives you the idea what the official analysis, backed by, wink wink, scientific papers and what not are worth. Not that I am trying to be mean toward the professor, but that's the conclusion that follows automatically. Are you with me?

    1. simian: what country are u fm?--are u with me? Ho oh ho ho ho

    2. I was born in Jamaica. That makes me Cambodian.You?

    3. simian: u make no sense, ho ho ho ho--don't u find that a problem?

  12. keep dancing, it won't help you.

    1. "dancing"?--ho ho ho oho--righto, punk.

      "help"?--fm what? ho ho ho ho ho


    Freeride October 9, 2014 at 6:36 PM

    NOTE TO ALL: Posts are disappearing without trace.

    Freeride October 10, 2014 at 6:09 AM

    NOTE TO Fetzer: Who has admin rights to this blog?


    "Jim Fetzer October 12, 2014 at 2:29 PM

    I do. Total does. But I am the one who takes them out complete, more for aesthetic reasons than any other. I could leave them with "admin deleted" notes. Periodically I try to clean up these blogs."

    Well there you go folks. No wonder things got this bad. Look above, perfect example of why things are the way they are in the world we live in.

  14. Paul is just very dead & Beatle Bill is still around.

    You assume admissive statements are a joke & denials the truth. They fit both hypotheses, & since the case that Paul died is the broader & stronger, you are wrong about Ringo's meaning.

    You people just don't get it. Of course that possibly happened, if there were no other information to support the existence of items called clues: that people only read into things. & Even then, if there were no other considerations, one could stop at the idea of how it was done as a hoax (metaphor of transformation being one form of hoax, too, since it's not literal death).

    But once one looks at the putative items -- or most of them, anyway -- as clues (just in case), one finds not only consistency, detail & reason for their being there as mostly normal expressions of grief, but support in photos, John's private drawing, history (gaps as much as events we know), reasons for killing Paul and, even if there was no murder, reasons for starting the putative ruse & people who would help, as well as testimony now of & an early text mention of the problem of a Paul death rumour. -- So: learn what we know now, on the side you whitewash:

    For those ignorant as yet that there was an early rumour and the Beatles were involved in it, even if Paul did not die: THERE WAS A TEXT ITEM PLANTED AS EARLY AS FEB 1967 IN BEATLES BOOK. For whatever reason, it's there. And Emilio Lari, photographer for 1965 film "Help!" is now on record saying he heard it (not necessarily from Beatles) even earlier, in London 1966. ------ Even if Paul did not die, these things are the case. --- Beatles Book: - Lari: He needn't have died for you to get these points.

    & John drew Paul very accurately dead.

    You forget one of the main looks Paul had, which "he" suddenly "lost" entirely ("gaining" others) ...

    Yes I really said that. You are remembering only how Paul sometimes gave an impression of a longer face, not how he often does not. You forget how Paul often looked much more boyish or sweet-faced without being extremely young, which Faul (Bill/ Sir Paul) never does because of face shape & features, even at extreme. - - - - - <-- this one is longer b/c of expression but same overall face/ head. Here, get it? ----- Can you see the consistent look in them? Faul never achieves this look. How did they try? The Sgt P gatefold over-round doctored face of Faul, the White Album wide-angle closeup of Faul (distortion). Etc. -- Get it? -- You have to ask, what general look does each have, what outlying examples, where the overlap is & where not. RIP Paul, 48 years Sept 11 just past.

    1. Weird. "John" was one of the two words I had to type to prove I'm not a bot, to post that last comment. :)

    2. Clare your intellectual acuity should be spend on more important matters than this Beatles stuff. I know you spend time on other subjects but if you committed the intellectual energy that you devote to this Beatles stuff to more important topics I am sure you would contribute some excellent research. :)

    3. Hi, anon. --

      I've assisted Jim on Oswald in Doorway, was a presenter at 9/11 Vanc Hearings 2012 (which presentation people on all sides raved about), have done shows here on Jim's show on economics, Zapruder film, 9/11 victim simulation, Sandy Hook, Ft Hood, personal/intellectual disputes Jim was having, John Lennon's death.

      I cover Hendrix & Jones deaths on my blog, along w/ Paul, with the original pages on Sandy Hook, Columbine, Boston bombings.

      & I have a page on math discoveries/ thoughts.

      I also advise Jim at times on certain points, with others, as they do me.

      Paul's death is underacknowledged & for many people more important to get straight, since they wander around roughly thinking there is political corruption without wanting to look more deeply into those issues. This topic brings it home.

      I do this topic more now, because it takes more stamina.

      Best wishes.

    4. Yes, now that I think about it you have done quite a bit of work on multiple fronts. I suppose I just cannot find the Beatles research at all worth my time, but you of course can do whatever you'd like with yours. And, tell me, where you do find the time to make a living!?

    5. anon, the Beatles issue -- though it remains an important historical correction, even if it does not affect a bread & butter policy right now -- was the "silliest" or, alternatively, shall we say, most offensive issue I ran across. How could it be both? It was too unimportant to be about horrors of cruelty and grisliness (paedophile rings, etc., fit that), but it was about personal trickery, perception and, in the end, murder & propagandistic mayhem as well.

      It is often under-covered on conspiracy political shows. It is often treated as a too-ordinary topic or too silly a concept, thus, for either reason, as "bringing down the general tone of serious conspiracy research with nonsense".

      The problem with that is that in fact it reaches more people with a gut-level revulsion than many political quandaries, because it suggests no topic is necessarily free from conspiracy trickery, or evildoing.

      When I realized Paul's death was true, unlike flat earth or unicorns, or all-fake 9/11 (vs some-fake-&-some-manipulated 9/11 imagery & victims, which are true), the case for Paul's death irked me like a thorn.

      Like Dr Costella, who realized he was "it", among so many who could have done the work & whose impeccable work on the Zapruder film as fake got me started in 2008, & introduced me to Jim, I recognized the Paul case needed the intellectual backbone of all objections & general support structures elucidated, but no-one had done so in one place. Tina had come closest, & some of her pages are great, but not only did she veer off into other speculations which can, I think, be shown to most people to be untrue even if they think it was possible (John's replacement being one of those, clones being another), but she did not have all the objections and philosophical reminders written out.

      With my background in other cases, I realized we all need those Occam reminders (that simple is not to be stupid where complexity is as simple as it needs to be), plus reminders about how trickery works (in any coverup), how to keep one's mind open without being afraid of being unable to go back to a previous conclusion, etc.

      I simply wrote them out for the Paul case, which, with the most personal surety for many (facial & vocal recognition & beloved emotions), needs these reminders so intensely to overcome cognitive dissonance.

      Like the Moon hoax, but even moreso, Paul's death is a ridiculed idea, the lowest of the low as a concept to so many. Why? Outre because of personal surety it did not occur (for fans & non-fans), plus feelings it doesn't matter to look into (for non-music, non-Beatle fans, etc., if those persons don't care about historicity).

      But any case of historical coverup is important for a full truth; in addition, the Beatles are, like Michelangelo in his time and topic (art), not to be left out of any work mentioning 20th-century social or artistic history. The death of Paul is, for openminded and even creepy (MKUltra) history buffs such as we all are, plus for regular historical accuracy, an important topic.

    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    7. -----

      Re. my time: I rarely do a show & it's only 1 1/2 hours, of course. I do comment on forums & twitter, when I can. I do answer e-mails. I was very ill 2008-2012 so in those years I did more work of the original kind (personal learning & helping Jim). My mind needed something (many things) to do. It did. :)

      Now I do little, really, on these topics. It's like using a degree. -- I will be trying to put together a book & redo the blog. Mr DB (I'm not releasing his name until he does) will be doing a series on thinking (hermeneutic considerations) which are tested to the utmost in all coverup cases, but focussed on the Paul death case for now.

      I haven't had the time or stamina physically lately to do original material but also work, live. I will do more original work when I can. Hope that helps you understand.

      When I do get out to comment, of course I'm lambasted interminably. There are many now discussing Paul's death -- from varying levels of familiarity and sophistication -- but only a few active main speakers. Tina & now I are really the most visible of those who put material in a more formal written format. It is as though only Jim & Kevin Barrett were the ones writing about 9/11 outside of forums and strange videos. Imagine the work emotionally to take all hits most of the time?

      RIP to 3 of 4 original famous Beatles, their manager Eppie, their roadie Mal, & probably others, whose deaths dovetail at least partly with the coverup of Paul's. -- Yes, John & George (murder attempt) & Eppie (probably a murder) were killed for other reasons as well, but Paul's death likely contributed to motivations to get them. <3

    8. I should also mention, anonymous, that with John's deep relevance to many political & social concerns, the fact he lied is very interesting (fully understandable but sad double bind).

      I owe this to John, who tried most of any of them except Mal, to extricate, for us, the truth from the coverup, without being pilloried by history.

      "Why John Lennon matters in the ongoing War on Consciousness"

      Even if people deny John's value, the conundrum is interesting.

  15. George was the tallest in the beginning, then John, then Paul, then Ringo. In late 1966, Paul became the tallest. I don't doubt there are pictures that purport to be of one or another of them that were actually impostors, but NONE of the other Beatles were switched out.

    John lost a lot of weight between the the tour and and when he went to film How I Won the War. I wouldn't have been able to eat much just then if I'd have been him either, not to mention the drugs, but that is absolutely unequivocally John in at least most of those pictures on Tina's site.

    Plus, he was just turning twenty-six and that is when most young men are finally shed of the last of their baby fat, give or take a year.

    AND sideburns change then too... from mostly head hair to whiskers and men shave them all kinds of different ways over the course of their lives, especially when they first have the ability to grow them.

    Same teeth. Same ears. Same bump on the nose, only way more apparent. Same height. Same voice. Same wit. Same man. Just thinner and hairier.

    And same with George and Ringo. They stayed the same people.

    By late 1966 it had become fashionable to have even longer hair and whiskers, so there wasn't anything funny about them adopting that style at that time, except it took away their charm for a lot of people.

    The only one who changed radically, too radically to be the same man, was Paul. Even though he was twenty four at the time, I could even take the change in height because I know a man who grew seven inches between his 22nd and 23rd birthdays, but that with all the other radical differences, no.

    His voice, TOTALLY different. His demeanor. His personality. His eye color. His ears. The shape of his head. His teeth. His nose. His mouth. His height. His feet. UNmistakably different man, even if most people DID mistake it. It was just too inconceivable that they would do that at the time, so people just let it pass.

    I think this blather about all the other Beatles being replaced too was put out there to discredit people with more good sense than to fall for Faul.

    The mindfucking over the course of our lives has been outrageous indeed, but we can't let it strip us of our ability to discern.

    1. Right. No other Beatles were replaced, but Paul was.

      However, many people can become confused, and of course every suggestion must be worked through.

      Tina & I disagree on the "Featle" & cloning concepts she's espoused, & where & when Paul died.

      However, her compilations of arguments & images about Paul help us all, as do some forum & video & website works by others.

  16. Clare, you seem like a very nice person, and you contribute many useful comments on this website. but why on earth do you continue to side step / ignore the copious evidence of multiple Paul's both before and after 1966. The Paul/Faul meme is an example of cherry picking. Rather than refusing to examine the evidence, consider what could it mean, that more than one musician/person played each of the Beatles, but especially Paul? That question leads to many others about who really drove the Beatles to their success, and why.

    1. No, Bill. The marshalled evidence for multiple Pauls & others falls apart. The same head/ face has means to account for all looks (impressions) people take from imagery of Paul before late 1966, but not after -- and the same head/face for the others. You must be unable as yet to get a detailed but general sense of the early images, enough to compare how age & fat or thinness does not or does affect a head.

      I looked at all the claims, Bill. Can't you tell?!

    2. Clare, there is no evidence that you looked at anything re. Paul that I sent you. I am sure that you have spent 1000s of hours pouring over the weird Paul/Faul theory cherry-picked evidence.

      Let me make this easy for you, though I suspect you will still fight it. One year on the Ed Sullivan show Paul has a narrow palete and crooked canines, the next year he has a wide pallet and straight teeth. After straight teeth Paul sings Yesterday, John says "Thankyou Paul, that was just like him." This is 1964-1965. Look up the clips. Point is that if this happened in a time line that fitted the Paul/Faul theory you'd be all over it, but it blows it apart, so you ignore it. I could give you 20 other example of this kind of hard evidence, but you would ignore it. A sketch John that could be of anything, is certainly very unlikely to be of Paul's smashed head.

      You are doing exactly the thing that Jim always criticises people for; sticking to a theory in spite of new information that invalidated it. It's not a good look. It does not matter how long you have spent looking over the Paul/Faul evidence; it's wrong, and cherry-picked. I wonder if you will choose to gracefully admit you are going down the wrong track, or perhaps you are too dogged, and can never admit you are wrong?

    3. Bill, I have pored for hundreds of hours over the "Featles" pages. I have become familiar with all the basic claims & if you wish, can outline in detail (many words though that requires) why each image works or doesn't, what context in imagery it compares to, what mistakes in scientific thinking are being made (such as actual cherry picking, which means not getting a sense of how heights are or are not affected by cameras much, or faces by lighting, camera, age).

      At some point, the comparison must be statistical on a given feature. But the statistic must be informed in our understanding as well: that width not be merely tabulated but understood for when or why it's occurring (intense light streaks across a nose in 3/4 view, for example, it will seem wider & not be tabulated). That sort of thing.

      There aren't Featles. There is a Faul.


      Remember, it is also more commonsensical for Paul's death & replacement (once one knows what would motivate a murder or, even if an accident occurred, motivate a replacement of Paul), it fits the constant strains of grief & grisly mention of Paul.

      So even without seeing the difference or hearing it, Paul's death & replacement have the general supportive material around them, are limited enough for evildoers or mere "helpers" to try to do ...

      and the Featles claims are directly debunkable.

      Some persons will hold whatever Featles idea they came to initially (maybe Tina will, too), some will use it to feel superior to the "merely Paul" death & replacement ideas, some will use the Featles concepts to ridicule all PID, some to stay unsure and feel comforted.

      But, in my strongest, deepest, detailed & yes, informed opinion: only Paul was replaced, yes he died for this to be necessary, and the others felt bad but lied when they could, avoided the topic when they could, spilled the beans in ways they could.

      If you have specific concerns about specific clips, that's fine. But you are the one cherry picking, hoping that seeming anomalies belie a trend. In fact, Paul had several ways his head would look or transform if under certain conditions. No image belies that before 1966 November (when Bill/Faul/Sir Paul is first shown to us).

      The lighting on the teeth varies. With less out-of-line teeth on the left, the light only rarely caught the problem the Wired scientists made much of. He did have less room in his palate, but it is not so perfect an argument as they make it out to be, unless one can recognize that the one photo they use of the left teeth showing as if very crooked, is the most exaggerated lighting showing the problem.

      The problem is there, but it was not as obvious in most images as George's teeth.

      Hope that helps.

      I'm not unable to admit I'm wrong. I am quite wide-rangingly sure on this one. -- But if the odd double-triple were used in a photo shoot when someone was sick, that would be another thing.

      There are, though, no examples of that which I've found, once *all available moods, lighting, optical illusion or tricks (unintentionally or intentionally induced mistakes we end up making) are considered.

      Best wishes.

    4. As to admitting I'm wrong, I've done so many times re. 9/11 & Sandy Hook, in fact, & try to remind Jim & others where they might be glossing over a line of reasoning they'd thought closed.

    5. John quipped "just like him" without a huge case to support a replacement then. Instead, that comment more likely (therefore) falls into the true quip meaning: that such sweet & solo work was very typical of Paul's preference, or one main type of feeling he gave off to those who knew him best -- not the big performer, showoff, which he also did with people when not famous, but which he became more known for publicly.

  17. Jim,
    You have stated repeatedly that '9/11 was designed to reverse American foreign policy so that instead of that of never attacking any nation that had not attacked us first, we now became an aggressor nation.'
    How you can believe that is beyond me. One has only to
    look at the Spanish American War to see the fallacy of that view. Surely, you must have read "War is a Racket" by Major General Smedley D. Butler.

    1. Steve: look at the war btwn states when North attacked South.

      Fetzer is very, very weak when it comes to history. After War btwn states, USA was imperialist nation. Look at WWI--WHY did Jew S A go to war then?

      Jew S A conspired w. Britain to start WWII, FDR ordering US Navy to attack Germans in N. Atlantic to help Jew-controlled Britain.

    2. I was discussing the official policy of the US, not its actual conduct. After 9/he, it has taken the gloves off and no longer even pretends to be objective or fair, just the biggest bully on the block.

    3. Ok Prof., but did u know ur hero, JFK, went along w. future dis-armament of USA in way of UN world gov.?

    4. United nations, and before that, League of Nations was program since W. Wilson and his buddy, Colonel House, following institution of Fed. Reserve--for even national cent. bank wants a world bank to back it up, mere part of the necessary logic

    5. Disarmament, or general lessening of aggressive potential, is hardly merely creepy; the UN is not all bad, despite the reasons some of its proponents had in creating it.

      JFK had good reasons to speak of peacetime economy & the goal of policy being less war & CIA action. This is, effectively, disarmament in the best ways.

      Only some in the UN talk of ending nations entirely. That, though is dangerous. But even among many who speak of it, many don't see it as bad; I know many people who believe somehow we'd be better with shell nations, for there to be more of the best agreement & less war, b/c nations do much of the fighting vs each other.

      There is something to be said for other nations reminding each other of what is fair; the UN is not set up fairly, though; nor should there be no nations.

      JFK was not truly for one world government, but for the world to be more respected as one. That is a different thing.

    6. I agree with Clare. Here's the evidence. Listen to this speech: "The President and the Press," before the American Newspaper Publisher's Association.

    7. apsterian: Steve gave you evidence about JFK's not being for ending nation states.

      All of us probably agree that at least aspects of the UN need to be ended, though you want all of its purposes gone.

  18. I think Jim should do a show on the likely thesis that Jesus Christ was an Italian and a probable homosexual.
    How about it, Apsterian?
    Come on, Professor!

  19. I'm curious, was Tina sick when doing this interview? It sounds like she's not at all into the interview - as if she's disinterested or weary of discussing PID, even. Whatever it is, it's too bad because it's such an important topic as it points directly to an effort by the powerful to manipulate the perceptions of people of the 1960s.

  20. This comment has been removed by the author.


    BDTN Editor Ste Murray at 19:28
    The former drummer of the Beatles, Ringo Starr, surprised the world this morning during an interview in his luxurious Californian residence, when he admitted that the 45-year old rumors about the alleged death of Paul McCartney in 1966 were actually true.
    In an exclusive interview with the Hollywood Inquirer, Mr. Starr explained that the “real” Paul McCartney had died in a car crash on November 9 1966, after an argument during a Beatles’ recording session. To spare the public from grief, the Beatles replaced him with a man named William Shears Campbell, who was the winner of a McCartney look-alike contest and who happened to have the same kind of jovial personality as Paul.