All Episodes
Previous Next
June 19, 2021 - Jim Fetzer
55:16
Truth Jihad Radio (18 June 2021) with Kevin Barrett - The Paul McCartney Mystery
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
. .
Today, second hour, we're bringing on Gijin Palya.
He's a science professor from Australia who says that Representative Ilhan Omar should be ashamed of herself for comparing Israel to Hamas.
That is, it's a slur on Hamas.
So we'll get into that argument in the second hour.
First hour, A completely different argument.
It's Paul McCartney's birthday, and Sir Paul McCartney, you are invited to call into this show.
Just drop me an email at truthjihad at gmail dot com, and give me a number where we can call you, and you're welcome to argue on behalf of your own existence, because that is the issue here tonight.
Is Paul McCartney, who is presumably celebrating his birthday somewhere other than here in the hills of western Wisconsin, Really, Paul McCartney?
Or is he Fall, a left-handed bass-playing imposter who replaced Paul?
That is the thesis of a whole Paul is Dead movement, and one of the most illustrious voices of that movement is on philosophy professor James Fetzer, along with another philosophy professor, Sterling Harwood, who's actually written a book on this.
It's called The Greatest Mystery of the Beatles, Critical Thinking on Paul is Dead and the Skeptical Sixties.
So let's get into the discussion of Paul is Dead.
Hey, welcome, Jim Fetzer and Sterling Harwood.
Hey, Jim, how's it going?
Oh, delighted to be with you, Kevin.
I thought it was ironic.
Dick Cheney was saying the highlight of his last eight years was 9-11, since he and Bush were elected to initiate, to bring in 9-11 to benefit the Israelis.
I mean, it's just outrageous he makes such a statement.
And he's bragging about it.
Yeah, exactly.
That's right.
I'm doing just fine, Kevin.
Thank you for the warm introduction.
Good to be on your show again.
Yeah, yeah, good to have you both back.
I've actually discussed this issue with both of you in the past, but never together.
So this is the dueling philosophy professors.
Fascinating concept, and it just popped into my head today when you sent out that email, Sterling, pointing out that it was Paul McCartney's birthday, that hey, this would be a great day to do this, and suddenly an opening opened up, and so I think it's by a lot that we're talking about Paul McCartney.
Yeah, he's 79 years young today, which means he's entering his 80th year, if it's the same guy.
If it's the same guy, and that is the question.
And so let's start with Jim, because Jim, you argue for the strong version of this thesis that the current alleged Paul is really Fall.
So just so we know what we're debating, maybe don't worry about the evidence.
Just tell us what you think most likely happened.
Can you summarize that?
Well, heretofore, I thought that Paul McCartney had died in an automobile accident on 9-11 after he and John had had an argument at the studio.
He got on a ride and it was raining that he picked up a young woman who was so enthralled to discover herself in a vehicle with Paul McCartney.
She threw her arms around him.
Paul ran a light, was hit by a truck.
She got out, but he was pinned in the car, which caught fire.
And burn to death.
But, since I have done more research now with Richard Balducci, who has a brilliant book about it, I am convinced that Paul McCartney was actually murdered on instructions of the Vatican because John had declared that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus.
Why didn't they kill John?
Because they wanted John to suffer by seeing his dear friend Wait a minute, he killed him with a silver hammer?
and the instrument appears to have been an MI5 agent by the name of Maxwell McKnight,
Oh no!
who was responsible for the death using the hammer.
It's a stunning story.
Wait a minute, he killed him with a silver hammer?
Yes, yes, yes.
Oh no, I hadn't heard that one before.
Wow.
No, I know, I know.
And until, you know, I did this recent program with Richard Balducci, neither had I, but I'm convinced he's got it right.
It's a truly fascinating development.
He has a book about it, by the way, entitled, let me find it, The Dark Occult, How the Rituals Rule the World.
Paul was targeted to make John suffer, that his suffering and repentance be the greater.
It wasn't midnight, but Maxwell Knight used a silver hammer from the Vatican's own archives.
He was killed, therefore, using Maxwell's silver hammer at 5 a.m.
on 9-11-1966.
It's a stunning story.
The hammer was an archive in the Vatican vault known as a war hammer.
It has many aspects to it.
It actually has three different blades.
It's stunning stuff, Kevin, but those are the basics.
I believe that Sterling and I both agree that there are many figures out there who are Clearly not Paul McCartney.
Some of them are obvious fakes.
There was one in Norway who was performing who really looked nothing like Paul, but who was, you know, making big bucks because others were naive enough to think that perhaps he was.
Others raised disturbing questions about their identity.
I've done shows in the past with Polar Star Coon and Tina Foster and delighted today to be joined with Sterling When you look at the faces, though, and the comparisons of Paul and Paul, it's pretty obvious, pretty obvious when you take a closer look, they're not the same.
And, of course, the Beatles' manager, Brian Epstein, in October declared that the Beatles were no longer going to go on tour, which is absurd on many, many counts.
He said that in 1966.
Yes, October of 1966, that he declared the Beatles would no longer go on tour, which is absurd on multiple counts.
Number one... Wait, before we get into the evidence, OK, you've kind of laid out your scenario.
And so we've moved from the he blew his mind out in a car scenario to the Maxwell Silverhammer scenario.
And to many of my listeners, I'm sure this sounds preposterous and perhaps hilarious.
However, in fairness to your thesis, Jim, and I'll turn this over to Sterling to see what he thinks, it does seem to me that the notion of a random car accident that could be followed by such a brilliant maneuvering to replace this left-handed genius bass player with somebody who looked alike and also played left-handed bass and so on and so forth, that idea of a random car crash is I think kind of ridiculous. However, the idea of some
sort of occult ritual murder scenario actually makes more sense because, well,
there's evidence that they do that kind of stuff sometimes. So as ludicrous as your thesis actually
may sound to many people, frankly, I think it's less ludicrous than he blew his mind out in a
car. What do you think, Sterling?
I think both of you are right that murder is more likely than a road accident because
with a road accident, you've got insurance.
I'm sure by 1966, the wise guys at EMI realized that they had an insurable property.
They probably insured it, and he was traveling a lot, so they probably insured the man's life for probably millions of pounds.
You know, so if he dies in a road accident, you collect the insurance money.
Ka-ching.
And then you use the money and all your other resources to hire Eric Clapton and Steve Winwood to join the Beatles.
You still have a hell of a band.
You've got sympathy sales going through the roof like they did with Michael Jackson when he passed away suddenly.
And you've got the insurance money and you've got the goodwill of the people and you don't have any criminal liability.
for some kind of phony show.
So, and for breaking contracts and stuff by replacement.
On, you know, so I think you're right that murder is more likely.
The Vatican, you know, you asked whether, why didn't the Pope kill John Lennon?
Maybe he did, you know, John Lennon was murdered.
That one's clear.
And he got the four hollow point bullets in the back.
That'll do it pretty much every time.
I don't recommend trying that one at home.
So, but the guy who killed him looks like it might've been a Protestant,
not a Catholic, a Southern Protestant, Mark David Chapman.
But some people caution even that.
They think Stephen King had some sort of strange dialogue with Mark David Chapman and made some sort of confession in one of the letters.
There's a guy running around in a van in Santa Cruz who's got a website now.
Who argues that Stephen King is the real murderer.
I doubt that very much, but no doubt Chapman is just as much a patsy in relation to John Lennon as Sirhan Sirhan in relation to Bobby.
It appears to be the doorman, Padilla, who shot John Lennon.
Chapman was just another prop in one more of these endless scenarios of assassination blamed on fall guys.
Which came to its apotheosis with Lee Harvey Oswald, who actually was standing in the doorway of the book depository when the JFK motorcade passed by.
I and Olli Damegard have identified eight different shooters.
I, six of them, by name, rank, and serial number, where they were located, the shots they fired, the effects they had.
Only has identified a seventh, with which I agree.
There's an eighth, who turns out to have been on the South Knoll behind a single tree, where you wouldn't think possible to be a gunman there.
But I've seen photographs in the possession of two different JFK experts of him standing with his rifle, different photographs, same guy, same location.
OK, well, I think we're all in agreement about the JFK and RFK assassinations being coups.
Yeah.
But I don't know if we're fully in agreement about the Paul is dead thing, which is the topic on Paul's birthday tonight.
I'm not convinced of this one.
And I guess, Sterling, you're not really either, judging from your book.
Well, there was a lot of evidence.
That's right.
There was a lot of evidence early on that Jim actually got me into this seriously.
Of course, I had heard about it back in 1969.
When the Beatles released the Abbey Road album and then people started finding all these clues.
Actually, the first time it was mentioned that Paul may have died in an auto accident was in the 1967, I think it was February issue of the Beatles Monthly Magazine, where they denied the rumor that Paul had died in a car accident.
So, you know, don't believe anything, Kevin and Jim, until it's denied three times in the press.
And so if they start denying it, then that to me is kind of evidence that there's something to it, because it's serious enough for them to deny.
But so I had heard about it, but then Jim actually wanted me to write an article for a chapter in the book called, and I suppose we didn't go to the moon either.
And I was happy to do that for Jim.
So he got me down this road.
But as I looked more into it, what convinced me initially was That Paul McCartney has green eyes, light green eyes, in the Fool on the Hill video part of the movie Magical Mystery Tour, which came out on December 24th, 1967.
So that would have been after the supposed death.
And everybody, if you read all the news from when the Beatles hit the fan in February 64, everybody was saying how Paul had beautiful big brown puppy dog eyes, but how is he having white eyes, you know, green eyes in 1967?
And that was before color contact lenses really came on the scene in the 70s, and he would have had no real reason to wear contact.
He did wear glasses in the studio sometimes, but I don't see that he would have had any reason to wear color contacts when they were filming it.
That really got me thinking, well, I guess he did die.
I found an article, I think it was in the New York Times or actually Wall Street Journal, that it's very, very rare for your eye color to change after the first few months of your life.
And I know I have a couple of cousins who had the blue eyes originally and that changed to green and brown.
And I had blue eyes when I was born and my grandmother said, well, his eyes are going to change too, but you know, they never did.
So I guess I'm the same me then.
I'm not an imposter for myself.
You haven't been replaced yet.
Okay.
And so we're talking about, we're talking about visual evidence here.
So, uh, and that visual evidence of you Sterling or you Jim, but rather of, uh, of Paul and fall.
And so before we go further, do either or both of you know of a website where people could go to look at pictures of these things?
Because as we talk about this, it's one thing to talk about eye color or talk about ear shape and things like that.
Or say, you can say, as you just said, Jim, that there are obvious differences that anybody can see that these aren't the same two people.
Well, where's a good website that lines up all of this photo evidence?
Go ahead, Jim.
Sterling mentions the book, which begins with sections about the moon landing and how we know we didn't go, but then turns to Paul versus Paul.
They're very excellent chapters there, including one by Sterling.
Then on the first, Saddam Hussein, because the guy who was put on trial... Jim, I'm sorry, but the question was actually from a listener, Danny.
Yeah, I got a couple of recommendations.
and he would like to actually be able to look at this stuff now while we're talking.
Is there anything online he can turn to?
Yes, yes.
Well, there's a, I have a blog.
Let me, let me pull it up.
Go ahead and ask Sterling and I'll pull up the blog and let, give you the exact data.
Yeah, I got a couple of recommendations.
One is just plain old Amazon.com and look up a book called The Beatles from A to Z.
You know, Z is how the British pronounce Z, the letter Z.
So The Beatles A to Z and that's by Peter Asher.
And the cover of that book has a really tall Paul and he's taller by a couple of inches
than John and John is standing straight up and they're on a airport tarmac, which presumably
is level ground.
And there's a level building, it is a building with a flat roof in the background.
So it's a wonderful.
Photograph to compare when you try to get the, um, you know, the, uh, the height.
That's one of the arguments that, uh, Paul was in place because, uh, the original Paul is supposedly just about the same height as John and maybe slightly taller than George, but really nothing to speak about.
And of course, uh, inches taller than Ringo.
Uh, but then there was an appearance that, uh, Paul made on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson.
You can go on YouTube and find that.
And Paul is taller, or at least as tall as Johnny Carson, and so if you Google how tall Paul is supposed to be, they say 5'11", but the original heights for Paul are shorter than that, like 5'9", 5'10", so there's a couple of inches to account for there.
Go ahead, Jim.
Oh, I guess I want to add, actually, and this will resonate with Kevin, he and I had a debate about An article published that of course he disputed which I argued was a convenient way to achieve
Plausible deniability.
Why Ringo's confession we replaced Paul appears to be authentic is on my blog at jamesfetzer.org.
You're going to find enough photographic evidence there to see exactly what we're talking about, including some scientific studies to which I have yet to allude.
But this was about the debate that Kevin and I had, and that I have published long since, So if you go to jamesfetzer.org, Why Ringo's Confession We Replaced Paul Appears to be Authentic, I think will give you what you want.
I certainly understand why you don't want to have to go for a book to see it all, but it is interesting that all that information is in the book, where the title was suggested by my series editor, Mike Balachek.
It's suitable as a sequel to Nobody Died and Sandy Hook, one might well say in response.
Yeah, and I suppose we didn't go to the moon either, meaning it sounds so fantastic.
But yes, Paul had a rounder head, a more youthful exuberance than Paul.
He had an oblong cranium.
Paul has an oblong cranium and a more mature face and expression.
Their profiles appear to be surprisingly different, even their ears.
We have photographs of both of them with Jane Asher, to whom Paul was engaged.
They're about the same height, but Paul towers over her by four inches.
I'm, uh, creating, by the way, a video version of our show tonight that I'll be putting up so everyone can see exactly all the images to which I refer here and now.
I think the photo with Jane Asher is very, very striking because Paul really is going to be in love with Jane Asher.
And clearly the Asher family had to go along with a substitution.
But the crucial evidence came from these two Italian forensic scientists who set out to falsify the rumors.
They thought they could prove that the alleged substitute, the imposter, was actually Paul McCartney, but they wound up falsifying their own conjecture and confirming he had been replaced.
Well, Sterling, you were kind of respectful, but you didn't fully buy in to some of this, so maybe you can tell us why.
Well, yeah, I started out down the road thinking that, you know, you don't change eye color, you know, and so I was definitely in the camp where Jim is now, but, and there's also voice prints were done by a professor Okay, I'm not on speaker, but can you hear me a little better now?
Yeah, that sounds better.
Okay, sorry about that.
were different than the voice prints after 1960.
And by the way, certainly, I'm sorry, speaking of voice prints,
your voice print is going in and out.
I don't know if you're holding your cell phone at the same distance.
OK, I'm not I'm not on speaker, but can you hear me a little better now?
Yeah, that sounds better.
OK, sorry about that.
But I was saying this is Professor Truby.
I think it's Mark Truby.
And I mentioned him in my book, and he's from the University of Miami.
He did voice print analysis before and after 1966, and he found discrepancies.
But the problem I have with that and the Italian scientific studies is that they've never been replicated, and that's crucial in science, as Jim Fetzer can tell you better than I am.
Philosophy of science is his area of expertise, whereas I just kind of dabble in it professionally.
And, uh, you know, they need to replicate those things.
And then I hired somebody.
I decided to add to the evidence because Paul McCartney won't take a DNA test with his brother.
They're both still alive and they could raise a lot of money for charity.
And, uh, I don't see why they don't do it.
Uh, and he does give money to charities in that landmine charity.
And he's got some vegetarian charities, I believe.
So, you know, if they just take a DNA test between the guy who calls himself Paul McCartney and Mike McGeer is how he goes, uh, Michael McCartney originally, uh, his brother, uh, you know, brother with the same father.
So there's going to be in the same mother.
So, um, there's going to be a genetic, uh, telltale sign there, but he doesn't do it.
So I commissioned a study by what's called a super recognizer.
I was driving, listening to NPR national public radio one day, And they were talking about super recognizers that the British were hiring these people who tested very highly in their ability to recognize faces.
And they'd show them lots and lots of photos.
And they say, pick out two that are the same person.
And they'd sit there for hours and go through hundreds of photos and damned if they didn't have this ability to pick out the same person.
And so these are called super recognizers.
It's a thing.
It's a law enforcement technique.
And, you know, they have all those video monitors all over London because, you know, after 7-7, they had the terrorist attack.
They're trying to catch these people.
So even more intensely than ever.
And so they hire these super recognizers to go through surveillance footage and pick out people who are the same as the people they're looking for, the terrorists or the people that are suspected of terrorism.
Uh, or in the same network or something like that.
So, uh, so I hired one of them.
You can hire them and it's not cheap, but I did it, but I only hired one.
So there's no replication on my study either, but I'm saving up my couch cushion money and maybe we can do a crowdsourcing thing and we can hire another one.
But the findings and she goes through it in very, uh, great detail.
Uh, and I have a second book called, um, The Super Recognizer Report.
Paul is Dead and the Beatles is the main title, but the subtitle is The Super Recognizer Report, and that's an e-book of about a little over 50 pages, and that goes through photograph by photograph.
Some of them are screenshots, and she details the similarities between the photographs and screenshots after 1966 and before 1966, and she gets down into minute Details.
So that made me more skeptical of this claim that Paul had died.
You'd have to go to a lot of trouble to go, you know, do plastic surgery.
Of course, they had years to do it, but she tried to, I gave her photographs before and after 66 that were not too far after 1966.
So there wouldn't have been that much time to do plastic surgery in the kind of detail.
And so I put some stock in her But I would like to get it, you know, I would like to get it replicated or contradicted.
If a new super recognizer takes a look at the photographs and or other photographs and screenshots and video, then they might find that it is a different person.
But right now, the only one on the board I added to the evidence on the Paul is dead controversy at my own personal expense.
But it's a tax write off.
So the super recognizer said that this is the same, this is the same person before and after.
Yeah.
So that's what got me skeptical of the Paul is dead thing, because you have to read it.
It's too long.
It's 50 pages long.
I can't summarize it.
But she goes into the teeth and the ears and the eyes and the eyelids, the shape of the eyelids, all sorts of different things.
And she shows similarity after similarity.
And it is possible to get plastic surgery down to that minute detail, but it's just not very likely in the time frame we're talking about.
If you're wondering about using ears for identity, that's a thing.
The CIA, and before that the OSS, Office of Strategic Services, the forerunner of the CIA, they use the shape of ears to try to figure out whether a person in a photograph was Ho Chi Minh or not.
I have a book from 1968 That talks about the CIA, or actually was the OSS, that was using photographs of ears of people trying to track down Ho Chi Minh.
And so it's a thing that people actually use the shape of the ear.
And you'd think it'd be easy to change the shape of the ear, given that it's all cartilage, it's not bone on the outside.
So, but apparently, it's a real thing that spy agencies and other, I guess, insurance companies who are trying to figure out whether somebody's Uh, alive or dead, uh, they claim to be dead and they want the insurance, but they have photographs of the wife hanging out with some guy and they want to see if it's the husband who's supposedly dead that she's hanging out with.
It's a thing.
We need, we need to do this to Barbara Olson.
Does Ted Olson's wife have Barbara's ears?
Yeah.
Remember Barbara Olson on flight, uh, uh, the, the, the flight supposedly at the Pentagon flight 77.
Yes, the answer is going to be yes, that they're the same year as it appears that Barbara went to Europe.
Well, she was actually arrested on the border of Austria and Switzerland, I think, for some financial impropriety.
Had cosmetic surgery, returned as Lady Booth to remarry her husband, Ted.
It's quite a blatant scam.
But Kevin, ask yourself, I've got a super recognizer, and forgive my skepticism, nor an orange difference
in height that I've already observed when they're both with Jane Asher.
Paul towers over Jane.
Paul and Jane were the same height.
Their ears are different.
In fact, Paul is the only one I've ever heard of who's been found wearing a fake earpiece
because he's aware of it.
And I'm just dumbfounded that Sterling would so casually dismiss the brilliant research of the Italian forensic
scientists who discovered that Paul had bad teeth and a narrow palate, while Paul has
good teeth and a normal palate.
There are other signs, in addition, that Fall had cosmetic surgery.
But remember, these guys were doing their best to prove they were one and the same, and they wound up falsifying their own hypothesis.
If you look at the evidence, and I have their studies right there, on jamesfetzer.org, why Ringo's Confession, We Replace Fall, Authentic.
You can see the photographs, actually!
Unless you're claiming these photographs aren't of the same guys, you replicate them every time you look at them.
I think Sterling has a misunderstanding about the nature of replication, of course.
You could go and do a tooth mold, I suppose, of the President Paul if he would allow it, but look!
If he won't even allow DNA to be done, it's obvious the reason why they're not gonna match.
They're gonna show they aren't siblings, because Paul is not.
Paul, who was in fact the brother of the man who still exists, that would not compute.
I mean, it's obvious.
I can't believe how Well, let's talk about the replication issue, Sterling.
this skepticism that the hypothesis are different people when it's been proven on a half a dozen
or more basic fundamental parameters of features that are not amenable to change.
Well, let's talk about the replication issue, Sterling.
I think what you meant, Sterling, was that you have a team of expert,
or a couple of experts who published that thing in Wired magazine in its Italian edition
doing this forensic evidence overview of why the two Paul McCartney's pre and post 1966
couldn't be the same.
So we have those experts who say that.
So that's one, uh, two supposed experts who have, have said this, but we haven't had any other experts look at that and say that it's correct.
And then your super recognizer has peer reviewed, should be peer reviewed by other experts.
And those two experts were not one replicating the other.
They were working together as a team.
And it is more sensational.
You'll probably sell more magazines.
And they later put out a book.
You're going to sell more magazines and books if you argue that Sir Paul McCartney is a phony than you are if you say Paul McCartney is the real deal.
So they have some kind of unconscious, at least, bias towards finding something sensational.
And I would just like a peer-reviewed, uh, get some more experts.
They're not the only experts in the world about palates and stuff.
So, and bones and facial structure.
There are plenty of other experts like that.
And just get, let's get a couple more in there and then I'll be more convinced.
Uh, it is, I do take, I don't dismiss that evidence.
I just think it's not conclusive because it hasn't been replicated.
And the same thing with Truby.
I take that seriously too.
On these voice prints, but it hasn't been replicated.
And that should be, that's the next step I may hire somebody to do.
There are spoken word albums before and after 1966 for Paul McCartney.
One of them is called the McCartney Tapes.
It's from about 1980 on Columbia Records.
It's a two LP set.
And I think it's out in CD now.
And then there are spoken word records like the Beatles story
and other interviews that have been captured on audio recordings from 1964,
when they were doing the media blitz.
So all you would have to do is compare the two.
And by the way, another website occurred to me, it's You Can Know Sometimes.
That's by Claire Coon, who Jim knows very well.
I appeared on Jim's show with Claire one time.
And Because You Can Know Sometimes might be the full title of her website.
Before you can, because you can know sometimes or you can know sometimes.com.
She's a Canadian that runs the website out of Canada there.
And she's got a lot on this stuff.
And so I recommend that people check that out.
She believes that Paul was replaced and the other thing that makes me skeptical about it you know I'm sure Jim knows this too it's just damn hard to find somebody as talented as Paul McCartney and then they got to play left-handed bass Of course, they didn't play that often live.
They did play on the Rooftop Concert, and then when they played on the, in 1968, the Rooftop Concert was 1969, and then in 1968, they played on the David Frost Show, but Paul was playing piano, so his left-handed bass playing wasn't in evidence there, but they did close up of his eyes, and they look green to me.
They don't look puppy, puppy dog brown, big brown eyes, the way they were
described earlier. But the solution to that problem is that I have this album called The Beatles Story.
It was released in 1964 at the height of their first wave of popularity. And it describes
them, their eye color and whatnot.
And the eye color they give for Paul on that 1964 album, and I have the original album from 1964,
were not a reissue.
It says his eyes are hazel.
And if you look up what hazel eyes mean, it means it can take on different colors depending on the clothing they're wearing and the lighting and the background.
And so in the Fool on the Hill thing, they're using higher quality cameras than, you know, just some press conference or something.
And some photographer or some reporter might just casually note that their brown eyes in the hectic days of Beetlemania in 1964, but then when you do close-ups with actual cameras, color cameras, later on the David Frost Show and Magical Mystery Tour film, and they're actually close-ups, they get very, very close, extreme close-ups in the Fool on the Hill segment on Magical Mystery Tour film, they're definitely green eyes and they're lighter green too, they're not even dark green.
So, but the background is green too and they're not an extreme close-up There's a background, too, so I don't know if that makes a difference on the extreme close-ups, but I think you can explain away the eye color.
And on the height, you can explain that away, because look at this book cover for the book The Beatles from A to Z by Peter Asher.
And by the way, Peter Asher and Jane Asher's father was murdered.
They died in the wine cellar, apparently, in their home, and apparently it was a murder.
I'm not sure it was investigated as a murder, but it was a sudden death anyway.
And, uh, but he's got a book out, a color photograph of all four Beatles on the tarmac, flat surface at the airport, and a flat building, roof building in the background, and Paul is just a lot taller, and I think that dates from before 1966.
And the explanation for why they didn't play, why they didn't play after August 1966 at Candlestick, and they didn't go on tour, is that they were getting all those death threats And Klansmen in uniform in Tennessee, you know, saying that they knew exactly what to do to the Beatles.
And, you know, it was very uncomfortable.
And they get beat up in the Philippines at the airport, you know, and somebody snipped a lock of hair off of Ringo and they were trying to move from one place to another.
So it was very unpleasant and they were making plenty of money.
They didn't, they wanted to take a break.
They'd been touring and going to Hamburg and everything for years.
And so they needed a break and they needed the John Lennon bigger than Jesus Christ remark to blow over.
I think that... Go ahead, Jim.
If I attack Sterling, I'm obviously not attacking a strong man.
He's both a Ph.D.
in philosophy.
He's a J.D.
He has done a huge amount of research, but his arguments are basically silly and subjective and apologetic.
This thing about the height.
Does he not know photographs can be photoshopped?
I'm looking at the fetals with Ed Sullivan.
They're all virtually the same height.
And yet, when we get to Sergeant Bruce Lonely, a man on the cover, Paul is clearly taller.
And of course, they're introducing the one and only Billy Shears.
Why in God's name would they be doing that if they hadn't just buried Paul, which is what we have on the cover.
You have a funeral, a grave for a left-handed Uh, bass player.
You have Madame Tussaud's waxworks to represent the old Beatles, and now you have the new incarnation of Sgt.
Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.
On the cover of the Abbey Row Balbon, according to Ringo, there was a hidden message, symbolized in a funeral procession, where John, dressed in white, was the clergyman.
Ringo in black, the undertaker.
George, in denim jeans and shirt, the gravedigger.
Paul barefoot and out of step with the other members, symbolizing the corpse.
There are numerous cases, including in Magic Mr. Crick, where Paul takes off his shoes
so the difference in height won't be so noticeable.
I'm sorry to suggest that the opinion of Sterling is much too gullible, and this idea of super-recognizers
is just massively subjective.
There are perfectly objective ways of superimposing images.
I have a colleague who's an expert in the area, Larry Rivera, and if the photographs
are taken from the same angle, the same perspective, if you overlay them so that the pupils match,
in other words you establish the inter-pupillary distance to be the same, then if they are
the same person, all the features will fall into place.
He has done this in several stunning instances, including Confirming our view that the man in the doorway was indeed Lee Harvey Oswald, based upon the physical characteristics of the height, the weight, the build, but also the shirt and the t-shirt he was wearing, which were indistinguishable from the height, the weight, the build, the shirt and the t-shirt that Lee was wearing when he was arrested, but
Larry was trying to find suitable photographs for both Lee and for the Billy Love Lady, whom the government claims was the man in the doorway, where Billy himself thought it was absurd they'd be confused because it was 2 to 3 inches shorter and 15 to 20, probably 30 or more pounds heavier.
And when Larry did the superposition, voila, all the features of Lee Oswald came right into place, and all of those of Billy Lovelady not.
A more stunning case relates to Sandy Hook, where I sent him the photograph of the little boy
whose death certificate I was sued over, and a photograph of his older stepbrother,
because one of my colleagues, Kelly Watt, had said they looked strikingly similar to her,
and she showed it to her friends, who said, oh yeah, they're the same person all grown up.
So I sent to Larry without telling him anything.
He didn't know the identity, the context, nothing about Sandy Hook.
He did a superposition, where you can see Noah Posner turn into Michael Vavner.
If the same nose, the same eyes, the same eyebrows, the same mouth, the same shape of skull, same ears, it's absolutely stunning.
So how they think, a lot of the kids, not all, using photographs of older kids when they were younger.
Mona Alexis Presley has done great work on this, on Las Vegas, and other cases.
Has also found reason to believe, in some cases, that Sandy Hook parents used photographs of themselves as children to be the deceased kids at Sandy Hook.
And, of course, they benefited immensely financially.
Something you're missing about stopping to do the tours, their huge money-making proposition.
Having all those screaming teenagers turn out en masse at these huge arenas was a vast moneymaker.
Sterling, it seems to me, finds it very convenient to talk about reasons why they should stop touring, but I think, frankly, they're ludicrous.
We had, by the way, an interesting interval where it looked as though the caretaker of Paul's childhood home looked a lot like Paul.
He does look a lot like Paul in certain of these photographs, but he's not Paul.
And it's also very clear, and I can't believe how Sterling would continue to deny it, That Paul is obviously not Paul when they have different
teeth and different palates, different shape and size of skulls at different heights.
How could they possibly be the same guy?
I'm sorry to say I think Sterling's position here is completely indefensible.
Well, sorry.
Actually, I don't think it's that indefensible, Jim, in that I have the same issue.
When I look at these pictures, I'm not a super recognizer, but I can't see these things that you see in these pictures on the various cases.
So I would like to see experts redo what the Wired Magazine guys did.
And Sterling, I guess you... Yeah, go ahead.
Can I defend it?
Here's the defense.
The two photographs of Jane Asher and Paul McCartney, they're cut off.
You can't see the feet and part of the leg.
You can't see them.
And on the Sgt.
Pepper album cover, you can't see the feet of the tall Paul.
If you go to the DECA audition photos, Paul is in the back on the right, and he's taller than the other ones.
And that was January 1st, 1962.
And those photos have been around for years.
They haven't been Photoshopped, you'd be able to tell if they had been photoshopped because the originals are still around.
And if you look at that photograph, and you know, it could be photoshopped, but if you get more and more of these things, it just makes it less likely that they've gone to the trouble of photoshopping all these things.
The reason why they gave up the lucrative touring is that it became physically dangerous.
They got beat up at the Manila airport because they supposedly snubbed Marcos's wife.
And by not going to dinner with her at her invitation.
And then they got, Ringo got snipped.
Somebody took out a pair of scissors and snipped off part of his hair as they were running.
You're not supposed to run with scissors.
That's like one of Aristotle's first principles, Jim.
You're not supposed to run with scissors.
And when somebody else is running with scissors at you and snipping off your hair, I think that violates what Plato said, too.
So, it was physically dangerous.
The Jesus remark that they were bigger than Jesus had Klansmen and all sorts of nuts, and Mark David Chapman seems to have caught up with him.
He didn't like that remark, and he put four hollow-point bullets right into John Lennon's back.
If it was the doorman, who knows what his motivation was?
Maybe he was with the Vatican.
But, you know, it was physically dangerous for these people.
So they just and they've been touring for years and a very exhausting schedule all around the world in Hamburg, Germany and Holland and all sorts of Australia and Japan live at Budokan.
So they needed a break anyway, and they were making plenty of money with songwriting royalties, at least John and Paul were.
And so they decided to take a break.
And then when Epstein died, they never really got it back together.
Uh, financially, you know, not even with Alan Klein did they really get it back together.
So, uh, but they made a few appearances live.
Uh, and it's just, you know, how are they going to come up with a songwriter to replace Paul McCartney?
Who's anywhere near that good.
The guy was a genius.
So if you listen to those last songs that he wrote, like here, there, and everywhere, and for no one, I mean, those are just absolute classics and they weren't even singles or anything, but they're just absolutely marvelous songs.
And of course, yesterday in 1965, those were all done before the supposed death.
And then how are you going to replace somebody like that who can write Mother Nature's Son or, you know, Helter Skelter or all these other, you know, Let It Be and The Long and Winding Road?
How are you going to get somebody like that?
They're not, they don't grow on trees.
My opinion is that the guy they replaced him with, who appears to have been William Shepard, known as Billy Shears as a nickname, he was a session musician.
He was known as the man of a thousand voices, he could imitate any sound, is an even better musician, he took the Beatles in whole new directions, Sgt.
Pepper's album by itself being an example, but many others thereafter, look at the White Album for example, my opinion, Is that the successor to Paul was an even better musician, more creative, more diverse, and of course after the band broke up, and I think John just couldn't handle any longer the fact that Paul was a better musician than Paul, and that John wasn't really in the same league, he went ahead to create Wings and did a whole host of other issues.
Linda Eastman, by the way, So why didn't Jane Asher complain?
walked up and said, hi, I know you're not Paul.
When did you join the band?
And I believe that her candor was endearing to Paul.
And they, of course, fell in love.
Just as Paul had been in love with Jane Asher, Paul was in love with Linda Eastman.
And they would marry and have kids.
And it's really a fascinating story.
So why didn't Jane Asher complain?
I'm sorry.
Oh, I didn't.
It's going to be an unlikely story.
It's an unlikely story that you're going to get somebody as talented or more talented than Paul McCartney
within a few months.
It's just not possible in any kind of likely scenario.
This is just silly beyond belief, Sterling.
He even had a Paul lookalike contest, and this guy was a very strong lookalike, but they sent him down to Africa for some plastic surgery to make him look more similar.
Bear in mind, we have a whole book by Billy Shears, it's called The Memoirs of Billy Shears, and I demand anyone to read that and not recognize its authenticity.
This is the guy who gave up his life to become Paul McCartney, and he acknowledges very early on that legal obligation meant he was not allowed to reveal the truth about it.
But the fact of the matter is that he was an even better musician, We're not even getting into all the brilliant work that Richard Balducci has done about the death of Paul McCartney by this Maxwell fellow of MI5 carrying out the Pope's desire, Maxwell Knight.
He was an analogous, a guy a lot similar to James Bond, but he appears to have murdered Paul in a ritualistic ceremony by striking him with his silver hammer.
It's really a brutal device.
Three times!
There's a story, by the way, about the use of the hammer in the past that Richard Balducci tells very convincingly, where it was used to murder someone else.
He hit him the first time and says, are you dead yet?
Then he hit him the second time and says, are you dead yet?
Then he hit him the third time and says, have you dead yet?
Where Richard even has photographs of the shattered skull of Paul McCartney.
And I tell you, you better have a strong stomach because his head was really broken to pieces by the silver hammer.
So where are those photographs?
Pardon me?
Where are those photographs?
Oh, well, you'll see it, Kevin.
You'll see it when you see the visual version I'm creating here, because I've got it right now on the screen.
And where Richard discovers there's a little dent in the skull there, a notch, and it turns out when you compare it with a hammer, the notch was created by the hammer, which had this little notch in it.
I mean, this is absolutely unbelievable work.
I'm very Very pleased by what Richard Balducci has done.
Serious, serious stuff.
I'm not a Catholic, Jim, but I think the official story, and I don't know if it's true or not, but the official story is that the silver hammer is used to lightly tap the Pope before they declare he's dead, and the white smoke goes through the chimney in St.
Peter's, and that's the signal that the Pope has died and some new Pope has been Not to mention that we have a sketch by John Lennon showing Paul's head shattered.
Where in the world did that come from?
Does Sterling think they just drew that up to promote some fantasy of his?
I'm really shocked.
I defy anyone.
I defy anyone to go to my website and look at the work of the Italian forensic scientist and not find it conclusive.
In my opinion, it blows the whole story away.
Richard Balducci, by the way, has a book entitled The Dark Occult, How the Rituals Ruled Our World.
I think he has done the definitive work on the death of Paul McCartney.
Yeah, the drawing, Jim, is not signed by John Lennon.
I was supposed to be sold at SoftBees or some auction house, but I never heard that it was ever authenticated and the sale was final.
So please let us in on that.
And it doesn't show Martha, the sheepdog.
It shows some kind of like a husky or a Samoan.
And it's just a slab.
And the guy has some kind of dunce cap or crack in his skull with something oozing out.
But he's standing up.
So it's a little weird then to have stuff coming up out of his head against gravity.
So it's highly subjective.
You get after me for subjectivity, but that's a highly subjective thing.
It's just a drawing.
It's unsigned.
It's unauthenticated by Sotheby's or anybody that I'm aware of.
Claire Kuhn certainly plays that up and relies on that heavily.
But I think that's too flimsy.
I think it's much more likely that you're going to find somebody who can write, let it be.
In a few months, or somebody could write some of the Sgt.
Pepper songs.
Let me just make an obvious philosophical point.
The things that are actual implies they're possible.
It actually did happen.
They're not the same guy.
They did find someone who was so talented.
And your arguments are just sophistry, Sterling.
I'm really embarrassed that you're seeking to ignore objective scientific evidence by two forensic scientists.
The question at issue is whether it is actual.
You're assuming it's actual, but that's the question.
The point is, Sterling, that once you get a grip on reality and that the scientific evidences are two different people, it follows that obviously he had the ability... You have to replicate scientific evidence.
Look at the teeth!
Look, this guy won't even let his DNA be tested against his brother, Sterling.
You ought to ponder that, my friend.
He might like the mystique.
Maybe he likes the mystique.
You ought to ponder that.
You're excusing, excusing, excusing!
You're adopting the wrong methodology.
Your approach is methodologically flawed in a fundamental way.
You're looking for all the confirmations.
You should be looking for all the falsifications.
As the great British philosophers are called, Hopper taught us all, if you want to test whether a theory or hypothesis is true, try to falsify it.
If you're unable to falsify it, then maybe it's true.
But you may also have not figured out how to falsify it.
The idea that this is a thing, Guy has been falsified repeatedly again and again and again.
You know, in Japan, Paul was arrested.
But the photographs you're relying on don't show the feet.
And people have not been able to replicate it with truth.
We have plenty of evidence that they were the same height.
But it hasn't been replicated.
If you're going to deny they're the same height, then you're resorting to a level of juvenality that I wouldn't expect from someone like you.
You know, big stars who are millionaires and billionaires, they often will wear lifts and they'll wear boots that make them look taller.
You know, that's been known to happen over and over again.
So don't be naive that he can't be wearing boots or lifts.
You are the naive one.
They were all approximately the same height.
There's a stunning amount of evidence showing they were about the same height, Sterling.
I find some of your arguments are simply embarrassing.
Look at the DECA sessions and Paul is taller.
Paul is taller in the DECA session black and white photographs.
He's over on the right.
He's in the back.
Because he's in the back, he should appear smaller, but he appears taller in the DECA session, January 1st, 1962, black and white studio photographs.
There are two of them in which he appears clearly taller than Don and the others.
This is just ludicrous because there's such a mountain of evidence that disproves what you're claiming here, Sterling.
This is embarrassing.
Look at the photograph of them with Ed Sullivan.
They're almost exactly the same height, John, George, and Paul.
Ringo's slightly shorter.
Well, they were damn near the same height.
You're doing your best at solving the falsified hypothesis.
I'm sorry.
We have three seconds about because we're at the point where the bumper music should be playing.
Bye-bye.
So, thank you so much.
Thank you.
Two conflicting expert opinions on this burning question.
On Paul McCartney's birthday, is it really Paul or is it fall?
Jim Fetzer and Sterling Harwood.
Thank you both.
Kevin Barrett here, Truth Jihad Radio.
Truthjihad.com is the website.
▲
Export Selection