All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 16, 2020 - Jim Fetzer
01:46:52
The Fetz Presents (15 October 2020): Paul vs. Faul with Sterling Harwood, J.D., Ph.D. & Clare Kuehn
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Just hang on.
I wonder if they can.
Can you edit?
I'm in too much trouble to edit.
Sterling, we're on the air.
This is Jim Fetzer on the Fetz Presents, where I'm very pleased to have for my guest tonight two experts on the death and replacement of Paul McCartney.
Sterling Harwood, who is both a JD and a PhD, interestingly, in philosophy.
He continues to teach, though he's retired from the practice of the law.
And Claire Kuhn, who's a longtime student of this issue and who was perhaps the very first to bring it to my attention as a real live issue, where Claire and I have had lots of exchanges over the years.
Now, Sterling has just published a new book about this.
So we're gonna, yeah, there we go.
Very good.
The Greatest Mystery of the Beatles.
There's a subtitle, Sterling, you want to read it?
Critical Thinking on Paul is Dead and the Skeptical Sixties.
I have four chapters.
One's on Paul is Dead.
The next one is on, uh, the next one is on, um, The moon, actually it's on JFK, and then the moon landings, and then the Vietnam War.
So the 60s, those of us who lived through the 60s were pretty skeptical, a lot of us, about whether Paul died and was replaced.
That blew up in 1969.
And then there was actually a November 1969 skeptical article in the LA Free Press on Neil Armstrong's lunar landing.
And then the JFK assassination, of course, 1964 Warren Report, people were very critical of that early on.
And then the war, Everybody was skeptical of that at the end, I think, so I guess there were a few defenders, but we had to beat a hasty retreat in the 70s, but all through the 60s, it was a source of increasing Pentagon papers and everything, increasing skepticism.
So that's the four chambers of the heart of the 60s, Jim and Claire, the four chambers of the heart, the four chapters Four skeptical things.
The war, the Beatles, JFK assassination, and the moon landing.
So the four big events, four of them anyway.
So give us a thumbnail sketch of each of your argument or position in each of the chapters.
Well there's a lot of evidence, objective evidence, for Paul being Killed and and of course if he was killed he was replaced because he was still apparently around the All the way until the break up till he broke it up on April 10th 1970 with his statement with the release of his album McCartney fine album by the way and So there's 166 clues.
I think I have the record Claire's got some that I don't have yet.
I But, and there may be a few in the book by Tina Foster.
It's a 502 page book.
So, but I think I counted them up and I've got more than she does.
166 clues that you really can't account for any other way except that the beetles were planting.
Then there's just too many of them and they're too Too obvious.
It's hard to deny them all.
And then, although the Beatles always denied that they planted any, all those dead clues.
And so, my thumbnail sketch on that one is there's physical evidence and there's clues in the artwork and in the songs.
Including backwards, playing the song backwards.
Well, when I said thumbnail.
Yeah, yeah.
Sterling, when I said thumbnail, all I meant was.
And then, yeah, yeah.
166.
Okay, now you got three other chapters to tell us about JFK.
Go ahead.
Right, I was just moving to JFK.
So, JFK was killed by a conspiracy.
I think it was at least two shooters.
I think you think there were more shooters than I do.
I'm Two shooters is enough within eight seconds or less to get you, and there's just a huge wound in the back right top of the head.
Can't be an entrance wound because Oswald was not using frangible bullets.
You think Lee Oswald wasn't a shooter?
No, no I do not, but I'm saying the official story Even if you go with what they're saying, it doesn't allow for a big exit wound in the back of the head like that, because he was shooting from the upper right rear of the limo.
And so there's a conspiracy there.
The moon landings, I think there's reason to doubt that too.
There's actually on Apollo 15, if you go that late, there's a very nice link in my Kindle version of my book.
You click on the link and you'll see the flag waving in Apollo 15 and there's no atmosphere on the moon so that should not happen.
If you're going to fake Apollo 15 and then Neil Armstrong made a lot of cryptic remarks too that we can get into, but bottom line is there's serious evidence that the lunar landings were fake and there was patriotic reason to do so.
And the final one is the war And just people became more and more skeptical about whether that war was even winnable.
And, of course, the motivations for fighting the war.
And you're talking about Vietnam, right, Sterling?
Yeah, the war of the four hearts of the 60s.
Right, right, right.
The big war we fought in the 60s, you know about it because you served in this war, I believe.
I was never in the country, but I was in the Marine Corps, yeah, from the 60s to the 60s.
During the war period.
Yeah, I understand if you volunteer During the war, of course, maybe, you were not conscripted, I don't think, but my daughter joined the Navy, and if you volunteered during wartime, you get a special ribbon that she got, because we're still at war, I guess.
Sure, it's a National Service ribbon, yeah.
Yeah, so you must have gotten one of those if you volunteered, but maybe you were conscripted.
Not a big deal.
It simply meant you could have been sent Yeah.
I was not drafted.
No, I was in the Navy regular program.
The Navy paid for my college tuition and, you know, books and so forth in return for my agreeing to serve a minimum of four years as an officer in the Navy or the Marine Corps and I chose the Marine Corps, so.
Yeah, yeah.
Wonderful program because my dad couldn't have afforded to send me to Princeton and That was really the making of my entire life, the intellectual development that occurred there, where I was sterling, unbeknownst to me at the time, Princeton was number one in the world in math, physics, and philosophy.
Yeah, it had a good department.
And of course, I did my undergraduate thesis for Carl G. Himmel, who was the most influential Philosopher among professional philosophers in the world.
Karl Popper was more influential among natural scientists, and Thomas Kuhn would be among social scientists, but... Yeah, we get the philosophical connection with Claire, too, because I think you're an offspring of a philosopher, are you not, Claire?
I am, yeah.
You're the fruit of the lines of a philosopher.
Clara, I don't think I ever knew that.
You know, Sterling's book is now like number one on Kindle in the area of the Beatles.
Give us just your take in general about all these issues.
Okay, well, in terms of my upbringing and background, I was steeped in philosophy of science and logic since I was born.
So, because my mother was very, very engaged in that world and also in history, art, theater.
I mean, she was interested in things, right?
She was interested in Different ideas.
You know, she would read things and say, hmm, that was really interesting.
I don't know if it's right.
I know it's not supposed to be right, but boy, that was some argument.
You know, so she was always Giving us that sense of things.
My father too, I mean he was a historian.
His MA and PhD, almost PhD, he didn't quite finish it, was in the 17th and 18th century French history.
So he was studying in the basement of the Sarbonne in Paris, taking documents that hadn't been seen since the French Revolution when they were scarfed there against the What were, in fact, early radical Marxists.
So he was looking at, you know, Cardinal Richelieu's little handwritten notes.
I mean, I come from that.
So, like, when it comes to, you know, generally asking questions and knowing that ideas are okay and things can sound really weird, but they can be true or they can be not true, but you should always really work at them, that's my parents.
My formal education was far sparser because I just didn't really feel the need to keep going.
So I did my BA in Medieval Studies and History.
I did it in order to have sort of a classical degree and sort of a classical degree and multidisciplinary studies because I just wasn't interested in only one thing forever and that's it.
Because I just already had that background.
Can you hear me?
Because I'm getting some... We can hear you, Claire.
I heard some background, like, I don't know.
Sterling just heard his camera.
He had a little background noise.
Just continue.
Okay.
I wasn't sure if it was somehow me.
My wife has entered the building.
Okay.
Elvis has left the building, but my wife isn't.
So, yeah, you were talking about, for Paul, I mean, I spent from 2008 to About 2010, dealing with you, Jim, mostly on the Kennedy assassination, 9-11, Fort Hood, if anyone remembers that ridiculous situation.
You know, learning these things and actually going very, very cautiously and skeptically from one to the other because Um, I had the common sense to try out anything.
That actually isn't what most people think is common sense, but is it informed common sense?
But I was very reluctant with each new case.
I'm like, okay, you know, not another one.
Well, I mean, so I would apply the theory, meaning the higher end theory level, to each new case or theory and learn it.
And of course, the Zapruder film, the faking of the Zapruder film is absolutely key.
In the Kennedy assassination.
Without knowing that, you don't know it wasn't eight seconds.
You don't know that it wasn't... people weren't where they said they were.
Or, I mean, people were often where they said they were, but they weren't where they were in the film.
And the optics work that you did with John Costella, because he's an optics specialist.
To me, that allowed my mom to... that allowed me to say to my mom before she died, No, I actually know this.
Like, I'm not going to sit there anymore and say, well, you know, maybe, and I've always got to stay open.
And no, this is optics.
This film was faked on any planet.
So that started me in to say, all right, not everything is real, but some of it is.
And I ended up looking into getting a smattering of all the main conspiracy theories, some of the sub stuff, reading.
Thousands of hours of stuff for two years.
And then I, I decided to look into Paul or Flat Earth.
That was going to be my thing.
I was going to write a debunking on Paul or Flat Earth.
Paul's dead.
And I thought, well, Flat Earth is all the science stuff.
And I know some of it, but I, you know, I think I'll do Paul's death.
Cause that, that just couldn't be, but I always thought there was something wrong with the later Paul figure.
So I'll just, I'll just see, you know, show people why they can get things wrong.
Well, as I delved into it, I very quickly realized that there was too much of it, as Sterling has said, about not only the art clues, but also the actual history was gotten wrong, the details of what people said was wrong, and all I had to do then was say, why do some photographs confuse me and some do not?
And it comes down to photodoctoring, distortion, and also a certain amount of likeness that was achieved for about two years.
So, when I figured that out, that was it.
I knew Paul had died and I've been working ever since to expose it.
All right, let me, all of us, I believe, agree that in fact, Paul McCartney did die in 1966
and was replaced by someone I would argue was an even better musician.
But I'm interested in having each of our takes on how he died.
Sterling, why don't you go first?
What do you think are the circumstances of Paul's death as you understand them?
Well, I don't think he was murdered.
Although if he was murdered, that would explain a lot because, you know, Why do you need to cover it up?
I mean, a lot of bands have somebody die, even one of the major figures in the band die, and their sales go up, and they could have hired Eric Clapton and Stevie Wynwood or something to replace them, or Billy Preston or something, so why would they fake his death, or, you know, not fake his death, but, you know, cover up his death?
And so, but if one of the Beatles or one of the Big pieces in the Beatles story, like George Martin or somebody, you know, I think the more likely thing was that John Lennon flew off the handle the way some people, Alvin Goldman says John Lennon killed Stu Sutcliffe by getting into a fight with him and kicking him in the head, and he ended up with a brain hemorrhage.
But if John killed Paul, then that would make sense to cover it up, because you don't want John to get in trouble, you know, as well as losing Paul.
Then, you know, there goes your Beatles right there.
So, but I kind of think he was not murdered.
It's more likely to be an accident, but then there's a lot of trouble that they went through to cover it up.
You gotta, you know, get the body before some official does, or bribe the official, or threaten the official.
So there is a possibility in my mind that Paul opted out because he seemed to have had some kind of nervous heart condition or something and there was a lot of threats against the Beatles after John's We're Bigger Than Jesus remark and they ended their touring days and they were roughed up in Manila and things were just getting really wild.
And of course later on George Harrison was attacked and stabbed.
10 times in the chest and John was shot five times with hollow point bullets in the back.
So, you know, it got pretty hairy there.
So maybe Paul saw some of that coming and just said, I'm opting out.
Let's just replace me.
I'll still write the music and maybe I'll show up once in a while in the studio.
That's not totally, I can't totally rule that out.
Because as you say, the follow-up guy, Billy, that a lot of people call him, Billy Campbell or Billy Shears, you know, he seems to be more talented than the original, or at least as talented, and it's awfully hard to replace a Paul McCartney, because he was great up through the Revolver album, you know, you have Yesterday, and For No One, and Here, There, and Everywhere, and just one amazing song after another.
It's hard to replace somebody like that, and to do it on such a short time frame, From the two death dates that people talk about are September the 11th, 1966, or November the 9th, 1966, because there's an 11-9 kind of numerology that appears if you put a straight-edge mirror up against the center of the drum skin in the Sgt.
Pepper album cover on the front.
So you get X-1, 1, 1, X, he die, when you put that in there.
And so some people interpret the I, the Roman numeral I, and the X as 11, 9, but if you do it the European way, it'd be the reverse.
So 9, it'd be 9, 11 to us Americans.
So we put the month first, but the Europeans put the day first.
So there's been arguments about that.
I tend to go with the November, the 9th date.
It apparently was raining that day in London so he might have gotten into a car accident and then they covered it up but it's kind of unmotivated why they would bother to risk criminal charges for, you know, fraud or, you know, suppressing a death report or something.
So maybe if one of them actually killed him, And Lennon did have a pretty serious temper.
He got into fights when he had his last weekend with Harry Nielsen and started heckling the Smothers Brothers in LA during the period when he was away from Yoko Ono.
There are pictures of him getting in fisticuffs.
And he makes some comments like he was pretty cruel early on.
So that might explain why they would cover it up if he's, and the other reason they would cover it up is if he just kind of, like Sid Barrett, he just went crazy.
So if Paul just took LSD and went crazy or something, then you could see, and he did take LSD for the first time.
I think he said he took it four times, or at least the replacement for Paul said that Paul took it four times.
So if he had a nervous breakdown or something, or he had a disfigurement in the accident that he didn't want people to see him, because, you know, a lot of movie stars and rock stars are vain, that might explain it.
He might even still be alive.
It's just a possibility.
But there are these physical differences, and there's a lot of clues in there, and there's no motivation for the clues unless they're trying to report that he actually did die.
So that's the, and they always deny that the clues were there, but they're clearly there.
In fact, John Lennon sings on Glass Onion, here's another clue for you all, the walrus was Paul.
So he was actually openly referring to the clues.
Well, thank you, Sterling.
That was really Quite a fascinating range of alternatives that you've contemplated at one point or another.
Claire, why don't you give us- Well, yeah, I wasn't there when he died.
You know, I wasn't there when he died, so I don't have any personal knowledge, of course.
We know lots of things we didn't observe personally, of course, as you well know.
Right, right.
Claire, why don't you just give us a fairly comprehensive account of how you think his death came about?
Okay.
There are always a few basic set points that have to be recognized in a case and what I find is that Sterling in his book and here is not recognizing most of those set points.
So what happens is if you don't get a few things straight, now again those are decisions but they are interactive set points.
They happened historically.
They are people's psychological nature.
They are a good sense of the people.
Which clues, if we're talking art clues or any form of cluing, clue, which ones will be primary, which ones will be secondary, which are supportive, right?
But with support is important.
Okay, so basically, what I need to do is basically say, first of all, John flew off the handle, but John and Paul were, and I wish I had my pictures, incredibly close to the point of, I mean, just soulmates, best friends, together all the time.
You could say in love.
If people don't understand that as just sexually interested, they were in love.
They were Often giddy and interactive.
There was not the same tension as with Stu Sutcliffe.
Um, I, I mean, I actually agree that, that Stu's sister probably does have the right story there, that there was quite a lot of, um, sexual tension.
There was other things going on, according to John's friend, Pete Shotton, uh, that, that he had to comfort John over because John felt he was going gay because Stu was engaging him in some of the, some sex act.
Um, so there was a lot of stuff going on in the Stu years that was not happening between John and Paul.
It's just, John and Paul were, I mean, they were beyond besties.
Paul's capacity for music-making is far deeper.
Then Bill's.
Now that doesn't mean you can't say that Bill has talent.
But the depth of those early songs, they are like little jewels.
They are, the two boys, and of course George to some degree and a little bit less so Ringo, were constantly designing songs.
They were like little crystalline perfections.
They're simple on the surface and they have so many layers of complexity that they're actually complex.
All of that goes out the window when Paul dies.
That doesn't mean that there isn't still personality and talent that John and George especially demonstrate later, but it's quite different.
So if we look at that set point, it just creates a terrible difference between the two periods.
Now in terms of what happened, We would have to get into the date clue a bit more.
Other evidence for exactly when the date is.
November 9th is too late because Paul is gone for several months.
John was actually not in England, anywhere near Paul, during those two months.
He's actually gone for a film.
And he's immediately sad and absolutely distressed in his early Strawberry Fields Forever writing in October-November 1966.
Bill appears in film about November, late November, early October, late November to December 1966, so he's already there then.
The other thing to get straight about this is basically the Beatles couldn't do this, wouldn't do this, wouldn't think it up.
Doubles are done by political operatives.
They're done by intelligence services.
They are usually for protection.
There can be, of course, there can be a film double for, you know, safety reasons.
The early reference to this stuff is in print in February 1967 and it was a disclaimer and so it was a disclaimer to the previous month just to throw you off but there obviously was already a rumor going around and that disclaimer wasn't discovered until the 1990s so this wasn't for for money to set stuff up I mean there's grizzly it's extreme grief John is aggrieved immediately and also Paul didn't tend to take hard drugs He would take the uppers and downers.
One of the things was that he complained he didn't want to be taking LSD.
He was furious that they had laced the drinks.
So he was actually a rebel in that regard.
So to get to know Paul means to, at least, begin to know some of the detriments about Bill, who seems to be a political operative, who was brought in, and who's been protected.
I mean, that kind of thing can't be run by a band and their corporation.
So to get those sorts of big things set, You know it's bigger than, like, John killed Paul.
I mean, there's just no way.
There's no heart way to say that happened.
And Paul didn't really have a heart problem.
So, there you go.
Claire, I was asking you, what is your take on what happened, which you have not added?
Oh, okay, so what?
You mean, like, on the day?
Yeah, how did he die?
That's what I'm asking.
Well, with those set points in mind then, the only evidence we have is for something to do with a car impact.
So various people who are, I think, very familiar with the case have suggested that that was a scenario, and actually it was set up to look that way so that the Beatles would think it was a car impact, and then we get into murder.
So if he had his brains, you know, shot, But in front of a car, or they set it up, then the Beatles would think that.
One way or the other, the only evidence we have is around damage to the body and car.
So you have like this association of car with the damage, but it may not be that he was in fact killed in a car crash.
I actually think it happened on the 13th.
UK time around midnight.
I think that the date clue is it's the last piece to fall in a whole set of historical arguments.
But anyway, Paul probably went to the Melody Maker Awards.
There's this big award ceremony.
It was claimed he had gone on the 13th.
The way that cover-ups work is they usually find one thing to lie about really early.
So if he had gone on the 12th or 11th, Like, in other words, if he just before that, he'd gone, then, you know, there would be an announcement later in the week of who had won.
It was a secret.
And Paul died, and they could say, oh no, he was alive at those Melody Maker Awards.
That's very likely.
Now, in terms of the date clue, what happened was, and I can't find it now, but there was a radio show in late 1969 when the rumor was supposed to have occurred, but it actually occurred when Paul died, of course.
And the date clue was actually leaked as being a date clue.
So they suggested it was there.
This was a US radio show.
And George Harrison was on there and he said, he kind of affirmed that there was maybe a date clue there.
And what they did is they suggested it was a date clue, but they divided it.
So instead of, what the actual thing says is, an I, an O, an N, an E, an I, then a caret,
like you know one of those little things go up, then a HE DI all in caps.
So it's an I, O, so it reads as one, one, one, sorry, I, I, one, I, X, he die.
That's that's how it reads.
Or you could say one, one, one, X, he die.
What the suggestion was, was that the first two, so the I and the O-N-E, they are in Arabic numerals.
And then the I and the X are to be read as Roman numerals, which actually splits it between two alphabetic systems and isn't quite natural.
And then, he died.
Okay, so now it turns out that Paul was a number 13.
He had four letters and nine letters.
Okay?
So, 13, he died.
If you flip the I-I-I-X to be X-I-I-I and take it as all Roman, 1-1-1-1 is what the Romans would have said.
So 1-1-1-X would have been X-1-1-1 flipped.
And it's 13, he died, or Paul McCartney, he died.
Okay, but it also fits with it taking this piece down and stop to divide it as 11 and nine and say it's 111 X, and these later, the later Beatles got into Crowley because of Bill and his creepiness.
Really creepy guy, okay?
But, uh, the Crowley stuff is to flip satanic reversals.
So it's partly for a clue, like to hide it even more, but it's also for satanic reversal.
So you'd have 1-1-1-X, which is how the Romans would say it.
1-1 on X. He die.
13, he die.
Now, the other support for this is that the very night that 13 was a Tuesday.
And John did sing.
Now, you can take it as he was covering up and it wasn't a Tuesday.
But he said, stupid bloody Tuesday in one of his very early songs, which is, I am the walrus.
So, Super Bloody Tuesday might be a Tuesday.
The 13th of September was a Tuesday.
And also, the final point here just to mention is that there was a newsflash that went around the world the very night of the 12th, 13th, so UK time, that right around midnight, and that newsflash Was that a beetle had been injured in a car accident.
More news at 11.
And then it developed to a beetle was dead in a car accident.
It was Paul.
More news at 11.
That went around the world.
It was in Australia.
It was in the BBC.
It was in the US.
But the BBC wasn't on at that time.
So what we have is very likely a very real mistaken news leak right at that point.
And I would say that the argument for murder is a much higher-end conspiracy issue.
If he was murdered, then indeed many people high up knew.
One of the things is you have predictive programming in the Monkeys pilot show.
The Monkeys pilot show was several weeks before its main release and it occurred Exactly when that newsflash went out.
So the newsflash happened, and the pilot show was running.
And what was the pilot show about?
Murdering Paul.
That's what it was about.
It actually used David Jones, who was the only English member of the New Monkeys.
Band.
Group.
Takeover.
Plot.
You know, U.S.
intelligence.
Whatever.
Okay?
David Jones is the one who's about to be murdered at midnight.
And it aired 30 minutes after midnight UK time.
So during one of its commercial breaks, as it's building up this plot about the murder of the equivalent to Paul, out comes a newsflash.
And in those days a newsflash, if people are really young and don't know, it was an announcement that there would be news later.
You know, nobody was taping their shows.
This was something that was just announced.
So, what we have is a historical newsflash announcement, you have the Monkey Show right at that point, you have the occurrence of the UK time, you have the immediate cover-up with the Melody Maker Awards lie, and it was very awkward early on.
You have all of the things going wrong at that point, and you also have the date clue now fitting.
If you read it, 111X or IIIX, Roman numerals flipped.
So that's, that's sort of my... Claire, forgive me.
Forgive me.
Did you actually say how it happened?
Yeah, like some kind of a car... Car accident.
Some kind of a car incident.
Some kind of.
Head trauma.
You're talking about the details to the body.
So the only details we have is the right eye was bulging, the left eye was squished.
Claire, thank you, thank you, thank you.
You've both overwhelmed me in different ways.
For me, I mean, by comparison to what the two of you have laid out here, it's going to sound pretty simple and straightforward.
My understanding is the following.
They were having a session and they got in an argument.
Paul left in a huff.
It was raining.
As he drove along, there was a young lady stuck in the rain.
He gave her a lift.
Her name might or might not have been Rita, but she was so excited to find herself in the car with Paul McCartney that she threw her arms around him, he ran a light, and was hit by a truck, trapped in the car.
She got out, it burst into fire, and he died in the accident.
Only a few people knew initially and they were able to cover it up.
Why?
For the sake of the band.
This is a billion dollar industry.
Who would know what the future of the band would have been had the fans all known that Paul, who was of course a founding member with John, I mean they were the core of the Beatles, Had died.
Ringo gave a confession that was published in a kind of a shell publication, but which I believe is authentic.
Asked, what about the band?
And they decided that they would try to find a sub and he just worked out so well
that they decided to continue to use him.
And it was the person I take you're referring to as Bill, namely William Shepard or Billy Shears,
because sheep who tend their flock, the sheep are sheared.
So it's a nickname for William Shepard.
And in fact, we have him introduced by the Beatles in the Sargent Pepper album as a one and only Billy Shears,
where the cover is clearly a funeral for Paul.
There's a left-handed guitar on the funeral mound.
You have the four lads from Madame Tussaud's waxwork.
They're all noticeably about the same height as indeed they were in life.
And then you have the resplendent Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club band.
And it was at this period when they began to wear mustaches, their hair long and so forth, to make it more difficult to determine that in fact This person who was now cast in the role of the fourth beetle was not actually Paul.
He was substantially taller.
There are other features we can discuss, but this is the reason why, and I think the date was 9-11, it was September 11, That their manager canceled their concerts in October, which would have been absurd had he still been alive.
He said, well, it's because they couldn't hear themselves play.
Well, they could hear themselves play in any session they wanted.
They don't go out and give live performances with a hundred thousand adoring fans because they want to hear themselves play.
So it was an absurd explanation, but they were acutely aware that, you know, Paul's
absence or that he was being replaced.
And exactly how rapidly this sequence took place of finding the right guy is not completely
clear.
But in December, we have the appearance for what appears to be the first time in photographs,
which Nick Kohlerstrom picked up upon, of the replacement who might take to have been
Billy Shears.
I mean, that's just my broad encompassing...
May I say something just for the moment?
Is that okay, Sterling?
Absolutely.
That story, Jim, has been around since 1969 when a student made it up.
He was trying to make a storyline.
It's not due to actually like the clue structure overall.
It's not due to the historical situation.
John was not in, he wasn't anywhere near there.
He was in Germany.
And in terms of the photographs, the reality is that Bill is already in film.
It wasn't available publicly, okay?
But Mal Evans is filming from late November.
Just to make it clear, when you say Mill, you mean William Shepard.
Yeah, okay, so I mean William Campbell, and so this gets into the name, but there was a William Shepard who was a producer, and he seems to have done mimicking in London early on.
Sorry, Liverpool.
He was doing spoofs or no, what are they called?
Spin-offs of Beatles songs to cash in.
I mean, before they were really famous, they were famous locally.
So that was William Sheer.
Covered.
Covered, yeah.
And using cover bands probably for the actual singing, it was called the Mercy Beat Sound
and they were playing off that.
So the William Shepard thing, you know, and the Shears, many people now think
that that was Billy's Shear, that it kind of sounds like Billy's Shear,
like Billy's Fear.
But again, he does shear us like sheep.
He has taken advantage of us like the walrus in and the carpenter in the Lewis Carroll
or Charles Dodgson books of Alice in Wonderland, who takes advantage of and eats the little oysters.
It's a big lie.
Um, the Beatles wouldn't have been able, as I said, again, this is a thing they wouldn't have been able to, wouldn't have been thinking of, or covering up, I mean, they would not be managing Secret Service level international diplomacy.
This kind of thing is far bigger and darker, and there are some hints about who Billy Campbell was,
but it's hints.
He seems to have maybe come from Scotland.
He uses the Campbell tartan.
He was reported in 69 as maybe being a Campbell, but he also says, I was Willie Campbell in one of his clues.
He loves the Campbells.
He's hanging out with the Campbells all the time.
So he's probably William Campbell, but one way or another he does like to use William or Bill in his clues.
Other people call him William when they're kind of off the record.
So yeah, William Campbell, Bill, Fall, Sir Paul, so that we can say it's not Paul who was not just a cutie pie, but he certainly was.
A cutie pie and really natural and really had natural feelings and natural responses to most things.
He wasn't a poser like Bill.
Yeah, so anyway.
It's early.
Ixnay on the rainy night day.
Claire, you know, look, look, look, you've done a huge amount of research.
You have your story.
Nothing personal, I was just saying.
I'm giving you my distillation, my take, okay?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I'm not trying to refute you, I'm telling you.
No, no, no, no, no, I was joking, I was joking.
Claire, don't get... No, not at all, no problem.
Claire, Claire, Claire, just relax.
Sterling, I want you to respond in any way you like to what Claire was laying out there.
Well, I agree with Claire that this guy named Wayne LaBoer was the guy who came up with that story.
He did it as an album review of the Abbey Road album.
I think it was in the Drake newspaper for Drake University or something.
It was some college newspaper.
Drake was first, then it was Fred LaBoer.
Drake was first, then it was Fred LaBoer later.
Yeah, and Labor made up, he admitted he made up the stuff, so he just thought it would be a kind of a spoof, like a college Harvard Lampoon type spoof.
Well, Sterling, Sterling, Sterling, I mean, you know, all this stuff about saying it was a spoof and made up, maybe it wasn't.
I mean, how do you know it was a spoof, even if someone later says it was a spoof?
You're right.
Claire, just wait a minute.
We got a story right now that's very authentic, in my opinion, about Hunter Biden.
We got a photograph of him by his bed.
Claire?
With a crackpike in his mouth, there's a whole lot of corruption involved with Hunter Biden.
I have no doubt this is, 99% of this is true.
We've got Facebook, Twitter and others, social media, they're claiming it's misinformation, disinformation, they're banning it.
They're doing their fact-checking and saying it's not...
So we know there are all these levels of denial and information.
I don't think that it's a straightforward matter to sort any of this out.
But, Tara, I was asking Sterling now, okay?
I want Sterling to have a chance here.
Go ahead, Sterling.
Oh, well, yeah, I agree that since the guy admitted this story was made up, that doesn't mean, you know,
it still could coincide with the truth or maybe he's lying.
But it's just the evidence for the detail.
You seem to be asking about the details of the accident or whether it was... I was just asking each of you for your take about how he died.
As a preliminary, you aren't going into all these other issues.
Well, a car accident seems to be it, but then... Sterling, you froze up.
Well, Sterling's getting unfroze, Claire.
Go ahead.
Well, yeah, I was just going to say that the evidence doesn't give us those kinds of details.
And that was from Fred Libor's story.
So that's all I think he's emphasizing, is that the actual evidence is more about the state of the body and having a car.
And of course, the monkeys broadcast.
That's key.
It's the wrong date for November, and it's the wrong date for the 11th.
So, yeah.
No, I mean, it could have been, but they weren't in the country.
They weren't in the country together.
Sterling, we hope you're going to catch back up with us.
It's almost certainly a bandwidth issue.
He's going to come back in, Claire.
That's all.
He's going to come back in.
It's just a matter of what evidence we have versus the story that sounds like a fleshed out story, but knowing where it came from and also not having it in the clue structure really.
You know, it's more likely that that part of it was a way to get it across, right?
That Fred Libour was trying to get it across.
But absolutely, Fred Libour does seem to have, you know, taken seriously, to some degree, the idea that Paul died.
Tell us about the difference between the The two musicians in your take, because it's my opinion that his replacement was an even better musician.
He was born as a right-hand guitar player, had learned to play left.
Paul was born a left-hand guitar player.
And he was, to my understanding, known as a man of a thousand voices, and he could, you know, imitate virtually anyone.
I believe that the memoirs of Billy Shears is fundamentally a work of fact, not a work of fiction, and that there are just a mountain of details about what he actually lived through in giving up his own original identity.
Just go ahead and pick up anywhere you want, Claire, until Sterling gets back, and then we'll give him a shot.
Sure.
Well, The Memoirs of Billy Shears, for people who don't know, was a book that came out in 2009 and then again, I believe, last year in a much more, much expanded version.
The basics of the case are the basics of the case.
So in that sense, it is More fact than fiction.
But it throws in all kinds of stuff that was floating around in forums.
It was just bad ideas, unsubstantiated ideas.
And it mostly pleads for loving Bill.
So, you know, the idea is, well, I was so hurt, I was so damaged by being a double, but I was really a Satanist involved in high-end Illuminati stuff, because that's also in it.
We've long suspected that.
Please love me, please love me.
You might like Paul, but that was just silly stuff.
That was just the early Beatlemania stuff.
When you actually look historically at Bill, he seems to be very angry that Paul actually was so wonderful.
Paul could play for minutes on end.
He wasn't even looking at his fretboard.
He was extremely melodic.
He wasn't showy.
He was loving.
Demonstrative.
Demonstrative isn't showy.
When you get to Bill, he sometimes hops around like a bunny rabbit, like literally is dorky.
He likes to pick his nose on the camera, and I don't mean just put his finger up.
He's done that, you know, to show.
He's kind of an ugly sort of person underneath his superficiality a lot of the time.
Doesn't mean he hasn't suffered.
He drank himself silly in the 70s when the Beatles broke up.
He, you know, obviously he suffered.
But as an operative, He's, you know, made a deal.
And, you know, what they did is they became a show art band rather than actually a musical band.
So their music became mishmash.
That's of course your opinion, Claire.
I think the music is marvelous.
Right, but you stated your opinion straight up.
I know what I said.
Now let me ask you this.
I'm stating my opinion straight up.
We're an art band.
You were telling me of your conviction that Paul had died and been replaced for, I don't know, a year and a half, two years.
Yeah.
Before.
I found a good reason to believe that he had died and been replaced, meaning I was looking for hard evidence that would show we're talking about two different people.
And it was two Italian forensic scientists who published an Italian version of Wired magazine, who set out to disprove the hypothesis, but wound up confirming it.
Because they found that among the other features, that Paul had bad teeth and a narrow palate.
Well, Paul had, and Paul is for fake or false Paul, if anyone is unaware.
Well, Paul had good teeth and a normal palate.
That Paul had a roundish face.
Very boyish.
Paul had a longer face and had much less of that youthful enthusiasm that just exuded from Paul from every pore.
And of course, we know separately that we have photographs of Paul with Jane Asher, to whom he was engaged, where they were approximately the same height.
We have other photographs, however, of Paul with Jane Asher, and he towers over her.
He's at least four inches taller.
So when we have persons who have different teeth, different palates, different heights, different shape of skull, we're clearly talking about two different people.
It was this that convinced me that there really had been a replacement of Paul.
And since, of course, I mean, I've done interviews with you and with Tina Foster and with Nick Kohlerstrom especially, who's been, in my opinion, very good about tracking the photographic record.
And by the way, just for the audience out here, I have done a piece about body doubles or replacements entitled False Fake News Issues of Identity you can find right here at Jim the Conspiracy Guy.
So if you go there you'll find I give you how we know Lee Oswald was actually in the doorway of the book depository when the motorcade passed by and therefore not only cannot have been the lone demanded gunman but cannot have been one of the shooters of whom There appear to have been eight.
I've identified six by the location, the shots they took, their name, rank, serial number.
Only Domagard is seventh, with which I agree.
We've now discovered there is an eighth by the single tree on the grass opposite the grassy knoll.
You wouldn't even think there's a location for a gunman there.
But I've seen two different photographs of the shooter holding his rifle.
One from Rick Russo, the other from another expert in JFK research, Ed Tetreault.
They're different photographs, but it's the same guy.
He's the only of all of these shooters whose identity we do not yet know.
But what's interesting here is each of them appears to represent one of the individuals or groups
who are sponsoring the assassination.
So one's a Dallas County Sheriff, one is a Dallas police officer,
another is an expert from the military, an Air Force expert,
another is Lyndon Johnson's personal hit man, another is an anti-Castro Cuban,
another is a representative of the Bromfield family, really basically an Israeli.
Yeah, the Bronfmans.
Story to a voice that goes on the world.
This guy by the tree might have represented the Fed, but I mean it's on that order is all I'm saying here now.
That's the very first case I talk about here.
Then I look at Noah Posner was alleged to have been the youngest child who died at Sandy Hook and show you how we explored the hypothesis that he actually was a photograph of the party that was supposed to be Noah's older stepbrother Michael when he was younger.
I asked Larry Rovira, who'd done brilliant work confirming that Lee Oswald was the man in the doorway by a superposition over the facial features of the figure in the doorway to confirm it.
And I sent him a photo of little Noah and a Michael Fabner without any context.
He didn't know anything to do with Sandy Hook and so forth.
And that's the third.
The second, and then the third is Paul Fall, where you can find a whole photographic record.
So if you want to see what I'm talking about, including the forensic evidence, unfortunately,
when we broadcast the way we're broadcasting, when I combine Zoom with Restream, if I use photos
or try to do a PowerPoint, it gets lost.
I've had this problem before.
So I'm just telling you where you can see all the photographic record.
And then I did, in addition, you'll find Hillary Clinton has used about eight body doubles, whereas she began using them after her collapse at the 9-11 memorial event.
They took her back to Chelsea's apartment.
Her crew were so concerned that the public might become anxious about her health that they sent out the first of a series of body doubles who was younger, thinner, more attractive, much more pleasant, you know, for sure.
Her ratings went up during that period.
Whom I refer as the Meg Ryan double because she looks no much like her.
And then on a flight to Charlotte, North Carolina, just a couple days later, they had a shorter, heavier, with a more sloped forehead.
I refer to it as the Meryl Streep double.
But believe it or not, even during the debates, that was not Hillary Clinton debating either Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump, but the best of the Hillary doubles, where they've invented a voice box that gives you a voice that is indistinguishable.
And just to add the kicker to show that the Democrats aren't done with this mode of deception, when Joe Biden, before Joe Biden came onto the stage to debate Donald Trump in the first, which may turn out to be the only presidential debate, we had received a series of reports.
First, that he already had all the questions.
Well, that happened with Hillary, too.
Donna Brazile, for example, was getting Hillary the questions in advance, and if she didn't get all the questions, she got very, very angry.
I mean, some of her outbursts were really stunning when she was asked a question she didn't know she was going to be asked.
We also had a report that Joe Biden had had an earpiece inserted into his skull that goes directly to his ears so he could receive transmissions from offstage without needing a wire.
But, and in some ways most intriguingly, we had a third report from a defecting staff member who reported That Biden's anti-dementia medication had the unfortunate side effect of inducing incontinence, so that then at staff meetings to debate what type of adult diaper Joe would be wearing that would be least visible and make the least crinkling sound when he urinated, leading me to observe that I believe he has a future after politics making commercials for the pens.
Now when the Biden team asked that there be breaks every 30 minutes, I mean this is only a 90-minute event, but they wanted a break every 30 minutes.
I knew that was the change's diaper.
So when they denied that, when the Trump team turned it down, they turned to A Joe Biden body double.
And let me tell you how we know it's a body double.
Joe Biden's ears, and ears are as distinctive as fingerprints, have a lobe.
In other words, you can see them curl in at the base.
The body double has ears that connect directly to the side of his face.
He does not have earlobes.
The body double is a slightly fainter version, sort of a slightly wispier or diminutive version of Joe Biden.
He has a thinner face.
Joe Biden has a smooth chin, but when he smiles there's a small dimple.
This guy has a major dimple, different.
This guy was wearing a wire.
This guy has brown eyes, Joe Biden has blue.
So if you start looking at the advertising now for the Democratic Party candidate, you're gonna find, even here, I got one right here, that's talking about how Biden ran 33 years ago, Biden ran 13 years ago, and now Biden now, and the Biden of 33 years ago and of 13 years ago has an earlobe.
But the Biden now doesn't.
I mean, this just shows you how far they're going with all of this.
So don't let yourself be played.
It's really fascinating stuff.
I mean, really fascinating stuff.
And again, you know, the voice box enables you to have the voice.
And when you hear the voice, and the voice is the same voice, you're inclined to believe it was the same person.
Now with Paul and Fall, of course, it's rather different because they don't look that much alike once you do comparisons of the kind that the Italian forensic scientists undertook.
And I just say, just review what I have there, right there on Jim the Conspiracy Guy.
You got, what, about 44 stories are up there, shows are up there.
There are at least four more that will be added shortly.
But I think it's like show number 36 or something.
You'll find fake news issues of identity just to see all of this, all of this, these photographic comparisons we're talking about.
Claire, I think you agree with me on all those photographic points I've been making, do you not?
Yeah, I mean, I would tend to disagree about Biden, but I really agree that we have a problem in the world where Where deceptions are run and it's supposedly crazy to ask.
Now with Paul and Fall, Paul and Bill, the issue is that some of the photographs are absolutely impossible.
It's not a slight difference or a possible little lighting difference on an ear or Or anything like that.
We're talking something that's completely radically different, even given lighting and camera.
So in other words, every person, and I guess I should say this for when Sterling is here repeated, every person has a range of looks.
Every person has surprising looks that happen under certain circumstances.
But Paul and Falls diverge.
So in other words, you don't get the kinds of weird looks for Paul as you do for Falls.
So they don't come together even in their In their outrageous examples, they're not convergent.
They're divergent.
But you mentioned something I'm trying to remember.
It was a while back.
Oh, I see, Sterling.
I wasn't looking.
I'm sorry.
I'll bring you in.
Sterling's waiting to rejoin us.
Here he comes.
Thank you.
Okay, well the only thing I'll say is just about how I actually came on your show in 2012 and did tell you about the Wired Magazine article.
Hi Sterling!
I'm glad to have you back Sterling.
I'm glad to be back.
I'm sorry I didn't see you knocking on the door.
Oh yeah, you can't keep a good man down.
I just have one question for Claire and then I want to give you... I don't know, have you been able to hear what we've been saying?
No, no.
No, no, no.
Okay, okay.
Well I was going over the Photographic abnormalities about the Italian forensic scientist who set off to disprove the hypothesis and wound up confirming it.
But I was pointing out that I have a piece called Fake News Issues of Identity where I go through how we know Lee Oswald was in the doorway of the Book Depository when the motorcade passed by.
How we know that the children at Sandy Hook were fake by using photographs of older children when they were younger.
How we know that Hillary's body doubles galore, even during the debates with Bernie Sanders and with Donald Trump.
And I was adding, too, that even Joe Biden, the guy who debated Donald Trump, was not actually Joe Biden, who has earlobes.
His ears turn up, so he has distinct lobes.
The guy has ears that connect straight into the side of his head.
that he has a slightly narrower skull, that he's a bit of a diminutive version of Biden.
He has brown eyes, Biden has blue.
He had to wear a wire, but Joe already has a skull implant, so he doesn't need a wire.
He also ties his tie differently.
Biden ties it with a double windsor, this guy with a single.
And I was pointing out that even in literature right now, I mean, this comes from the Republicans, but they got a
photograph of Biden running for president 33 years ago, and you can see the earlobe.
There's a photograph of Biden running 13 years ago, you can see the earlobe.
And then you got the Biden running now, and he no longer has an earlobe.
And Claire was saying, well, she could agree with most of what I was explaining.
She was disagreeing about Biden.
So my question was, have you even looked at the evidence, Claire?
Well, I was about to say when Sterling came back, I mean, I will go and look at the evidence.
I'm just saying my personal take was not that, although I saw the Hillary situation and so on.
So, you know, I'm willing to look at anything.
And then I was moving to the fact that you suggested that when I first came to you and told you about this for a year and a half, that I didn't mention the Wired Magazine article.
I did, but there was so much for you to absorb.
It took you yet another, you know, eight months or so to I feel you had discovered that.
But yeah, no, I knew about that in 2010 when I first talked to you.
Yeah, but for some reason you were discounting it.
If you had brought that up to me in the beginning, I would have been immediately hooked on the issue.
And frankly, you weren't paying attention when Biden came out, so of course it wouldn't occur.
He's a pretty good double, unlike many Hillary's which were not very good doubles.
But Sterling, I want to invite you back in.
We've been missing you, our friend, so go ahead.
Thank you, thank you.
Give us some further thoughts and reflections on these issues.
May I take a two-minute break?
Sure, go ahead.
While he just begins?
Okay, I'll be back.
You don't have to flip your camera on, just take a break.
Okay.
Okay, well, the ear evidence, when I first heard about it, there's ear evidence for Paul McCartney, too.
Yes.
Paul being the only person I've ever heard of who's worn a fake earpiece.
Yeah, I'll say.
Drives the ladies wild, I understand.
They can nibble your ear and Get extra flavor and texture.
But I didn't take it seriously at first, but then I read about Ho Chi Minh.
That's part of my book, Chapter 4.
And the CIA and the OSS before that used to use the ears to identify a lot of Asians because the hair color and the eye color was so similar from one Asian to another that they had to glom on to something else.
And so they started to pay more and more attention So it actually came out, there's a book in 1968, I can't remember the title but I have it, and it actually documents how the OSS and the CIA took the ear evidence very very seriously, that that's how they would identify the people they wanted to keep track of or assassinate or whatever.
So yeah, you gotta pay attention to that sort of thing.
It sounds a little absurd at first.
But anyway, where were we when we left off?
The proof that there are two different persons is, in my opinion, conclusive.
And I'm interested, I asked Claire, she seems to think that James McCartney, the original Paul, was a better musician than Fall.
My opinion is the opposite.
I mean, I love all the Beatles music.
They're my favorite band.
I had a show for I don't know how many years where I began with Day Tripper.
I mean, in my breaks, I had Beatles, you know, four times during the show for two hour shows.
And I mean, I did that for For at least a year and a half.
I have a tribute to the Beatles where I play my selection of the 20 best songs they ever wrote.
Sounds like a great show.
I'll send it to you, Sterling.
Yeah, please do.
Tell me your assessment of the relative merits of the musicians now, of Paul Fallon's musicians.
Yeah, it's kind of complicated, although, yeah, I think Claire is wrong to say that there's a noticeable drop-off in quality.
And some people try to argue that, well, sure, they maintain quality there, but that's because they were using the songs and maybe some of the original recordings by the original Paul, and they just gave, you know, they didn't change the credit when they had the replacement coming, because they didn't Acknowledge that he was a replacement.
So you had some songs left there.
Usually artists who die suddenly like that, they've got a backlog of songs they haven't gotten around to recording yet or something.
So the songwriting quality didn't drop off.
But then, you know, it went on for years.
You know, 66 to 1970 is, you know, four solid years of... and they were cranking out an album or two a year with the singles that they Put out separately.
So I don't, I don't agree with Claire on that, and you can get into different styles, but you know, around that time, a lot of bands changed style.
It was the psychedelic era.
There's some psychedelic elements on Revolver, when the original Paul was still around, but they had a big change, and you know, much more color, and you know, the imagery was much more psychedelic, starting with Sgt.
Pepper, and even with Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields Forever, which are after The Paul death dates too.
So I don't believe Claire's right about the drop-off in quality.
Now you could say John really picked it up, but I don't think that really bears out.
She thinks that because John, who was going through a lot, he was hooked on heroin, he had his divorce, he had to hook up with Yoko Ono, I don't wish that upon you, Jim, hooking up with Yoko Ono.
I think that right there might be enough to throw you off your game.
You're a happily married man.
I'm not a big fan of Yoko either, though.
I didn't think so.
But I think just getting together with Yoko might be enough to throw you off your game.
But, you know, going through a divorce with Cynthia, there started to be more financial pressures, they didn't, they stopped touring.
So, and Claire likes to make a big deal out of the moods that John was in, but I don't think you can really use that as evidence to time the death of Paul, or as evidence for the death of Paul, because that guy could have been depressed, not from the death of Paul, but from his divorce, from You know, maybe there were, as you say, there was an argument supposedly at that recording session for the, it would have been 66, so it would have been Revolver-ish session, maybe right after Revolver for Strawberry Feels Forever, Penny Lane, something in that range there.
That was the first one where they had... My opinion, Sterling, just to interject, is that They became far more experimental and diverse in their music after Paul's demise and replacement.
Right.
I think that Fall took them in a whole new direction that they would never have explored otherwise, and that it was a great thing.
I mean, I think it actually recreated the band, as it were, and made them much more powerful, in my opinion.
I mean, that's not to diminish the early Beatle achievements.
I loved all those early songs.
They did have, you know, very common themes, love me do, and you know.
All the high school romance, child romance type thing, you know.
Which was all wonderful stuff, but I think that they became much more formidable force and their music took on a greater complexity.
I was surprised when Claire was claiming she thought these earliest pieces were highly complex.
I think not really compared to later, but that's... No, in fact, the reviewers, the musical experts said that Sgt.
Pepper was More complex with Aeolian cadences of she's leaving home and the Beatles were laughing like we don't know what an Aeolian cadence is for crying out loud.
And a lot of that came from George Martin, I'm sure, too, because he was arranging a lot of their stuff.
They would, they would hum things or play things on the guitar, and then he would, he would, they didn't read or write music, so George Martin would have to actually write it down, and then when they started to have orchestras play on their stuff, like a day in the life, you know, he had to write all that up, so I'm sure he had major input.
And then you look at the late original Paul work, Yesterday from 65, and For No One, and Here, There, and Everywhere from 66 Revolver.
Those are very traditional type songs.
And then Paul came up with Yellow Submarine, too, actually.
That's like a child's song, like a novelty song.
So he's not really doing experimental psychedelic stuff, although I understand he did videos like that.
He was in that scene.
But he wasn't into drugs as much as the others and so and he's not the one who had his punch spiked or coffee spiked by Dr. Robert.
That was George and Paul.
I mean George and the John.
But Paul was kind of pressured into taking LSD and then when he was interviewed about it, it was It was the replacement, Paul, said he took it four times.
So yeah, he might have been the one taking him in that direction, but you can see from John in songs like She Says, She Said, where they're talking about death, and I Know What It's Like to Be Dead, and it was originally called The Void, Tomorrow Never Knows.
Great drumming on that song, by the way, and kudos to Ringo.
So Tomorrow Never Knows is very psychedelic by John.
So I think John would have led him in that direction because he was so experimental anyway.
But you're right, the replacement Paul might have accelerated that movement.
And of course, psychedelic with Penny Lane and psychedelic with Strawberry Fields forever.
Well, there's all kinds of wonderful stuff there.
Lucy in the sky with diamonds and on and on.
But look, Sterling, I've been very curious whether your book, which has the theme that the evidence that Paul died and was replaced is stronger And the evidence that it did not occur, but you imply it's only a matter of degree, because where I see it as categorical, two different men can't have two different heights, two different shapes and sizes, skulls, different ears, different teeth, different palates.
I'm just surprised.
Was that a literary decision?
Or are you making that claim as a matter of logic?
Because I just say, look, it's cut and dried.
They're two different individuals.
Well, there are two different things.
One is replacement.
I think there's really strong evidence for replacement.
A lot of Hollywood people have replacement.
Imagine the demands on them to sign autographs and meet.
John Lennon complained bitterly about this, and Lennon remembers that every town they would go to, they'd have to meet the mayor, the mayor's wife, and the mayor's snotty kids.
It just took so much time.
So it makes sense for them to have a double just to do signing all the stuff so that they could actually go out and enjoy themselves instead of meeting with all these strangers.
And they had nothing to say.
Lennon said all they would do is come up to you and say well I have your record and you'd say oh well that's good.
So you know it's just meaningless conversations.
So I do think there were probably all sorts of replacements running around But I'm still, there's a sticking point on the death, because if he died, there's insurance money, because by 1966, and we're talking late 66, September to November, they knew that Paul was extraordinarily valuable.
He had written many hits, he was the Most handsome Beatle.
He was still single.
He was a very marketable quantity, you know, pop star.
So they would have had him insured for probably millions.
And then if he dies in an accident, you know, there's a lot of financial incentive to go ahead and declare him dead, but they didn't.
So the question is, what would motivate that?
And, you know, now if he didn't die, if he just had a nervous breakdown like Sid Barrett of Pink Floyd, or he took some drugs and went off the deep end...
Or he had this bad ticker and and he got roughed up in Manila and he got the death threats from the Klan.
They have that on tape.
Sterling.
The Klan threatening him.
You know if he just retired and he collected his money but he was still working behind the scenes that would explain why the quality didn't drop off because he's still operating behind the scenes.
Or if he didn't die In the car accident, he was just horribly disfigured and was too vain to show his face anymore.
He could still work from behind the scenes.
Sterling... So I can't rule that out.
I can't rule that out.
Well, you can't, but I can.
I think that's such a stretch.
It has, you know, the improbability is just great.
Then why didn't they claim the insurance money?
Because it was billions, but the band was billions!
Once you kill off a founding member of the band, you no longer have the Beatles.
Their fans are going to be distraught.
You have no idea whether you're going to have continuity.
You want to preserve the band.
You don't know for sure, but the Rolling Stones lost Brian Jones in the swimming pool accident or misadventure, and they went on to make more money after Brian Jones.
And he was a genius, too, Brian Jones.
So it can happen.
You don't know, and you're also risking criminal liability when these guys are living very nice lives.
Claire might come into play here because she thinks it's some master cabal by military intelligence.
I don't know why they would take such a fascination with a pop group, but there's some people I've heard argue that they wanted the Beatles to promote drugs.
So they could sell more drugs.
They were in Vietnam, in the Golden Triangle, and they had to get all that heroin and get all that marijuana and bring it over and sell it.
And it's sort of like the Contras, you know, the CIA and the Contras, they would sell Drugs to fund the Contras.
So I think that's where she's coming from.
And I think that's a more complicated explanation.
I don't know that I can go there yet.
But I just don't know why they wouldn't take the money.
There are very good replacements available.
Eric Clapton would play with anybody who paid him enough money, man.
And that guy is a primo guitarist.
He's much better than George Harrison.
And Steve Wynwood was out there.
He knew Clapton.
They could have hired Steve Wynwood and Eric Clapton to replace Paul.
And they would have been just fine.
And they're English too.
So Claire, I was telling them about your Tavistock military intelligence theory.
Did they want the Beatles to sell drugs so that the CIA could sell drugs to America's youth?
Was that what was going on or what?
Why would they want Paul dead and the Beatles under their wing?
Hi, sorry, I had to take a break.
Oh, absolutely.
Bio break.
Welcome to the bio break.
Happens to the best of us.
I hadn't eaten right and I really, yeah, I just had to have something, just a little munch of something.
You know, Conrad Lorenz, the philosopher, said life boils down to four things.
Feeding, fleeing, fighting, and fornication.
So, but he left out feces and farting.
He won the Nobel Prize.
That was his theory that won him the Nobel Prize.
We've all heard of the four F's, Sterling.
Well, leave out the fifth one, feces and farting.
We're going to have that, too.
Those are just peripheral effects.
They aren't central.
Well, OK.
But so, Clare, are you into this Tavistock military intelligence?
They wanted to use the Beatles to sell drugs to the young generation.
Yeah, lay it on us, Clare.
Lay it on us.
What is that all about?
Well, basically, I was on a man named Dino Costa, who is now going by Patrick Dino Ryan.
I was on his show recently.
He's seen as a maverick, right-wing, you know, supposedly nasty.
He's not a nasty person, though.
I was on his show recently and, you know, he got that the Beatles would never have been the same, nor would have been accepted.
I mean, they would have been loved, you know, for the sadness, but if they had admitted that Paul died, it simply was not the case that this band would go on.
What happened, what I was saying about it became an art band later, is that to the degree that You can remake something that was perfect.
They did.
But no, I mean the Beatles were the Beatles and it was very much like for them personally but also the people they knew them and also the public.
So I really disagree and I agree with Dino that this would just never have flown like as a band.
I think that John would have been just devastated.
He was devastated, but he would have been more openly devastated, would have gotten out.
So in terms of the Tavistock thing, a lot of people, they point it to one organization.
So say Tavistock, you could say the CIA or MI5, you could say Vatican Intelligence, you
could say any number of these sorts of groups, organizations that Tavistock is a sort of
psychology group.
It also kind of like some elements in the UN.
Again, people toss these terms around, you know, the UN is running things.
Yeah, some in it have agendas, but not all of the people are all the time, right?
So, We have to think of think tanks.
Tavistock is kind of a think tank.
It is a psychiatrist.
It's linked to MKUltra-ish stuff.
But it's also a psychology group.
So, you know, It's in England, and it's still around.
Yeah, sure, sure, and so is MKUltra, but not by that name.
So the point is, you know, all of that being true, we can get into the ballpark of the kind of problems.
So instead of saying, like, it was Tavistock, what it would have been was a whole consortium, just as Jim was describing earlier, about I'm not sure if you were there for that, about the shooters and the different persons who were happy to engage and their side was present to witness and participate in, at the time, for Jack Kennedy's death, the biggest operation going on kind of in the public sphere.
And so I think that there was probably that sort of thing for Paul, but the actual death Looks like it was more of an ambush from the clues because it looks like a scenario that could be made to seem to the Beatles and their circle as an accident.
But which, as I say, doesn't have all of the imprints of an accident.
Why would they be interested in the Beatles?
Why would they take the number one pop band?
What were they trying to do with it?
Sell drugs?
You know, change fashion?
Make money through the Beatles somehow?
And then Paul wouldn't play along and they killed him because he wouldn't play along?
Or what happened?
What's the story?
Well, that is one line where, if you've read Dave McGowan's book, Laurel Canyon, about the military-industrial interference in our spiritual-emotional life.
You see, the thing about all of this is that there's a spiritual element.
And the spirit, or shall we say even just creational world spirit, if you don't believe in the transcendent of spirit, the spiritual element in both of those senses is disrupted.
On a global level, when you harm a leader who's doing good things.
You don't just stop what they were doing.
You also stop a momentum among the public.
Let's say question asking or thrill.
I mean, the Beatles just had thrill stuff.
So, and loving.
I mean, even when they were down, they were singing it with love to their audience.
It was a real in engaging perfection of relation to the audience there.
So anyway, Paul was hanging out with Mark Lane earlier that year, possibly also in late 65.
And Mark Lane, of course, Jim Fetzer knows how important he was to the Kennedy exposure, both for Yeah, thumbs up to Mark.
He was a brilliant lawyer in Washington, but he also was engaged for services to supposedly represent Oswald Lee, and Lee was never told that he had any representatives interested in him, and then he was murdered as part of that cover-up.
So, Mark Lane was writing a book that year.
He had finished his draft.
He had sent them off to the copy writers and it came out in August 1966 when the Beatles were still on tour in their last concert series in the USA.
But Paul had contacted Mark Lane, they'd met at a party.
Mark Lane's CIA handler and Mark Lane talks about that.
He says he realized later this guy wasn't really trying to help him edit his book.
He was really trying to interfere.
And that guy was at the party too.
So Paul called Mark Lane.
According to Mark Lane, we have this in an early source in 1968.
We also have it in a later source.
Mark Lane repeats it in 2008 or 12 when he wrote his autobiography.
He also talked about it on Jim Fetzer's show years ago in about 2009 or 2011 or something
before he died.
So anyway Mark Lane of course he had got his book out but before that Paul had read the proof and Mark was loathe to part with his incredible manuscript because he had hand-typed it and it was all perfect.
He was a perfectionist.
And Paul returned it and talked to him for hours on the phone and according to Mark said that he wanted to do something bigger or shall we say not bigger than the Beatles.
The Beatles were wonderful but in a way Paul was a kind of a humble guy in certain ways.
Very natural and he wanted to do something else in case he ever had children he wanted to say he had helped.
So he would have seen himself more like I'm in England I can do something about this cover-up.
I can do something because I'm over here in England with all of these connections and all this power structure.
But of course, those very connections and power structure would want him dead worldwide if he were to formally expose, lend that support to an expose of the Kennedy assassination.
So in a way, Paul's death is another casualty of the Kennedy assassination.
But there was more to it because Paul had said he would help with the film And the film, of course, did start filming that fall in Dallas, and it became really the earliest single and most extensive set of interviews with Dallas witnesses, which has a big cachet with the public to get to see the people, to see they're not crazy, they're just Dallas people, and Mark Lane was going to work on that movie.
So all of that is a very short precursor within about eight months, possibly 12 months, maybe six to eight months, with Mark Lane.
Now there's also this whole thing of if people were chomping at the bit to take over the Beatles band for control into the USA, for stopping the Beatles from questioning things, from, you know, get the love Turned into more arty so that it's more controllable.
Break it emotionally, which breaks it spiritually.
Then there is that element that Bill promoted LSD.
He was part of the early attempts to get big LSD concerts going.
The first one was in Altamont in 1967.
1969.
No, sorry, I didn't mean Altamont.
I didn't mean Altamont.
I meant it was the first.
Monterey?
Yeah, Monterey Pop Festival.
So, he was more of a, you could see him as a, you know, an agent.
He's an agent.
Now, whether he was a 9 to 5 agent, or he just functions that way, he's that sort of spy in the middle of the mix, okay?
So, he promotes that stuff.
He's into Satanism.
He's into Crowleyism, not only by his own admissions, but by... Could have been Woodstock you had in mind.
Was it Woodstock you had in mind?
No, I was thinking Monterey.
He was involved right from the very first year Bill was in.
He was a sponsor of the Monterey Pop Festival.
Now, you can make it all innocent.
Yeah, but more than that, you know, he was interviewed about LSD.
Everyone at the time was unwilling to talk or promote drugs, even John.
I mean, he'd been taking uppers and downers and stuff, but in 67, Well, actually, just before 67, John got hooked on heroin and on LSD, part of his depression from Paul's dying, as this case would say.
But it was promoted to them.
And so you have the murder options, which make perfect sense about why he would immediately have to be killed, be taken out.
But then all these other agendas are also wanting chomping at the bit.
Isn't the military one a much grander, bigger conspiracy?
Don't you run into trouble with Occam's Razor or something there?
No, actually.
It's not the simplest explanation, you know.
Yeah, well, it's not, you know, see, again, see, Occam's razor isn't just the simpler, it's not positing things that are unnecessary to your discussion.
So if something is an informed common sense, you have evidence towards it, then those options are perfectly thinkable to Make it work to show that there are other options.
So for instance, you can refer to another case, you can say that psychology works this way, you can bring in forensics.
So in other words, it can be quite complex, but if it requires the complexity, which is the simplest complexity to make it happen and fit all the evidence.
Evidence is always partial, right?
You're not going to get every molecule from every event.
You're going to get pieces of it.
Uh-huh.
Can I give three examples just to make a bridge to the audience here?
If they're wondering, well why on earth would you think that the military was involved with a bunch of pop groups?
It turns out that Jim Morrison, lead singer and writer of The Doors, his father was an admiral during the Vietnam War era and was You know, in charge of a lot of the operations in that area.
And then, of course, Jimi Hendrix was an Army paratrooper and Elvis was drafted into the Army, so they seem to have wanted to disrupt The pop culture scene in various ways, or have they had their hooks into some of the leading characters?
I mean, Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison and Elvis, it doesn't get too much more top-notch than that.
Paul McCartney, throw him into the mix.
But if they want to get their hooks into pop music, Those are four of the main guys, and there may be others we don't know about who have connections to the military-industrial complex.
So it's not as if it's, you know, McGowan's onto all this stuff and wrote a great book about it.
He had an untimely death some people found suspicious, and there are a lot of suspicious deaths around JFK, over a hundred of them.
That guy Richard Belzer, the comedian, he worked together with another guy and put out a book called, I think, The Hit List or something.
And he documents over a hundred mysterious deaths and that guy Robert Grodin in his book The Killing of a President, he has about 60 or 70 mysterious deaths in there too.
So this may have been the way they would operate is they'd get their hooks in you and then if you didn't play ball with them They would just go ahead and kill you or kill somebody near you to intimidate you and get you to come around to their way of thinking.
But Paul must have played along because by 66, September or November of 66, the Beatles were already a fantastic success, number one.
So he must have played ball with them.
They wouldn't have let him go that far if he hadn't been playing ball with them.
But then things started to turn, you know, explicitly into drugs.
And so some people I've heard think that They were pressured into getting into drugs more and maybe even, you know, and they had reasons to be depressed anyway.
There's a divorce and then a new relationship with an avant-garde artist who might have had her own ups and downs emotionally.
A lot of artists do.
And so maybe John was depressed because of that, but he could have been depressed because of an accident or a murder.
Paul too, it's hard to say.
And it could be just the effect of the drugs.
You know, taking heroin or LSD, you know, who knows what the effect is going to have on you.
Sid Barrett had total burnout and there have been other people who certainly have burned out on drugs too.
So it's not totally outlandish McGowan's thesis that the Tavistock Or military industrial complex had their hooks in the Beatles and other groups, but an EMI actually used to do some work for the military, the British military.
Some of their recordings were done for the military.
They had a branch of EMI that worked with the military.
So it's not as far-fetched as it may seem initially for the audiences.
I know you don't think it's far-fetched, Claire.
I don't know what Jim thinks about this military-industrial complex.
Oh, yeah, go ahead, Claire.
I didn't mean to cut you off.
I don't know where Jim is.
I can't see more than one person on my screen on the phone, so... Oh, I see both of you.
Okay, okay.
Try gallery.
Do you see gallery?
No, it's not my phone.
It's fine.
It's fine.
I just wanted to say Jim Morrison's father was the admiral on the bridge, the knight of the false flag.
That officially brought the U.S.
into the Vietnam War, so that is a very high connection.
David Cowan's death was by cancer, which we know can be induced.
Jack Ruby, baby!
Yeah, and a lot of other people.
Jack Ruby died in 1967.
But yeah, weeks before his retrial and he got it just after he got the approval for the retrial and he said he was basically given it.
But the point I was going to make about Dave McGowan was it looks like they, whoever, they, people finished him off because I mean he probably got the cancer from inducement But also, he died on Kennedy's death date, November 22nd.
Oh, really?
Wow.
Yeah, so it wasn't exactly the same time, but probably somebody just, you know... The thing is, you have to think symbolically.
You have to think satanic sacrifice element.
You have to think numeric gangland stuff.
And by the way, the hooking on to 9-11, which has about the date for Paul's death, which doesn't work with the history, The reason that that occurred I explained regarding the date clue and the early disinformation, but it also is not necessary to say that 9-11, we've got that hooked in our brains since 2001.
9 and 11 can be mystical numbers, but so is 13 and it's witchy.
So what you have is the satanic witchy element, the 13 and the midnight.
So I think that that's more where the Paul date goes.
But yes, the military, I mean, again, we're not putting down all people in the military or the CIA or whatever, but I would say that I would be the kind of person that wouldn't want to go into them.
Because you are under security oaths, you are going to see things that you think are bad for the country, you are having to think that your company of soldiers or CIA members or FBI members, that they are beyond or can fudge the law and what happens here stays here, you know, what happens in the CIA stays in the CIA, that kind of thing.
So the idea of positing these things, it doesn't go against Ockham's Razor because all of the material supports are there to do it.
So it's like saying, I can't have an egg because there's no such thing as a chicken.
Well, if there's a chicken, certainly possible you might have an egg.
It becomes far less stupid to posit that there would be this thing called an edited egg.
If you have the evidence, this doesn't violate Ockham's Razor.
If you have something unexplained that you need to explain with that, It doesn't violate Occam's Razor, but it is a bigger, grander theory, so people kind of make that question.
Yeah, they love to do that.
Anyway, what does Jim think about all this military stuff?
You were in the military.
My daughter, by the way, is on active duty.
She's a corpsman on active duty at Walter Reed.
Well, I've not been much drawn toward it, Sterling.
And so I'm not running down the military either.
My father was in the US Army during the Korean War, and my daughter is on active duty right this moment
as a corpsman and hospital man at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.
But Jim, what do you think about this military thing?
Well, I've not been much drawn toward it, Sterling.
I've just not seen evidence compelling me in that direction.
But on the other hand, I'm willing to concede that you and Claire have investigated aspects
of Paul McCartney's death, with which I'm unfamiliar.
Let me say, this has been an utterly fascinating exchange with, you know, the two of you in particular having very interesting and different takes on aspects of this.
I want to give each of you the opportunity for a closing statement, as it were, Claire, you go first.
Take five to seven minutes.
Okay, well, we were going to actually discuss Sterling's book.
So what I wanted to say was regarding the book, and again, this is not personal.
But for me, critical thinking ought to be used to explain not only being able to present objections as one goes, but actually build up a case and fully understand it.
And to try out people who claim that they can see a whole case or part of a case.
For instance, if I had been writing the book on Kennedy's death, I would have immediately gone to Jim and actually learned his way Before I would, not before, I don't mean with no questions in my mind as I'm going through, but I would have apprenticed myself.
I would have learned it first.
Even if it was totally wrong, I would learn what the claims are that people are making and why they make them fully and really try to think them through.
What I saw in the book was less evidence of that.
So, for instance, you open with a little sort of, I found it fairly fuzzy, wishy-washy statements.
Then you went through a whole bunch of clues.
Most of what you say about different clues do not have a full-on PID explanation for them.
You're mostly giving caveats.
I'm fine with caveats.
I'm often criticized for giving too many caveats.
I'm talking about being able to do that, fully understand the case.
And then, at the end, you said, Now, this is of your first chapter, which is really a book in itself.
It's a book or volume within a physical book.
So chapter one is the book we're discussing.
I mean, that's really kind of, if we could change, equivocate the term.
So at the end of that, Book inside the physical volume.
You know, you say it's like 51%, you know, I think he died, but because of all these clues, but, you know, and I found that the facility with the case evidence wasn't there.
I also then there's an appendix at the end of the other chapters which are almost individual long essays or books or whatever you want to call them segments.
There is a super recognizer which is for the audience doesn't know there are there are people who are calling This was a, you know, an academic who said this, that people who have a greater ability to recognize something, we're going to call them super recognizers.
So there can be super audio recognizers, super visual recognizers, a dog is a super nasal recognizer.
In other words, that you have a tendency to be able to do certain tasks more often, more correctly, under more circumstances.
Okay, so this person that you seem to have paid to do it, who claims that she's been through some kind of, I guess, testing or works with the police, that she, first of all, I know this from Interchange with You, was not given key pieces of evidence that show the differences more Extremely, which is very important to do.
Now, we can call that a prejudicing.
Look, when I look at something, I try to stay with it as long as possible.
I listen to all the weird videos, all the weird stuff, all the official stuff.
I get a sense of what everybody's saying.
That's important to get just what's out there, even if it's weird.
And then I get familiar with what are those key balance points, and then I really think it through more and put it forward.
So I think that a super recognizer needs to have I'm happy to credit you.
pieces of evidence given.
And for which if you ever do it again, I would be perfectly willing to suggest some.
You don't even have to credit me.
I'm not into credit.
It's not the point.
I just don't think credit anyway.
I'd be happy to credit you.
That's not an issue.
Well, whatever.
I mean, my point is it's not from ego that I'm saying that.
I'm saying with great familiarity, there are ones I would choose to make them more aware
just in their super recognizability, which is like giving a dog a better sample
or giving a physical instrument a better sample.
It doesn't mean that when samples are admixed, there's no pork chop in with the egg for the dog to smell.
But it is far less, yeah, it's far less differentiable, even to a SERPA recognizer.
Even if they are trying to be.
And I know this because I've worked with this case for a while and I spent most of my childhood looking at and thinking about drawings.
So I would sit there and say, how, why did this Rembrandt drawing, like, how did it convey a tree?
What is it not only about sizing and so on, which is what the forensic scientists in Italian did, is like, what are the measurements on this photo?
But also considering photo doctoring, which they did not.
So I'm very familiar with the broad-based, but also the key divergent, we could call them looks, and they're not measurable because they're not always exactly the same angle, but there's an exaggeration under certain lighting conditions or so on, of features.
So what I will say is this, is that I found it wishy-washy, not because it did not present any evidence that PID uses, and not because it said any objections from PIA, which is Paul is Alive, but rather because not being absolutely grounded in both sides.
One doesn't know the intense objections and one would not tend to give a super recognizer those aspects that were given and then which she chose.
So seven out of nine that she chose were Paul.
Two were Bill at his best and far away and during a concert and so on.
So what we have is it's not where the It's not where the very best examples are.
And just a final point to the audience, you will find lots of photos that would confuse you.
In other words, I say this as someone who knows there is Bill and knows there is Paul.
Bill was very good right around 1968.
They got it kind of perfect, as perfect as they're going to get.
They also doctored a lot of photos.
Sometimes his differences show up quite a bit, A lot of times they don't.
So it's not about whether they are somewhat similar, ever, or the same because of doctoring, but rather are there divergences and do they show the kind of divergence that is not natural, period.
And that's what you pull out of the sample to calibrate your mental instrument.
Right?
So that's what I would say about it.
I mean, I'm glad that you felt that you wanted to contribute.
I just felt it was premature.
But I am happy to speak to you.
And I did enjoy being here.
And I'm sorry I took that, whatever it was, 10 minutes.
I'm sorry.
I didn't mean to be rude.
That's okay.
Sterling, you get the last word, my friend.
Okay, let's hope I don't get knocked off again by the military-industrial complex.
Well, what you're calling wishy-washy, I call nuanced and sophisticated.
So I rely on these Italian pathologists who see the physical differences And I say, the problem is that you need to have replication.
And to my knowledge, nobody has replicated their studies in the same kind of detail that they did.
So that's why I'm a little more nuanced about it.
If another study comes out that confirms all their findings, then I think, you know, I'm being much bolder.
And what I do in the book that's never been done before, apparently, is I have 166 clues with, you know, some discussion, like a paragraph for each one.
Sometimes they're mentioned in other books, and you got to pull them all together, but I did that for the reader.
And the other novel thing that I do in the book is that I have the super recognizer, as you point out, and I don't have control over her.
I just paid her her fee, and she has law enforcement experience.
And she says in the analysis, in the appendix of my book, it ends my book, That it's not science, but it is scientifically based in some sense, because these super recognizers take tests to see if they have an ability to recognize faces.
And you can take the test, too.
Some of them are online.
And if you score high enough, maybe you can sell your services.
As a super recognizer to law enforcement and they go through, you know, like videos in London.
They have all these video cameras up and they can spot terrorists because they're going through the feed of it.
And so there's a practical use for it.
So it's not just fooling around in art school or something.
This is like practical real-world ability that these people have.
I did give them a close-up.
To me, one of the strongest pieces, this is why it's also nuanced and sophisticated instead of gung-ho for Paul is Dead, is that I was first taken seriously with Paul is Dead when I saw that Fool on the Hill segment from Magical Mystery Tour film that was broadcast on December 24th, 1967, and it clearly showed by zooming in the close-ups of his eyes and then zooming back out again that the replacement Paul had light green eyes, and everybody knows that Paul had brown eyes.
You look at all the newspaper accounts and his bubble gum, Cars say he has brown eyes, chocolate brown eyes, and you can't change your eye color.
And it was before you had colored contact lenses.
That came in about 1978.
This is 1967.
But then I remembered I had an album from 1964 that said what the Beatles eye colors were, at least some of them.
It's called The Beatles Story.
It's a two LP set.
Mainly spoken word, but it's got a few musical elements in it.
And I listened to the Paul McCartney part, and what did they say his eye color was from 1964?
Hazel!
And it turns out if you look up what hazel eyes means, it means it can take on different colors, everything from brown to green.
So that really weakened the case a little bit.
There was a physical thing that I was going to rely on and be gung-ho about, but I had to be more nuanced and sophisticated about it.
And then when the super analyzer came in and said she saw that it was the same person in all these photos, I had to kind of be more chastened than I would otherwise.
But still, there's a lot of evidence that he was replaced.
A lot of evidence.
May I have one one minute just to say a couple of quick points in succession?
I'm not not to go on and take over Can I just have one minute?
Yeah, but we're closing, Clara.
You may say a few more words.
So the very best time when the green eyes are shown absolutely clearly and in proper lighting is during the Strawberry Fields Forever video when they deliberately showed it.
All others have been somewhat browned out.
Hazel can mean greenish, brownish.
It also can mean hazelnut.
If Paul's eyes were more of a hazelnut brown, it's probably what he meant.
Also, I certainly didn't mean that nuance cannot be in there, or also all kinds of other ideas, but rather that if not also handling the highest arguments of one side, Then it's not just nuanced.
It would be more wishy-wash.
That's what I was getting at.
Well, I can put out another edition of the book, Claire, and I can change the Kindle edition.
I can make changes right now!
Sterling, Sterling.
Yeah, thank you, Claire and Sterling, both.
You've been excellent guests.
I think, Sterling, you want to just remember the principles of logic, that two different persons cannot, one person cannot have two different properties that are permanent properties of an adult at the same time.
We've got two persons that have different teeth, different palates, different ears, different shape and size of skull, different heights.
They are unmistakably not the same person.
It's not close.
It's not subtle.
It's blatant.
I said there's a replacement.
The question is death.
Replacement's one thing and death is another thing.
They're two different things.
Oh yeah, yeah, yeah.
You can, as you and Clara have both been going on about differences about how he died.
I agree with replacement.
There's definitely a replacement.
The point I'm making is these are two different persons.
And you can review the evidence in the piece that I've cited right here, archived right here, issues of fake news, issues of identity, where I go through all the evidence to show these are two different persons.
All the rest, of course, I leave to the two of you.
And I conclude today by thanking you both.
You've been simply excellent.
I enjoyed this conversation thoroughly from beginning to end.
So this is Jim Fetzer on The Fetz Presents, thanking Sterling Harwood, who has a new book, The Greatest Mystery of the Beatles, available from Amazon.com, and Claire Kuhn, an extraordinary student of Paul Fall.
Thanking them for being here, and all of you for watching very active in the chat room tonight.
Oh, about 150 comments altogether, I'd say.
Very good show.
Thank you both.
Thanks for being here.
Thanks, everyone, for coming.
Thanks, Jeff.
Thank you.
Thank you, Jeff.
That's terrific.
Thank you.
Bye now.
Bye.
Thanks.
▲
Export Selection