All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 25, 2023 - Jim Fetzer
01:57:04
The Raw Deal (25 January 2023) - The "Paul is Dead" Debate
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I need somebody.
Help!
Not just anybody.
Help!
You know I need someone.
Help!
When I was young, so much younger than today.
I never needed anybody's help in any way But now these days are gone, I'm not so self-assured Now I find the trend mine, I've opened up the doors Help me if you can, I'm feeling down And I do appreciate you being round Help me get my feet back on the ground
Won't you please, please help me Well, this is Jim Petzler, your host on The Raw Deal.
I have a rather extraordinary show for you today.
I have two featured guests.
Richard Balducci, whom I've interviewed here before, who is an expert in the area of the death of Paul McCartney, and a skeptic, Robert Livingstone, who's very confident he can debunk any arguments that Paul actually who's very confident he can debunk any arguments that Paul actually died and was So we're going to have a debate today.
I'm recording the show as a video.
It will be up on my BitChute channel, Jim Fetzer, so you can see all the images you're only going to be hearing about across Revolution Radio.
But I have 75 different images, and either party, either Richard or Robert, can ask me to show any of the videos, or if Robert has additional since Richard send me some in advance.
We can do a screen share and he can show them as we discuss it.
Before we begin today, however, with this great debate, and I have killed the first break so it won't interrupt.
I want to report a couple of stories that are simply too important not to address as we begin the show today.
War preparations in Moscow.
out.
Russia to declare a new patriotic war against NATO.
Victory will be ours, like 1812 and 1945.
Now we have a war between Russia and the rest.
Lavrov said this is serious.
Intensive war preparations are taking place in the capital of Russia, according to Russian sources.
In the next few days, Putin will make an extremely important announcement.
Moscow is expected to officially declare the start of a new patriotic war.
This is shown by a statement from Medved and Lavrov at the same time a while ago.
The Russian Ministry of Defense announced in a statement the capital is preparing for a conflict with NATO.
For more detail, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov This is a resounding statement warning.
We are no longer talking about a Russia-West hybrid war, but about a real one.
As for what's happening in Ukraine, we're talking about the fact that it's no longer a hybrid war, but a real one.
The West has been preparing for a long time against Russia, trying to destroy everything Russian that is left in Ukraine.
From the language to the culture, which have been there for centuries, they have even forbidden citizens to speak their mother tongue.
Labrov clarified in a press conference with the Foreign Minister of South Africa, as reported by TASS.
Lavrov noted, among other points, that Ukraine has adopted laws banning Russian-language education, Russian-language media, and laws effectively banning the use of the Russian language in everyday life.
Any cultural contacts related to the Russian language are prohibited, and all this is supported by the West.
Just as the West supports the regular marches of neo-Nazis with swastikas with divisive symbols banned by the Nuremberg tribunals, so the West supports all of this.
Days after widespread reports that Russia had installed Panzer S1 air defense systems over key buildings in Moscow, The Kremlin stepped up anti-aircraft deals outside of Moscow as it became clear that Putin and the Russian leadership are preparing citizens for a new great patriotic war, which, according to Medvedev, has already begun.
Russia announced today it conducted air defense exercises in the Moscow region to protect its infrastructure in case of air attacks.
Exercises were organized in the Moscow region with personnel of the Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade of the Western Military District to repel air attacks against important military, industrial, and administrative infrastructure.
According to the ministry, Russian soldiers attending these gymnasiums were trained to use S-300 anti-aircraft missiles.
The Russians, by the way, have S-400 and S-500 systems, which these are all the best Anti-missile systems in the world.
While advancing, the soldier repelled an attack by an enemy sabotage group on a military convoy.
The air defense convoy was able to withstand the attack and continue to fulfill its duty.
More than 150 soldiers, more than 30 units of weapons, military equipment, and special equipment participated.
We have much going on here.
Russia has suffered several drone attacks on its territory originating from Ukraine, including multiple attacks on the Ingush military airfield in the Saratov region, which is located 600 kilometers deep into Russia.
The armed forces in Russia also announced they carried out offensive operations in the Zaporizhzhya region of southern Ukraine, which allowed them to occupy advantageous positions.
Mind you, as I've been reporting, Colonel McGregor and Scott Ritter are both confirming the Ukrainians are losing eight troops for every one Russian.
This is a wipeout.
Russia's prepared, and I believe is going, of necessity to take all of Ukraine.
It was not the original plan.
But the intransigence of the West, NATO, supplying all this equipment, Using the Minsk Agreement to camouflage to beef up the military in Ukraine showed the dishonor of the West, the lies and treachery that Russia can no longer accept the word of the West about any matter whatsoever.
The West has violated every agreement with Russia.
They have no faith in us anymore, and they are justified in holding that stance.
At the same time, the vice president of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, Dmitry Mendeleev, a former president of Russia, by the way, called the conflict between Russia and Ukraine in the West a new patriotic war.
Well done!
Ukrainian Nazis in Western Europe are the direct heirs of those who fought Russia.
And the war, therefore, with them is a new patriotic war, and victory will be ours, as in 1812 and in 1945.
As always, the second most popular politician in Russia does not say anything by chance.
Nevertheless, the Demos elites are rallying behind Ukraine.
Give them tanks!
At the annual meeting where the global elites are urged to collaborate, cooperate, and get along, one message rang loud—send the weapons!
As in previous WEF sessions in May, the war in Ukraine loomed large in discussion, and while political leaders voiced their steadfast support for Kiev, so too did a host of major corporate bigwigs.
Thursday morning, the hot ticket in the Swiss Mountain Time was a morning breakfast session hosted by the foundation of the Ukrainian oligarch, Viktor Pinchuk.
Ukrainian President Zelensky beamed in for a virtual conversation moderated by CNN Farid Zakharov, who was joined in the room by a slate of prominent Western cabinet ministers and politicians, as well as CEOs and fund managers.
Sitting next to Zachariah, former British PM Boris Johnson, who no matter his controversial ouster in the UK remains a popular figure among Ukrainians, echoed Zelensky's call.
On Friday, Ukraine's allies will convene at a military base in Germany and go over the terms of a major new package of aid that will deliver more sophisticated military technology and equipment to Kiev.
These include various types of strike vehicles from a number of countries, though at the time of writing it was unclear whether Germany would sanction the transfer of German-made Leopard tanks to Ukraine.
In my opinion, by the way, all the countries supplying weapons to Ukraine to fight Russia have become co-belligerents and are therefore legitimate targets for attack by Russia.
Zelensky, who spoke at multiple events in Davos this week, reiterated his nation's determination to put Russian forces out of its land.
Fat chance!
The Ukrainian cause, as Kiev has long insisted, has to be fortified by foreign steel.
Our goal is to de-occupy all our territories, explicitly including Crimea.
Crimea is our land, it's our territory, it's our sea and mountain.
Give us your weapons and we will get back what is ours.
There's not a chance that's gonna happen.
Russian will never give up Crimea.
Russia is the most formidable military force in the world today.
Their weapons, their missiles, their anti-submarine torpedoes, their anti-ship missiles are all the world's best, and they are unstoppable by Western technology.
Meanwhile, in Israel, hundreds of thousands are rallying against Bibi Netanyahu's plan to redo the judicial system because he's not happy with the outcome.
Tens of thousands, I believe actually hundreds, of Israelis gathered in Tel Aviv to protest plans by Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu to overhaul the judicial system, measures opponents say imperil the country's democratic fundamentals, as no doubt they do.
Israeli media, I believe, said 100,000 were protesting.
It followed another demonstration last week that also drew tens of thousands in an early challenge to Netanyahu and his ultra-nationalist and ultra-Orthodox government, the most right-wing in Israeli history.
The government says a power imbalance has given judges and government legal advisors too much sway over lawmaking and government.
Sound familiar?
Like the Democrats carping over rulings by the United States Supreme Court?
So they want to pack the court.
That's the equivalent here in the U.S.
to what Netanyahu wants to do in Israel.
He pledged to press on with the changes despite the opposition.
This is not going to work.
Protesters filled central streets in the seaside metropolis, raising Israeli flags and banners that read, our children will not live in a dictatorship and Israel, we have a problem.
This is a protest to defend the country, said opposition leader and former prime minister, Yair Lipet, who joined the protest.
People came here today to protect their democracy.
All generations are concerned.
This is not a joke.
Said Lear, a student, a protester, this is a complete redefinition of democracy.
Just as the Democrats want to redo the judiciary here so they can move forward with their woke agenda, thank God, in spite of all the theft of the election in the midterms, the Republicans at least regain control of the House.
Other protests took place in Jerusalem, Haifa, and Beersheba.
In addition to protests, pressure is built up on Netanyahu's government, after the country's attorney general asked him to fire a key cabinet ally following a Supreme Court ruling that disqualified him from holding a government post because of a conviction of tax offenses.
While Bibi was expected to heed the ruling, it only deepened the rift.
Netanyahu is himself on trial for corruption.
About to continue with a judicial overhaul despite the protests.
Opponents say the changes could help him evade conviction in his corruption trial or make the court case disappear altogether.
Yes, yes, yes.
No doubt.
One protester said she thinks that judicial changes are meant to protect Netanyahu.
The aim is to save only one person and one only.
This is Mr. Netanyahu from his trial, and that's why I'm here.
Friday, Netanyahu's coalition went for a new test after a disagreement between cabinet members over dismantling an unauthorized settlement outpost in the West Bank.
Here are a few other recent developments.
Lindsey Graham defends Biden, reports that Pence has classified documents to corruption in Ukraine.
Well, that's not news.
It's the fallout from the classified doc scandal.
President Biden received a statement of support from his friend and Rhino Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who told the media did not suspect any purposeful wrongdoing by the president.
That's, of course, ignorant of the law because the handling of classified documents makes it illegal to mishandle them without regard to motive or intention.
It has nothing to do with whether you meant to do it or not.
You're guilty of the crime if you've mishandled them.
And I'd say having these documents stored in his garage next to his Corvette is a blatant case, textbook case.
Moreover, classified docs found at Pence's home On Tuesday, an attorney for former V.B.
Mike Pence announced classified docs have also been found in his home in Indiana.
Pence's attorney said his team notified the National Archives of the documents on January 18th after the discovery two days prior.
Per protocol, the National Archives notified the FBI within search of the home last Thursday.
Sources told CNN the documents appear to have been inadvertently packed up I think it's an attempt to get Biden off the hook.
It's also the case of Pence.
his knowledge.
Right.
Let me say several aspects of this.
I think it's an attempt to get Biden off the hook.
It's also the case that Pence, like Biden, were both as vice presidents not able to declassify documents.
This means that unlike Trump, who as president had ultimate declassification authority and it made a standing policy that any documents he took with him are automatically declassified, they were clearly in violation of classification protocols, requirements, they were clearly in violation of classification protocols, requirements, and statutes.
The case with the vice president is completely unlike the case with the president, but the mainstream media won't keep a word about it.
Meanwhile, Republicans vow to investigate Penn Biden Center and Hunter's artwork.
Republican House Oversight Committee Chair James Cormier said this week he intends to investigate donation to the Penn Biden Center as well as who is purchasing Hunter Biden's artwork as part of a probe into Biden family financial ties.
Comer has already sent requests for documents and other information to the White House, the University of Pennsylvania, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, and others.
He's planning more requests in the future and is willing to subpoena information if he must.
Now, the thing about the artwork, that's a great way to launder money.
That's a great way to pay off bribes.
The value of art is highly subjective, especially in a case like that of Hunter Biden.
So you buy his artwork at grossly inflated prices, and that way he gets the money seemingly clean and clear because it's laundered through the purchase.
Well, today I'm just delighted to say I have two expert guests, Richard Baldussi and Robert Livingstone, where we're going to be discussing Paul versus Fall.
Was Paul replaced by a lookalike?
Now, to kick things off, I am going to go through the reasons why I have come to the conclusion that Paul did die and was replaced, and it appears that took place on 9-11-1966, coincidental with the date.
We'll talk about The fourth stage of the scientific reasoning here, which apply in a case like this, just as they do to other cases of serious reasoning on complex and complicated issues.
Puzzlement.
Something doesn't fit in with your background knowledge.
Well, it's very odd that after September and October, the manager of the Beatles declared they were no longer going to tour.
He gave a flimsy explanation that they couldn't even hear themselves playing.
Well, they can hear themselves playing in a studio.
This is an absurd explanation.
Every band just has a rush of adrenaline by having tens of thousands, in the case of Beatles, even hundreds of thousands of adoring fans.
That was anomalous in and of itself.
And, of course, there's much, much more.
We have a guy replacing him who appears to be taller, looks different, not quite the same.
He sounds a lot like Paul, but even that is into question here, because it appears, and I'm convinced, he did die.
He was replaced.
Then let me just say, if anyone wants to see an outline of some of the evidence I'm going to be presenting here, and that Robert's going to be disputing and Richard is going to be rebutting, you'll be glad to find it at Why Ringo's confession we replace Paul appears to be authentic on my blog at jameshfetzer.org.
So we got to consider the full range of alternative explanations.
Either it's the same guy or Paul did die and was replaced by someone who might happen to regard as an even better musician.
Let me say.
As a professor of logic, it's a point of identity that for two objects or persons to be one in the same person, albeit at different times, they must have all and only the same properties at all and only the same times.
When we're dealing with abstract objects like mathematical relations, we don't have to worry about the time factor because abstract objects Are timeless and eternal.
They don't have properties that are capable of changing.
They're not in space-time.
But when it comes to physical things, notice physical things can be one and the same, but they can have properties that change over time.
For example, you might have your car keyed.
You might bump into a post.
It might acquire a various dance.
But it's one of the same vehicle, in spite of the fact that it has different properties at different times, because they were all true of the same vehicle.
Jim's car, his Honda, you know, 2007, it's the same car at different times with different properties, similarly with people.
We all know we change in our properties through time.
When we're little kids, we're very small.
Our height and weight are very different than when we become young adults.
We can have our hair cut, wear a long, short beard, not all those are what we can call transient properties that can come and go and not affect the fact that it's the same person.
But when you reach adulthood, your properties tend to become fixed.
Your height until you become much older, at which point you tend to lose a bit of height because your spinal column compresses ever so slightly.
Thus, I am now at the age of 82, about a half inch shorter than I was in, say, the age of 62 as a consequence, but I'm still the same guy.
Adaptation of hypotheses to evidence.
Which hypothesis, if it were true, would confer the higher probability upon the available relevant evidence?
My special concern is sorting out the authentic from the fabricated evidence.
I'm going to review the evidence and invite Robert to rebut, and then bring in Richard to round out the discussion, and we'll go back and forth.
When the evidence settles down, as I believe it has settled down in this case, then we're entitled to accept, as true, the best supported hypothesis, but in the tentative, infallible fashion of science.
Meaning, with the acquisition of new evidence, we may have to revise our position, reject hypotheses we previously accepted, accept hypotheses we previously rejected, and leave others in suspense.
And even though our hypothesis is the best supported and we're entitled to believe it to be true, that does not guarantee that it is true.
Unbeknownst to us, it may simply be the best support and be consistent with all the evidence and yet ultimately turn out to be false, as was the case with classical Newtonian science.
Thought to be a paragon of the certainty of scientific knowledge for approximately 200 years, applicable to all regions of space and time until the advent of Einstein's theory of relativity, which demonstrated that space-time relations are not absolute in all regions of space and time, but relative to a frame of reference.
For an elementary illustration, just think of a train.
Passing by.
If you're on the ground, the train's in motion.
But if you were on the train, you can treat the world as passing by, as though the world, as though the train itself were a stationless object.
This is simply an illustration of the relativity of motion, of which there are many more.
So where to begin?
Rumors of Paul's death and replacement.
Did he die in 1966?
Was he replaced by a strikingly similar musician?
There are some imposters who are obviously not Paul McCartney.
Other photos raise serious, disturbing questions about their identity.
I've done shows with Nick Colerstone, with Claire Kuhn, with Tina Foster, and, of course, with Richard Balducci about this issue.
Here we have, for example, though you can't see it, a musician who performed in Norway under the name of Paul McCarthy, who is obviously not Paul.
Doesn't look remotely like him.
Just compare even with a current guy whom I'm convinced is not Paul McCartney, and you can see he doesn't even look like the replacement to whom I shall refer as Paul, F-A-U-L, for false Paul or fake Paul.
Not the same.
He resembles neither James Paul McCartney, the original Paul born in Liverpool, who created the band with John Lennon, the quarryman that would eventually evolve into the Beatles, nor the replacement Paul.
Here we have photographs.
This is from an interview I did with Nick, where you can see the Beatles performing, and they're all roughly the same height.
Actually, it turns out that Ringo is slightly shorter than the others, but Richard, John, and Paul were all approximately the same height.
Now here's one of Paul versus Fall, where Paul had a very round, boyish face, very expressive, exuberant, irrepressible, versus Fall, having a more oval-shaped face, definitely more dour expression, seemingly more mature, didn't have that boyish ambitiousness of James Paul McCartney.
Photographic comparison, Paul v. Fall.
Paul had a rounder head and a more youthful exuberance than Paul.
Paul has an oblong cranium and a more mature face and expression.
Their profiles appear to be surprisingly different and even their ears.
Both with Jane Asher.
We have photographs of both with Jane Asher, but Paul towers over her by about four inches, very unlike Paul.
Here you have more photographs.
Paul versus Paul.
I think it's pretty clear we're talking about two different people, but I await Robert's rebuttal.
I'm sure he'll have much to say about it.
Here's another.
Paul versus Paul.
I see those same features, the roundish, boyish exuberance from Paul, and the more mature, subdued expression and countenance of Paul.
Here's a profile from the side.
I've done this with JFK with autopsy photographs versus a real guy to establish that Body on a slab, ostensibly at Bethesda in the morgue, was not in fact the body of JFK.
I think if you look at this profile, you look at that chin, you look at the nose, the profile, it is not the same.
Meanwhile, we have that classic photograph I was talking about Well, we have Paul with Jane Asher, and they're very nearly the same height.
But when we have Fall with Jane, he towers over her.
Italian forensic scientists sought to settle it.
They supposed the rumors were false, but turned out to verify their truth.
The many physical differences between them cannot be altered surgically.
Paul had bad teeth and a narrow palate, while Paul has good teeth and a normal palate.
There are, in addition, some signs that Paul has had cosmetic surgery.
I'm going to try to restore here.
I lost the control of the slides.
Getting them back now.
So this is really getting into the thick of it.
Because, as I've observed, you cannot have two persons having different properties and traits.
You're the forensic scientist who sought to disprove the hypothesis, claiming, you know, setting out to establish they were in fact one and the same.
Photos show that Paul's head is more oblong than Paul's.
Galvezenzi, one of the two, pointed out that some of the early printed photos of Paul must have been compressed in height in order to make his head appear shorter and more round.
He said his conclusion is inescapable because the shape of the skull of an adult cannot be altered.
He said there's a simple trick for stretching or compressing photos during the printing process in those days before computer photo editing became available.
So it would have been very easy for them to do this trick.
Carlisi, the other of the two, pointed out that the line separating Fall's lips is much wider, to the point it was obvious even when Fall grew a mustache, perhaps in an attempt to hide that detail.
Lips can be inflated and increased in volume, but the wideness of their separating line can be altered only to a small extent.
More interesting is the position relative to the skull of the point where the nose detaches from the face because it cannot be modified by surgery.
According to Carlisi, these points for Paul and Paul are considerably different.
Here you see photographs, by the way, of their teeth.
We're not inside their mouth to witness their palates, but Paul on the right had bad teeth and a narrow palate.
Paul on the left had good teeth and a normal palate.
Yama Zendi noticed a common feature of Paul's early photos not seen in his more recent, a dark area shadowing the external corner of the left eye.
That area now shows something halfway between a scar and something that resembles skin, stretched as a consequence of cosmetic surgery, or as Galazzani suggests, of an imperfect cosmetic surgery.
Nick Kohlstrom has the earliest photos of fall as Paul.
Arriving at EMI on 24 November 1966 in Sporting a moustache, A first official photo of 6 January 1967.
They're all sporting mustaches.
Other efforts made to minimize the difference in height with Paul and Paul.
Taking off his shoes, for example, while others are wearing them.
Here you have November 24, 1966, the very first appearance of the Beatles with Fall outside EMI.
The other three members arrived clean-shaven, but Paul, actually Fall, has a mustache.
Here's another closer with Mel Evans directly behind him, no doubt to give him answers to questions where he may not know how to respond.
The first official showdown with Fall and the Beatles came on January 6, 1967.
Notice how odd this is, because there are light sources right at the camera, making it extremely difficult to discern details, no doubt by design.
Here's another magical mystery tour, where you have Paul taking off his shoes to, you know, minimize the difference in height, which is very difficult to conceal nonetheless.
Other confirmation of Paul's replacement.
Notice on Ed Sullivan, all four Beatles are about the same height.
The Sergeant Pepper cover was of a funeral for a left-handed guitarist.
In Abbey Road, we have a minister, a funeral director, a corpse, and a gravedigger.
With Letterman, Paul said it rumors, the rumors were he was a replacement for Paul.
Here you see him on Ed Sullivan, and as I observe, Ringo's slightly shorter, but Richard, John, and Paul are all basically the same height.
Here's a Sgt.
Pepper album.
If you want to ask about, you know, Puzzlement, just take a look at the cover.
We have what appears to be a funeral.
We have a gravesite.
We have the name of the Beatles in flowers.
You have a left-handed guitar on the left.
You see the Madame Tussauds waxworks for the four Beatles.
In the middle, you have the resplendent new Sgt.
Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.
And of course, right off the bat, they introduced the one and only Billy Shears, who may take to be William Shepard, known as the Man of a Thousand Voices.
There are all kinds of figures here on the cover where we could spend endless hours addressing merely that.
But what in the world are we doing having a funeral for someone who played a left-handed guitar, which would be Paul himself, of course?
And the introduction of Billy Shears as joining Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club band.
Then, according to Ringo, a cover of the Abbey Road album was a hidden message to the world, symbolizing a funeral procession.
John Lennon, dressed in white, symbolizes the clergyman.
Ringo Starr, dressed in black, symbolizes the undertaker.
George Harrison, in denim jeans and shirt, symbolizes the gravedigger.
And Paul McCartney, barefoot and out of step, symbolizes the corpse.
Notice, by the way, he's holding a cigarette in his right hand when he was, Paul, left-handed.
Meanwhile, on Letterman, He was asked a couple of questions, which he didn't answer very well.
One was about that cover on Abbey Road, and Paul was explaining that it was a very hot day, so he took off his flip-flops because it was so hot.
But think about that.
We're talking about an asphalt roadway.
Asphalt absorbs heat.
Anyone knows on a hot day, the last thing you want to do is walk barefoot on asphalt.
So that really does not add up.
It may be the single poorest answer he ever gave to a question about his identity.
Letterman also asked him about the rumors that Paul had died and been replaced.
And he asked him, well, who was he replaced by?
And Paul very cleverly says, me.
You know, he's supposed to be replaced, as it were, mimicking the famous observation that, you know, rumors of his death have been greatly exaggerated.
Now, what I've done here is to lay out the evidence why I personally am convinced that Paul died and was replaced, because these are not the same guy.
Now, Robert's been very confident that he can rebut the arguments that have been presented, and I'm certain none of these I presented here are new to him.
So, Robert, please join the conversation.
Tell us a little bit about yourself, how you became interested in this question and your responses to what I have said so far.
Robert, are you there?
Yeah.
Turn on your mic, make sure your mic is working.
Robert?
Are we missing you?
I'm a bit baffled.
Robert, please, please, please unmute and join the conversation.
I really Organize this particular show to revolve around your rebuttal, so I'm really glad to have you here and participating, and I know you have joined, so please give us your commentary.
You can begin anywhere you like.
Robert.
Richard, I'm a bit baffled.
I just want to invite you to pick up in Robert's silence.
I mean, he seems to be here.
I've seen him turn on and off the mic, so he ought to be able to join us, and I hope he will.
Go ahead and pick up.
What is your response to my preliminary, you know, argument in favor of how we know that Paul was replaced?
Well, James, you hit about eight grand slams in your opening.
You've presented irrefutable evidence to anyone with an open mind.
And that's what I'm concerned about with Robert, who I've never met.
I know nothing about him.
I am going to assume That Robert is an honorable man, as I believe both you and I are, and that we will have a civil discussion.
And if Robert remains in honor at the end of 60 minutes, I think he will be persuaded that his position is 100% incorrect.
is 100% incorrect, but we shall see.
Yeah, go ahead, Richard, and elaborate.
I have, as I say, all the other slides, including the ones you have sent me most recently, so I can pull any of them up as you may like.
I'm pretty sure Robert thinks that they have been shown to be the same by voice analysis, and I notice you have a voice analysis that contradicts that claim.
That would be one point we could address.
I believe the audience Would be fascinated to have your retelling of how Paul's death came about and the historical circumstances.
Indeed, I have other slides about that if you'd like me to proceed, because in my opinion, your work on this subject has been unparalleled.
It's brilliant.
It's searching.
I would even describe it as profound.
I was so astonished and blown away by your Very detailed and minute dissection of exactly what brought about Paul's death.
I'm eager to have more.
Well, I consider the first show that we did, I think it was May 29, 2021, to be the preeminent Paul is dead proof.
I would also rate highly the Mark Devlin enhanced version.
of a conversation I had with him on September 10th last year, 2022, as probably the two best Paul is Dead proofs on the Internet.
Of course, I'm a little biased to say that, but it's still a fact as far as I'm concerned.
It's going to be really fun to see how someone can possibly Refute just what you've presented.
It can't be done.
And that means, if someone tries to refute all that, it means one of three things, in my opinion.
This is just my opinion.
It's not a fact.
It's just my opinion.
Number one, the guy's really dense.
Okay?
There are a lot of dense people out there.
I thought the whole world was smart until 2020 with the whole suffocate yourself and cut off your oxygen supply with a mask and, you know, take the genocide jab, clot shot.
I thought the world was full of adults who were pretty smart.
And I've been very dismayed these past two going on three years now that there are a lot of really Kind of naive, dumb people walking around.
Now the second possibility is perhaps Robert has done so many shows and internet forum chats and all this where he has presented his evidence that no it's still the same James Paul McCartney.
Maybe perhaps he's in too deep and at this point He can't just come out and say, you know what?
All them other times I've said, I was wrong!
I was wrong!
I'm sorry!
I got it wrong!
I admit it now!
Third possibility is that he is perhaps what I like to term an L.M.F.
L stands for lying.
M stands for money.
They can't admit the truth when their paycheck depends on them not admitting the truth.
full of these LMS.
And I'll tell you something about all these LMFs that you see on the media all the time spewing their lies.
They can't admit the truth when their paycheck depends on them not admitting the truth.
So as far as I see it, that's the only breakdown that could be going on here.
Now, if we're all honorable men and we engage in a back and forth, perhaps Robert will come to the conclusion on many fronts, on many levels and in many dimensions that he's incorrect.
And And then he will remain in honor, at least in my eyes.
Well, he dropped the video connection, but I did send him the call-in number, and I don't know if he's still listening.
I wanted to convey it to him.
I sent it to him via chat.
The call into my producer at 540-352-4452.
Hopefully you'll join us.
But meanwhile, Richard, I have a host of other slides I can present and you can comment on them.
Well, shall we proceed that way?
Because I lead right up to your presentation about how Paul died.
And it's fascinating in and of itself.
So let's try this.
Let's do a role reversal, and you present the evidence, and I'll pretend that I'm Robert refuting the evidence.
Okay.
So Robert shows up.
Okay.
And he can pinch hit for me, and then I'll go back, you know, to the other team.
Okay, okay.
Well, tell me right off the bat, Air Saps Robert, how do you respond to the evidence I've just presented already, which I've presented on multiple occasions?
I think especially the work by the Italian forensic scientists is devastating to your position in denying that Paul died and was replaced.
Robert, your thoughts?
No, that's not true!
Oh, I tell you.
Richard, you're quite a boot, quite a hoot.
Let's go back to more of the evidence here.
They announced the replacement publicly.
In Sergeant Pepper, we have the one and only Billy Shears joining the Beatles.
He looked a lot like Paul even before surgery, known as the man of a thousand voices.
Paul, of course, appears to have died in an automobile accident, oddly enough, on 9-11-1966, and that's prior to your work, Richard, which supersedes that.
Check out the memoirs of Billy Shears, available at Amazon.com, unlike six of my books on Sandy Hook, Boston bombing, Orlando and Dallas, Parkland, Charlottesville, even the moon landing.
Here's a photo of Billy Shears prior to his transformation into Paul, and I gotta say, Richard, they did bear a striking resemblance, do you not agree?
They resembled one another, but after the surgeon wizards of MI5, you know, got a hold of them with a series of operations, they tightened them up and made them look even better.
Yeah.
It's a real tribute to the power of the witch's spell.
We can't ever forget that the Beatles are a supernatural story rooted in the occult.
The whole...
The whole framework of presenting the beetles as a Tavistock experiment and then switching out the most famous one, the cute beetle, right in front of the whole world and everybody keeps going on pretending it's the same guy and very, very few people picked up on it.
Robert, what do you think about that?
That could never happen!
There's no way that everybody would get together and lie about something!
Like, uh, in the whole COVID 1984, uh, jabber-ka-dabbera, you know, where all the talking heads on the media said that these shots were safe and effective and that we're having a worldwide pandemic?
Something like that?
How they all got together?
Because everybody on TV is in the club.
They're all giving each other the secret handshake.
You have to be in the Actor's Equity Union or the News Union or whatever it is just to start with.
Robert, what do you think about that?
There is no way that everybody could get together and lie.
It's impossible.
You cannot replace the talent of James Paul McCartney With an imposter.
It just doesn't work that way.
I mean, look at, look at President Biden.
Oh, I'm so glad you brought that up, Robert, because if you take a real close look at Joe Biden from five, six years ago, you can see he has unattached earlobes.
But the pretendent today is allegedly sitting in the White House for a replica of saying his earlobes are attached.
Richard, I'm delighted to say we no longer have to deal with the ersatz, Robert, because a real Robert is here and we got him visually and oddly.
Robert, go for it.
Lay on, lay on.
We're delighted.
That's right.
- That's right.
- So yeah, I had to go on my cell phone.
It wasn't working on my computer.
- Okay. - I've never watched it.
Robert, just go for it.
Go for it.
We're so delighted to have you here.
Oh, yeah.
OK, for sure.
It's just a bit of my background.
I'm born in the early 60s.
I grew up in a house where there was a lot of Beatles records.
And I remember when this rumor started and I had the magazine, that color magazine, all this dead stuff and all that.
And I grew up in the photographic industry.
And then I went into film lighting and I've had dark rooms, worked as a photographer, film lighting for movies and television, and I'm a lifelong musician, songwriter, and record my own music and so on.
First of all, it's literally impossible to replace a human being like that.
I think this is the main crux of my art.
You can't, because especially Paul McCartney, he's the most Or perhaps Scrooge and I's famous person in the world with such unique talents that it's literally impossible to duplicate all that.
And even the best Paul McCartney impersonators out there can't even come close.
And just the logistics of him going out in the world.
And Paul McCartney knew hundreds of people.
He was a very sociable guy.
A lot of connections.
I mean, it would have become very apparent very quickly that nobody knew that he would No one knew who the hell anybody was or what the hell they were talking about.
And the reason people quit touring is because they're just sick of being carted around in armored cars and they couldn't go anywhere.
They couldn't do anything.
They're just trapped all the time and they're just sick of it.
And they've been working their asses off for years.
And my background in photography, the reason Paul McCartney looks so different in so many photographs is because he does.
I totally admit, he looks completely different.
And this is not unique to Paul McCartney.
This is, this is an aspect of photography, which, the fact is, every photograph looks, you look different.
Every single photograph is taken of you.
Because photographs, in and of themselves, are a distortion of three-dimensional reality onto a two-dimensional surface.
So if you look, if you do a Google search on lens distortion, for example, and how it changes the structure of your face very dramatically, you'll see that it can make your eyes look different, the color of your eyes, the size and shape your head make you look taller.
And another thing, a lot of the photographs I find used for evidence are badly distorted.
And when somebody's turning their head quickly or anybody moving, there's going to be distortions, particularly the old analog photography.
Or digital, there's a lot more variables.
And so, and we'll call it Paul McCartney as well.
He's always a little taller than the rest of the Beatles.
So I find there's a lot of real cherry picking.
They'll find it one picture where he's standing on uneven ground.
He's taller than the rest of them.
And they use that as a proof.
He's taller than the rest.
But you clearly look at the Gabby over cover.
He's pretty much the same height, just a little taller than the rest of them.
And that's not a funeral possession either.
That's just the way they have all the rest of the year.
And there's multiple photographs going through that time period where they're all wearing those same outfits consistently.
So there wasn't anything set up for that.
And what else?
Uh, I don't know.
Anything you want to throw at me?
Oh, as well, there's a guy named Wings of Pegasus.
It's a YouTube channel.
And he's got the, um, I think it's called spectrograph equipment, where they analyze voice prints.
And as he explains quite correctly, that your voice print is like your fingerprint.
You can't fake it.
And they actually convict people of crimes and send them away.
It's used by law enforcement, this fingerprint technology, voice fingerprint technology.
and he's by law enforcement convicted of crimes.
And so he's using the same stuff and it's exactly the same person.
You cannot fake this.
So yeah, anything else you wanna? - Well, I wanna, my thought was to give you the opportunity to, you know, rebut across the board right up to the break and then we'll return with Richard to respond.
Oh, I'm sure, I'm sure.
The photographs you're using are... I can't take it seriously at all.
in the shape of the skull, in the demeanor, in the teeth, in the palate.
I mean, this includes the work by the Italian forensic scientist.
- Oh, I read that, yeah, I can rebut all of them.
- Well, please, please, please, please.
- Oh, I'm sure, for sure.
The photographs they're using are, I can't take it seriously at all.
The photographs they're using are really bad and they're comparing with the inside of the Sgt.
Pepper cover, which is a heavily retouched photo, which is a standard.
I've done retouching myself.
Every photograph of an album is to get their pimply, pockmarked white skin and make it tanned.
And it's the same.
You do a studio portrait of somebody, you change the lens.
Suddenly their face is wider, fatter.
I mean, there's so many variables.
They're using photographs that are really badly distorted.
And the thing, this is the thing, it's cherry picking.
Nobody's going to see photographs of John Lennon when he sees what it looks like.
There's lots of... You can see, in fact, I invite any of these people to take pictures of Paul McCartney before 1966.
Just look at those and compare them.
You'll find all the same things.
So it's just a...
So you think the Italian forensic scientists just didn't know what they were doing?
Yeah, the picture of the teeth too, like that's very, that's a, that's a, that's a photograph.
They, they blow a way up and it's very distorted.
And as well, people like, you know, take a photograph, especially news people, you know, they, they want to get that photo on, on, in the five o'clock edition of the news or whatever.
So they just do a quick retouch and maybe his ear's out of focus and they fill it in.
So Later on, it looks like it doesn't look like it was his ear.
And I've noticed these photographs is a heavily retouching, a lot of heavy, heavy retouching going on in these pictures.
So I got into the Paul is dead thing, not only being a fan, but I thought for a time that there's some kind of a cult sort of ritual being played out through their albums, but I don't believe that at all.
Not at all.
So I'm very aware of these kind of So basically your position is that the evidence is being distorted, not to say fabricated, but none of it is reliable because in fact you're convinced.
What is most convincing to you about the preposterousness of bullying?
Are you aware that when Linda McCartney first Linda Eastman first introduced herself to Paul.
She walked up to him and said, Hi, I know you're not Paul.
When did you join the band?
Are you aware of that conversation?
Thank you.
We'll be right back after this message.
Was it a conspiracy?
Did you know that the police in Boston were broadcasting This is a Drill, This is a Drill on bullhorns during the marathon?
That the Boston Globe was tweeting that a demonstration bomb would be set off during the marathon for the benefit of bomb squad activities.
And that one would be set off in one minute in front of the library, which happened as the Globe had announced.
Peering through the smoke, you could see bodies with missing arms and legs.
But there was no blood.
The blood only showed up later and came out of a tube.
They used amputee actors and a studio-quality smoke machine.
Don't let yourself be played.
Check out And Nobody Died in Boston, either.
Available at moonrockbooks.com.
That's moonrockbooks.com.
If you think for one second that the Capitol will ever treat us fairly, you are lying to yourself. - Go!
Because we know who they are and what they do.
This is what they do!
And we must fight back!
You can torture us and bomb us.
Fire is catching.
And if we burn, you burn with us!
- Good evening. - Are you awake yet?
I hope.
We've tried and we've tried for years and years to use passive resistance and loud voices to make a change.
But time is over.
Your governments around the world have no other goal than to decimate your entire existence at the hands of the bankers and the elites.
The war is coming and it's your choice to decide if you want to be a warrior or a victim.
Denial is not a choice anymore.
Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
Not giving up.
Revolution. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. Radio. It is
no secret that the so-called mainstream media is best described as controlled propaganda. - Thank you.
Countless news stories are either totally ignored or spun with half-truths.
And because of this, essential facts and vital information are often compromised.
Join Dr. Ott every Friday night on Studio B at 10 p.m.
Eastern and learn why the story behind the story was nominated for a Peabody Award in its second year of producing unparalleled broadcasting excellence in 1997.
That is, if you really care about learning the truth.
The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners or chatters are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff, or affiliates.
You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, 100% listener-supported radio, and now we return you to your host.
Well, this is Jim Fetzer, your host on The Raw Deal with a special edition and featuring two guests today, Robert Livingstone your host on The Raw Deal with a special edition and featuring two We're discussing the possible death and replacement of Paul McCartney by someone whom I regard as an even better musician.
Robert who is technically unable to join us earlier is now staking out his position roughly that it would be impossible to make the replacement that everyone would know and that you just couldn't pull it off and I gotta say.
Dear friend from Canada, Clara Kuhn, was the first to introduce me to the idea that Paul was dead and had been replaced, and she and I discussed it on several occasions, but it was not until I discovered the evidence of the forensic scientists demonstrating that they had different teeth and different palates, which I knew was a physical impossibility.
I mean, people just don't change their teeth.
They don't change their palates.
You're going to have teeth pulled and all that, but it was pretty obvious to me that this was bona fide proof that you had two adult males who had different features, including, of course, a difference in height.
Now, Robert wants to suggest this is all a matter of, you know, photography, ordinary differences and all that.
Frankly, I find that Very hard to take seriously at this point in time, though I must say when Clara was first broaching it, my position was, and this was over, I don't know, 10 years ago?
My position was pretty much like that of Robert here today.
Richard, Robert disappeared again.
I presume he'll come back, but your thoughts about what he's had to say so far?
He hasn't said anything yet.
All he has is presuppositions.
In fact, it's probably not Robert's fault that he keeps getting yanked off the line because I've noticed whenever I do a Paul is Dead show, especially, there's always technical issues with either the sound or the picture or it cuts out because the powers that be don't want this information to come out.
We have Robert back, but please go ahead and say more about it.
I wanted you to have that opportunity to respond to his initial statement.
Well, I am just stunned by his intellectual prowess that he realizes that we got it wrong and that, no, it is the same James Paul McCartney five and a half decades later.
Please have Robert Elucidate more on his perspective so that I might become a learned person and walk in truth with him.
You know, it's interesting as a point of logic.
You can adopt any specific position you want if you're willing to make, and defend it, if you're willing to make sufficiently drastic changes in your alternative position, just as I said about Relativity being on a train, you know, you could assume that's a motionless stationary center of the universe if you like.
Then you got the world flying by you and all these other changes that must happen as a point of logic.
It's logically possible to adopt such a position, but extremely implausible when you get more and more evidence.
Robert, of course, made an effort to suggest that they were just tired of doing concerts.
And if that were the case, I suppose that would be the only group in history.
I mean, the Beatles were such a massive industry that when they learned of Paul's death, Ringo, according to the confession where I've identified where you can find it, why Ringo's confession, we replace Paul, appears to be authentic on my blog at jameshfetzer.org.
Said, well, what about the band?
You know, what do we do with a band?
And I think the queen would add a keen interest in maintaining because they were a billion dollar industry.
And so I think that the crown had a great interest in keeping it going.
I think that replacement of Paul was simply indispensable to maintain the illusion, but that.
I'm not quite sure if Robert thinks it was impossible for them to even try such a thing because.
I mean, and I'm interested in Robert's view.
You brought up Joe Biden.
I mean, you know, does Robert think it would be impossible for Biden to be replaced by a similar looking?
I mean, obviously not exactly the same or many others.
Hillary used body doubles during the debates.
I've done quite a lot about Hillary's use of body doubles, Biden's use of body doubles.
A real Joe appears to have died in 2017.
Robert, go ahead and respond to any of that you like.
I think it's very possible now.
I've seen those people.
Can you hear me?
Yes.
OK, thanks.
Those people wearing masks that look exactly like another person, they take them mask off and they look totally different, these kind of things.
Some of that technology exists now, but somebody with that amount of unique talent is just not replaceable.
And being a musician, you can't just hire a guy to write Let it be in the long and winding road and maybe I'm amazed and these are absolutely classic songs written by an absolute master of his craft.
Very few people have that.
And the reason why the Beatles, it seems to miss it by people that the Beatles were so talented.
And I think the main reason for that was they were incredibly ambitious and they worked their butts off and they've written a couple of hundred songs before they ever recorded anything.
The fact that they spend, what, two, three years in Hamburg planning live, like eight to twelve hours a day, six days to a week for years, playing in front of the toughest audiences in the world.
That would have been an incredible learning experience for their personal development.
This is second to none.
They just had an incredible advantage over everybody else, just from that fact alone.
And all that Well, let me ask you this, Robert.
boot camp that any you put any bad in that situation they're going to become pretty good too so what else I mean the thing about like I don't know where to go I mean anything you guys want to talk about well let me ask you this Robert what would convince you that you might be mistaken that maybe Paul was replaced if differences in height I thought about it I thought about it for sure yeah
I'm sorry I'm No, I'm sorry.
I missed what you were saying.
I just couldn't quite make out the words.
Yeah, I've thought of it.
I've certainly considered it.
I mean, but like I said, it's just not possible to replace a human being like that.
And when you say it's not, I want to get clear on what you mean.
Listen, how would he pass off all the people he knew?
It would have become big news at that time that Paul McCartney doesn't know anybody and what the hell they're talking about.
And how would he have that incredible musical ability and his vocal ability that's just absolutely perfect?
It's not possible.
You can't do that just overnight.
I mean, it would take years and years.
The best Paul McCartney impersonator has been years and years and years working at it.
It's silly.
You can tell I'm a thousand feet away. - I'm asking you, Robert, I'm asking you, what would it take to convince you that you were wrong?
If audio comparisons, if, wait a minute, if you've claimed, you've claimed their audios are the same, or if their audios, if their audios were different, would you find that compelling evidence?
Well, some people have done comparative audios, but they've used audios where they've changed the pitch of the vocal in the song.
And they use those as examples.
The Beatles did that a lot.
They would record vocals at different pitches.
So it'd be higher, particularly to get higher vocals and stuff.
So, yeah, let's talk about the Butcher cover and the occult aspect.
People say there's a strong occult.
The Beatles are heavily into the occult.
They're Satanists and all this.
It's just ridiculous.
And I'll explain why.
Butcher's Sleeve is not an occult thing.
Butcher's Sleeve was their way of saying, this is another one of our American releases.
It's a butchered album, as they call them.
They would take a hodgepodge of B-sides.
They'd put out a new album.
They'd take songs off the new album and take them off that album and put them on the American release to sell twice as many records.
The Beatles hated that.
So here's another butchered album.
That's what it was.
- That's what it was, it was a statement on it being butchered out. - Just a toss out. - Listen, you make it out to be as though this replacement were identical with the original, which I agree would be preposterous, but he isn't identical.
I mean, I've been pointing out one after another difference, shape, size, cranium, demeanor, height, teeth, palate, all that, and there's much more.
Now, Robert, the point is, You've created a straw man.
You're saying they're supposed to be identical, but they aren't identical.
Any more than the new Biden is identical with the old Biden.
Any more than the Hillary body doubles.
And I've identified at least eight body doubles that Hillary has used over time.
Eight different body doubles.
My face looks, my nose looks twice as big now.
Now it looks smaller.
Now this angle here, I look different.
I got a bigger forehead.
Now I got a smaller forehead.
Yeah, but you're trivializing the evidence.
You are trivializing the evidence.
Not only that, let me just give you three proofs.
There's a girl in Germany who appears to have been impregnated by James Paul McCartney.
She brought a maternity suit.
When they did a DNA test, it did not match, and that's because I submit While she was honest, and James Paul McCartney was the father, they were testing it against Billy Shears as a replacement, so of course they didn't match.
In Japan!
Paul McCartney had some marijuana.
They arrested him when they compared the new Paul.
This was Paul.
They arrested him when they compared the fingerprints.
They didn't match because the fingerprints they had were for James Paul McCartney, not for Billy Shares, a.k.a.
Paul.
And in the third place, and Richard brought this up, We have an audio test, a comparison of the voices, and it's clear they're not the same voice.
Billy Shears, by the way, was known as a man of a thousand voices.
He could imitate anyone.
I think that's what attracted them to him.
But he was born right-handed.
He had to learn to play left.
This is one of many differences.
Go ahead, Robert.
Dissolve.
I've been playing guitar for 45 years.
I play bass.
That's what it says right there.
We can't do that.
People don't understand music.
You can't duplicate somebody's musical ability.
Especially a guy like Paul McCartney.
Like that.
You can't do it.
Well, he took them.
You do agree.
He took them in a whole different... Like the people that are behind this have such God-like powers that they can seemingly do anything.
They don't have those kind of powers.
Robert!
I don't want to suggest you're creating I don't want to suggest you're creating straw men, but you're giving an exaggerated version of the position that make it easier to attack.
Let's look at all the so-called death crews.
He farmed every single one of them.
Every single one of them.
Him wearing a black rose, and the rest of the Beatles wearing red roses in that video, right?
So the Beatles did a video, the first video with Paul, supposedly, was Strawberry Fields Forever.
And as you've seen in the video where the Beatles are riding horses.
All three of the Beatles are riding white horses, but one of them is riding a dark horse.
And that's George.
It's not Paul.
If Paul was riding that dark horse, this would be a big slam-dunk evidence, right?
But it's George.
And let's look at the Help movie.
Ringo Starr was the one being pursued as the human sacrifice, right?
If you want to talk predictive programming.
If Paul was the one being pursued, then that would be used as evidence.
You know, I'm going with this, it's all very selective, it's confirmation bias.
And Ringo is actually Billy Shears on Sgt.
Becker Brown, not Paul.
Because they introduced the, Billy Shears, and then Ringo sings, uh, introduced him, then it's Ringo that sings with the Little Alphabet Friends, so it's not Paul anyway.
Richard, would you like to... The thing with Aleister Crowley, too, it's a lesser folio.
Real fancy.
But having a Lester Crowley on the cover.
People, oh, the Beatles are Satanists.
Oh, they're heavily into the occult.
They probably read him and they're dabbled in a bit.
Oh, put him on the cover.
He's kind of hip and trendy.
They all said Adolf Hitler was going to be on the cover.
And if you look at the photo shoot from that day, you'll see his his cut out there.
I'll get us off to the side.
So does that mean that Beatles are all secret national socialists?
No, of course not.
Right.
So people just think of the Beatles, people just read way You know, the thing like, you know, to be called a toddler on the cuff of a sergeant's cuff because he's standing on higher ground than the rest.
There was dirt there that he was standing on.
He was elevated above the rest.
And he happened to have this shot where he's got a hand wave.
And this is this stuff about hand waving over your head.
In some remote part of the world somewhere, that's a symbol of death.
You could find, you know, everything is a symbol of death.
To somebody around the world and, you know, Paul having bare feet and a cigarette in his right hand.
I've done lots of photo shoots, been to them, film sets.
You have a photographer saying, OK, put your hand like this.
OK, click, click.
Well, do this.
Click, click.
Put your hand over your right thigh.
Click, click.
OK, put your cigarette in your right hand so it's in the shot.
That's Paul McCartney.
You know, that's that photo from Abbey Road.
It personifies him.
He's wearing a conservative business suit, but he's got a cigarette and bare feet.
You know, he's Mr. Traditional, conservative, but he's kind of edgy too.
You know, he wants his cigarette in his shot.
He wants his bare feet in his shot.
He's not going to say, oh, I was trying to look cool.
You know, everybody makes, you know, he's not, nothing is unique.
You can take Mick Jagger died in 1975 and do a Okay, I want Richard to have the opportunity to respond to your latest arguments, Robert.
Richard?
Well, I noticed, Robert, that you said that you can refute and debunk all the occultism attached to the Beatles.
Please refute this aspect.
Do you have a calculator there with you, Robert?
No.
Do you have a calculator there with you?
Well, you can get a calculator online.
I mean, you know, just go ahead.
I've set my Macintosh computer down.
I'm just using my phone.
I don't know.
Well, you can do this later when you have a calculator or when you use your ten digits.
The reason James Paul McCartney was selected to become a satanic ritual human sacrifice after he was built up into the most influential, most beloved entertainer in show business history at that time is because. most beloved entertainer in show business history at that time
Rounding from the first Jack the Ripper ritual killing on August 31st, 1888 to the birth of James Paul McCartney on June 8th.
That spans a period of exactly 19,649 days, counting both dates.
Now here's my point.
of exactly 19,649 days, counting both dates.
Now, here's my point.
You divide 19,649 days by 29.5, which is the time it takes the moon, our moon, to make one complete lunar cycle from either new moon to new moon phase, or from to make one complete lunar cycle from either new moon to new moon phase, or from
When you do the math, you divide the number of days, 19,649 days by 29.5 Earth days, and you get the number 666.0666.
Now, refute that, Robert.
Oh, easily, yeah.
Have you done that calculation in your own life, or with anybody else, or anything?
You'll find a lot of these things come up, these so-called quits.
You're off to a bad start, Robert.
Refute what I just said, mathematically.
Mathematics does not lie.
People lie.
Mathematics does not lie.
Geometry does not lie.
The stars, the planets do not lie.
Well, Richard, Richard, Richard, let me assume, Richard, you're mathematic.
Hang on, Robert.
Let me assume, Richard, what you're saying mathematically is impeccable.
The question is what significance should attach to it, you know?
I mean, I agree 666 historically has been used as a sign for the devil, Lucifer, Satan, what have you, but I would expect Robert would reply in a similar vein.
Robert, go ahead.
I mean, to say that You calculate from this date to some event from a hundred years ago is exactly... How does that mean anything?
You could sit there all day and come up and say, oh we hit 666 with Paul McCartney dated to this event here in this date.
What does that mean?
What does Paul McCartney have to do with the Jack the Ripper killings?
Because the murder of James Paul McCartney was a satanic, premeditated ritual human sacrifice.
Just like the Bob Jack the Ripper murders.
And by the way, The Order of the Golden Dawn chapter in London opened in 1888.
The same year the Jack the Ripper ritual killings happened.
And in 1966, the same year that Beatle James Paul McCartney was ritually sacrificed, the American Satanic Church of Satan opened in San Francisco, where the Beatles gave their last concert 13 days before his ritual sacrifice on September the 11th, 1966.
What evidence do you have that he was sacrificed?
Who did it?
What evidence do you have that he was killed?
What evidence do I have?
Have you seen the May 29th?
Here we go.
Hey, Richard, Richard, let's turn to... You talked about, you know, how John observed that the Beatles were more famous than Jesus.
And that the Pope appears to have taken a rather dim view of that.
Why don't you elaborate?
Here we have, back on March 4th of 1966, John gave an interview and made that assertion.
That was a fairly wide-sweat protest, burning albums and the like.
Pope Paul VI apparently did not take it well and wanted retribution where the instrumentality appears to have been.
Maxwell Knight of MI5.
Here we have, you know, there's a lot to this, and you and I have gone into it in great detail, where John's observance was not taken well.
There was a public reaction.
Bob seems to have wanted a retribution and punishment.
And where Maxwell Knight may well have been the instrumentality by your account, which I find highly convincing myself after having done several interviews, I think you've got it right.
But you also have the voice print analysis that shows that they're actually different voices, not the same.
I would like you to elaborate on that, Richard.
And there are passages in the memoirs of Billy Shears that are significant and a host of others.
Yes, pull up that voice print that I sent you, if you can, there.
Yes.
Who did it, and how did they do it?
What equipment did they do it on?
I mean, come on.
Here's the voice print.
I wasn't there.
I wasn't there.
Here's the voice print.
Can you see it?
Can you see it?
Yeah, the one on the left is the voice print of James Paul McCartney.
The one on the right is the voice print of Paul.
And by the way, these were done by Dr. Henry Truby, the vocal analysis.
And he determined off of three songs, Yesterday, Penny Lane, and Let It Be, that there were three different Paul McCartney voices by the spectrograms and the spectrograms.
That has never been disputed.
In fact, it was in the, what was it, November 7th?
Was it 1969 Life Magazine?
The one with the fake Paul McCartney on the cover?
Sure.
Go ahead, Robert.
You don't show any evidence at all for him being murdered.
I just saw the evidence on the screen.
What was that?
What was that?
Your argument is basically just incredulity.
You're getting highly emotional about it.
How can anybody not see it's Paul McCartney?
Well, somebody's trained in photography and music and lighting.
You know, someone like that might not believe it.
Let's go through all these so-called clues and stuff.
They're all nothing.
There's absolutely nothing there.
The Beatles were not... You know, there's no hero possession, there's no funeral on the Beatles cover of Sgt.
Pepper or anything.
I mean, this is ridiculous.
I mean, they had a lot of different people.
They had Adolf Hitler on there.
Why are they called Nazis then?
I mean, they're obviously Nazis if they had him there.
Like, they're obviously Satanists because they had Crowley undercover.
I mean, these tenuous associations and these blanket Satanists are just, uh... You're saying there's three Paul McCartneys now?
I mean, it's just... I mean, just so... It would be so difficult just to have one, you know, for sake of the argument, let alone three.
Have you seen, there's a guy named Miles Mathis.
He's got a theory that John Lennon faked his death He makes a meager living as a John Lennon impersonator in Michigan, somewhere in a little town.
He also says that Paul McCartney, he's figured it out.
It's twins!
And they take turns.
I mean, the thing with the Beatles, I've read everything.
You know, just everything.
They never stop.
They just make this stuff up.
What's your take on the Last Testament of George Harrison, by the way, Robert?
I presume you've watched that.
If you look at the original videos, they've dubbed these voices in.
They call it Paul Fall or Billy and William and stuff.
They're all fake.
There's all this fake repot.
What's your take on the last testament of George Harrison, by the way, Robert?
I presume you've watched that.
I heard that and burst out laughing.
You burst out laughing.
It doesn't sound like I'm an awesome guy.
Sounds like some drunk guy in his basement somewhere making it up.
Anyway, yeah.
Yeah.
So, yeah.
Anyway, that's what I think of that.
I mean, Richard, let's go to some of those passages you have from the memoirs of Billy Shears.
I think those are... The Book of Fiction.
Look, you're begging the question, Robert.
It might be a work of fiction, but it might not.
My inclination is to believe the detail and specificity is so great that the idea anyone would invest that much time and effort in a work of fiction is ludicrous beyond words.
Here's we got, here we got, uh, let's let's look at this.
Here we got...
Let's look at this.
Here's that.
...people took it for what it was.
And it was only the... Bigots that took it up and thought it was...
You know, on their side, they thought, ha-ha, here's something to get them for.
But when they read it, they saw that there was nothing wrong with it, really.
It's just that they thought that files saying...
...by John saying that we were more popular than Jesus, they thought, ah, you know, he's bound to be arrogant.
Thank you.
Did you see the fellow on telly last night?
He said it.
No.
Tonight, sure.
I'd just like to simplify things a little by suggesting that the two gentlemen with the row, they might select the question as well.
And when did you get it from?
Oh yeah, I mean, if I was to say where I got it from, you know, it's illegal and everything, it's silly to say that.
Do you believe that this was a matter which you should have kept private?
The thing is, you know, that I was asked a question by a newspaper.
And the decision was whether to tell a lie or to tell him the truth, you know.
I decided to tell him the truth.
But I really didn't want to say anything, you know, because if I had my decision, you know, if I had it my way, I wouldn't have told anyone, you know, because I'm not trying to spread the word about this.
The man from the newspaper is the man from the mass media.
Let me just go forward to what Richard shared with me today, including, of course, this is all part of his previous research on the death of Paul.
Here we have what the final photo, Richard, this is what the last photo we have of the Beatles before the replacement.
Yes, that was a series of pictures, the last photographs of the Beatles together.
And by the way, that was taken exactly six years to the day after the Beatles' One Eye album cover, which you see a lot of celebrities and entertainers now doing the One Eye thing.
The Beatles were amongst the first to do that.
Now, of course, here we have the voice print comparison.
Robert, I want to get Richard in here for a while.
What do we have here now, Richard?
What do we have here?
Well, that's Aleister Crowley, and he was inserted in the Paul McCartney 1882 music video at precisely 2 minutes and 22 seconds.
The number 222 in The Witches Gematria is what the word hell adds up to.
So that's why you have Aleister Crowley at 2.22 in that video.
It's just one of the hundreds of Beatles clues that have been left.
Here's one that you sent.
Let's listen to this.
There, the audio track is.
And this you're suggesting, Richard, is because Maxwell had played this role in killing Paul, and they were giving is because Maxwell had played this role in killing Paul, and they were They even sang about his murder with Maxwell's silver hammer.
Would you like to talk about these quotes?
Go, Richard.
Well, I believe the one you've got up there now is from memoirs, and it shows the moment when Brian Epstein was showing the autopsy photo to John Lennon to convince him that, no, Paul McCartney really is dead.
And below that, in the bold type, if you notice there, you'll see it's bolded out, Maxwell Knight.
So, he's linking the photograph, head wound, to the murderer!
But you have to have eyes to see it!
How about this?
Here's a note on 461.
Oh yeah, that footnote dispels the whole myth that was created at the time that Paul McCartney got into an argument with Brian Epstein and he slammed the door and then he drove off in the rain, upset, and then had a car crash.
And that footnote there is saying No, no, no.
That's all bullshit.
We just were going to come up with that in case it was discovered and that's how we were going to say he got dead.
Okay?
Here's another.
Parts of the skull of the coroner pulled open.
Oh yeah, well, the famous photograph of his hammered head, you know.
It's pulled open on the autopsy slab.
Yes, yes, yes.
Now, here's a here's a replacement we had.
Is this Darren McGavin?
No, no, no, no.
That's why it's pulled open.
You know, when you push it together, then you can see the indentation of the hammer very clearly.
Yes, yes, yes.
Now, here's a replacement we had.
Was this Darren McGavin?
Nice, doctor.
No, no, no, no.
That was on the left.
You have the beloved Dick York, who, by the way, looks like my father.
He looked exactly like my father, who died when I was four and a half years old.
And then on September 18th, 1969, without any warning, without any notice, the guy on the right, Dick Sargent, replaced Dick York portraying Darren Stevens without missing a beat.
They just went on, you know?
And a lot of us noticed that.
Do we know why that replacement took place, Richard?
Well, the story is twofold.
One, that Dick York had injured his back on a film set badly in another picture and he had to take a lot of medication just to show up and do the first five years of Bewitched.
You dig a little deeper and you find out That Dick York was married.
He had about five kids, I think, at the time, and he was head over heels in love with his co-star, Elizabeth Montgomery, which, you know, pretty much we all were at the time.
So it made for an awkward situation there, especially since her husband, William Asher, was the producer-director of Bewitched, starring his wife.
So, you know, it was a little hanky there.
Do you think it was?
Did he did he get overly amorous toward Elizabeth?
Would that have been the reason for being replaced?
According to an interview he gave, he wanted to he was ready to give up his wife and five kids and, you know, and go off with her.
That's what love can do to you.
I mean, love is like the most powerful witch's spell there is.
And by the way, for the record, counselor, The first and most powerful witch on television was not Samantha.
It was her mother, Endora, portrayed by Agnes Moorhead, brilliant actress, who just so happened to die on the Witches' Sabbath, April 30th, 1974.
So the first witch on television dies on the Witches' Sabbath, the same day that the first president of the United States, George Washington was sworn in back in 1789 on April 30th, Ball Pergus Night, the Witch's Sabbath. - Let me ask Robert this, because I think this question,
these photographs, the real Joe Biden versus these photographs, the real Joe Biden versus the guy we got in the Oval Office now, tends to undermine his whole plausibility argument.
I mean, here you got a guy, man, central focus of television news worldwide.
He's a fake.
Can I say something?
of the United States, and he's not being called out.
I mean, you've got a small group calling it out, bringing attention to it.
But worldwide, it's not the case.
They're accepting this as though he were the real guy.
And I think by your argument, Robert, that ought to be impossible.
But there it is.
Can I say something?
Can I speak?
Sure.
We're talking about 60 years ago, right?
Now we have technology now.
Some guy can put on a mask.
We've all seen these videos.
They have these lifelike masks.
And somebody could be wearing a Joe Biden mask, making appearances because he's in a hospital somewhere.
He's drooling out of the side of his mouth.
They can't put him out in a press conference.
So they've got these guys with masks on.
So you're telling me, Robert...
Robert, you're telling me you agree that Biden and the White House now is not the real Joe.
You agree with that?
He's not conversing with people, with his friends.
He's not singing.
He's not playing multiple instruments on a stage in front.
He's not having a film crew coming in, filming him for a whole month.
It's like, let it be a film, and so on.
And I'll tell you, I think that the conspiracy is really about, I'll tell you, Apparently when this Paul is Dead rumor started, it was a college, a kid in a college newspaper wrote an article about it, saying that these so-called, you know, if you have bare feet somewhere in the world, that means you're dead.
You know, wearing shoes means you're dead too, apparently.
But anyway, you listen to that original and the guy, this anonymous caller called in the radio station and they're The story went nationwide.
You listen to that call very carefully.
He keeps emphasizing to play your records backwards.
Play your records.
You got to play the records backwards.
He says it probably does sometimes.
What happens when you play your records backwards?
It wrecks your albums and you have to replace them.
I remember that time.
They probably made millions of dollars just in that few months there when the rumor first broke from all the record sales.
So I suspect, and I don't know for sure, I suspect if there's any conspiracy, some clever guy in the record company, maybe an Allen's Pines officer, saw them and said, hey, see this article?
If we announce this, you know, we say that Paul is dead and stuff and tell people to play the records backwards, we'll sell zillions of records.
And that's what I think worked with a hitch.
Not replacing the guy physically.
You know, I don't think it's possible.
And all these so-called clues, like all these tenuous associations, like A hundred years ago, there was Jack the Ripper, and if you calculate all of this, and it turned... He could sit there all day and come up with that stuff.
Has he done the same scrutiny with John Lennon or any other celebrity?
No, none of these people do.
They don't see the pictures that John Lennon's doesn't look like himself, because the photographs are distorted.
They don't see it.
They only, if they see one that Paul McCartney doesn't match up, boom!
and it's confirmation bias.
And like you said, Ringo was the one that was a sacrifice.
He's the one who's going to see it.
Maybe he's the one he said. - If there were, Robert, just to be candid about it, if there were ever an example of confirmation bias that you are exemplifying it in my opinion, Now, as a student of logic, I've made a point.
You cannot have two individuals be the same person unless they have all and only the same properties at all and only the same time.
While you sought to explain it away, In my opinion, my opinion, you've not explained the way the difference in height, the difference in shape of skull, the difference in the teeth, the difference in about—no!
You have offered what I am telling you I regard as pseudo-explanations.
I don't buy your explanation.
I'm just being candid.
You, in my opinion, exemplify the logical point I made before.
That you can adopt any single position you want and maintain it true no matter what, regardless of the evidence, if you're willing to make sufficiently drastic alterations and everything else.
The constellation of evidence in this case is overwhelming, in my opinion.
And just go back to those early Look, there are multiple books about this, Robert.
In my opinion, you're not coming honestly to grip with the evidence.
The earliest photos of Paul, the earliest photos of Paul are decisive already right off the bat, because that's obviously not Paul James McCarthy.
Yeah, go ahead, Robert, go ahead.
Like I said in the beginning, you look up, you know, I don't, maybe you don't have a calculator.
I'm not going to ask you to look at a calculator, but look up Let me say, Robert, Robert, I do a lot of work on photographic analysis, JFK 9-11, Sandy Hawk, the whole bit, okay?
I'm not ignorant about this, and I only care about the truth.
I don't care, I only care about the truth.
If I thought Richard were full of shit, I would say it.
In my opinion, You are exhibiting as gross confirmation bias as any example I've ever seen in my life, and believe me, I'm saying this.
I'm giving you my objective assessment here.
Everyone can decide for themselves.
I think you've done a good job of presenting your case, and the fact that I'm not buying it doesn't mean that others might not buy it, but the fact is the Beatles went in a totally different direction.
I regard Paul is an even better musician.
Sgt.
Matt Brown, but all the work after, spectacular stuff.
Then he went ahead and made Wings.
We got the Linda McCartney.
We got the Heather Mills.
We got a mountain of evidence that we've not begun to touch here, that in my judgment, and this is, wait a minute, Robert, and I'm offering here just my, Robert, let me finish my sentence.
In my judgment, professionally as a student, a professor of logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, your position is not defensible given the totality of the evidence, but I respect your right to maintain it.
And there may be others who share your view.
You really represent what I thought about 10 years ago.
I really thought it would be impossible because of the talent.
Robert, just shut up for a second.
I made the same kind of arguments 10 years ago you made here today.
And I find them I was wrong then and you are wrong now, but I want you to have a couple minutes here to say whatever you'd like to say.
We got 15 minutes left in the show.
Not quite.
I want you to say a few more words.
And Richard, I'm just giving you my objective assessment.
And by the way, I appreciate your coming on.
I'm very glad.
You're able to make the audiovisual connection using your phone.
That's very, very good.
And I commend you for that.
And I respect your sincere.
I believe you're completely sincere.
So the fact that we have an honest disagreement is merely what I'm articulating here.
Go ahead.
Go ahead, Robert.
I'm going to shut up.
Go ahead, Robert.
If anybody, not you guys don't have to, but if anybody at any point wants to look up lens distortion, Google lens distortion, how it alters your features, they will have side-by-side examples.
Can I finish?
This is science.
It's not, it's not a, it's not an opinion.
I'm not cutting you off!
Let me finish.
The side-by-side, all you do is change the lens.
Nothing else.
The person is still sitting motionless.
You change the lens, suddenly their face is It's wider, the ears, everything looks completely different.
Dramatically so.
This is what you're seeing.
That's all you're seeing in these so-called photographic evidence.
That's all it is.
And you can find, like I say, you can find anybody.
Yourselves, anybody.
Look, my nose gets bigger, you know what I mean?
It's just, that's the way photography works.
And that's all you're seeing.
And all this, this so-called evidence that he was killed and stuff, I don't see any You haven't watched any of my interviews with Richard, right?
You've not.
You've not, have you?
- You haven't watched any of my interviews. - You haven't watched any of my interviews with Richard, right?
You've not.
You've not, have you?
I'm asking you specifically, have you watched any of my interviews with Richard?
No, you haven't.
Okay.
You agree that Biden has been replaced.
I guarantee you Hillary was replaced.
Robert, Robert, Robert, Robert.
Oh, you're not even willing to concede that Biden's been replaced?
I didn't say he was replaced.
I said that Very well, there could be people up there wearing those masks, and if anybody looks, they can see that these are lifelike-looking masks.
And he's just standing there, doing a press conference, and muttering stuff off the teleprompter.
He's not, he's not replaced, Joe Biden.
Do you reply?
Do you, listen, Robert, I'm asking you a real simple question.
Is a Joe Biden now we're seeing on television the same as the Joe Biden who was born and represented Delaware for all those years?
Is that the same guy?
I don't know and you don't either.
Oh, I do.
I have proven this a dozen different ways, Robert.
This is a way in which my opinion you discredit yourself.
There are obvious blatant cases and you're not even willing to admit the obvious blatant cases where there's no doubt about it.
Let me say, among the research that I have done photographically, I and my colleagues... Robert, shut up.
Among the research I've done, I and my colleagues have done is confirming Lee Oswald was in the doorway of the book depository when JFK motorcade went by.
Among the research I and my colleague have done is that Noah Bosner is supposed to be a dead kid in Sandy Hook was photographs of his older brother Michael Vabner when he was a child.
In other terms, it has to do with the use of photographs for analysis, Robert, where you claim you are the expert and no one knows anything about it.
Look, I'm glad you came on.
I'm glad you came on.
And I'm certainly glad you said you have no idea whether the President Joe Biden is the same guy, because in my opinion, that's definitive discrediting of you.
Definitive.
Richard, add your final thoughts.
Add your final thoughts.
I'm not an expert on Joe Biden.
I didn't come on here to be an expert on whether Joe Biden's the same guy or not.
I don't know.
I haven't looked into it as intensely.
Okay.
Yeah.
Great.
Okay.
Thank you, Robert.
It has to do with photographic analysis.
My God, Robert, come on.
Don't play stupid.
Don't play stupid.
You're embarrassing yourself.
Richard, Richard, Richard, Richard, your final thoughts?
Go ahead, Richard.
Forget it, Danny!
You're out of your element!
Now here's something I want to read.
I wasn't going to do this show, Jim, when you first approached me, because to me this is Paul is Dead 101.
This is Paul is Dead Penny Garden, okay?
If you can't tell that it's two different peoples, you flunk out of Paul is Dead College.
You start way over in Peony Garden.
Now, Robert Livingston wrote this little note to you that was attached that he sent to me, and I'd like us all to listen carefully to what he wrote, and I'm going to read word for word, and I want us all to count the number of Presuppositions!
Quote.
Hi, Jim.
I agree with you on a lot of things.
I have a vast background of all things conspiratorial.
LOL.
I've looked into the PID theory quite thoroughly.
One.
Having debated many people on the subject on internet forums, etc.
Basic premise.
It's been debunked.
Two.
Through voice analysis.
Three.
Photo comparison.
Four.
And it is literally impossible to replace a human being like that with that kind of genius.
Five.
Looks.
Six.
Talent.
Seven.
Memories.
Eight.
It ascribes godlike powers to these people they simply don't have.
Nine.
It is impossible.
Ten.
All of the clues, supposed children, etc., all easily explained.
Eleven.
I'm quite knowledgeable.
Twelve.
And an expert on all things Beatles.
Thirteen.
I've worked in photography and film for decades, and I can thoroughly debunk the photos.
Fourteen.
And films.
15.
Used to prove the theory.
16.
Like lens distortion, for example.
17.
The Tavistock connection is moot.
18.
They couldn't get a record deal.
They got one off chance at a single that only charted because the manager bought all copies.
19.
Standard practice. 20.
I can debunk any, 21, and all claims made.
22.
Even the Butcher cover is a way of dissing the hodgepodge albums that were released in the states.
Butchered, as they call them.
23.
They were telling their fans the album is a butchered piece of crap.
24.
I'm also a singer, songwriter, and musician.
I will conduct myself in a polite, friendly, and respectful manner.
Thank you, sir.
Final score.
Presuppositions 24, sentences written 18.
That means, Robert, that you crammed in one and a third presuppositions per sentence!
And by the way, I don't like people that use the word debunked.
Okay, you know who uses the word debunked all the times?
LMS.
People with nothing and no proof on their side.
They just say it's been debunked and they change the top.
Robert, you can have that.
You can have the final word, Robert.
Go ahead.
So every single person.
The blanket statements about if you don't believe in this cult.
That some guy, the most famous musician in the world, is replaced in front of the whole world and they show you a bunch of crappy photographs and do these ridiculous so-called voice analysis with some crappy equipment and go, see, look!
It's just... Heather Mills, she had some sort of box of evidence.
They like to play that one in the book a lot.
Yeah, how many other women have gone after rich celebrities for their money, playmaking, wild climes?
Let's talk about Amber for her.
I want to get off subject.
Look what she did to Johnny Depp.
She paid a makeup artist to make her face look all beat up and said he did it.
It was a lie.
She meant it as a tape recorder, but you know.
And the people going after her and some girl in Germany.
You know what?
Maybe he gave her money and then he stopped giving her money because he realized she wasn't his daughter.
Maybe she was trying to extort him.
He didn't want anything to do with her.
He's got connections.
He can fake tests and get out of stuff.
He's no different than anybody else.
This thing about Linda McCartney said, oh, you're not Paul McCartney.
Anybody can make this stuff up.
If you're making these extraordinary claims that this human being is literally replaced in front of the world, you'd have to have a lot to back it up.
Thank you.
Thank you, Robert.
You are very You are very sporting to come in.
Let me make a philosophical point.
Truth is a correspondence between an assertion and the way things are, okay?
So it would be true that Paul McCartney died and was replaced just in case Paul McCartney did die and was replaced.
Now, our ability to determine what is the truth is a function of coherence, of how all the evidence in its totality hangs together.
In my opinion, the coherence of the evidence overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that Paul did die and was replaced, but I fully acknowledge that it's logically possible, as Robert has demonstrated here today, that you can maintain a position that seeks to, as it were, discount all the evidence and the way it hangs together if you're committed to a proposition.
Let me say, finally, There's a modus superposition of superimposing photographs if they're taken from the same perspective when you have the distance between the pupils of the eyes the same.
Larry Rivera has done brilliant work on this with regard to Lee and the Doorway and with regard to Uh, Noah Posner, I'm going to ask Larry if he could do this.
I've not thought it was necessary because the differences are so blatant, but I'll ask Larry if he can do it as a finale to this.
Robert, thank you for coming on.
Richard, thank you for coming on.
Everyone, you'll want to check out the video version of this show on my BitchU channel, Jim Fetzer, when I have it up.
Thanks for being here.
See you then.
Okay, Jim.
We're all clear.
Nobody called in, right?
Claire never called, right?
Correct.
What was your take on this?
Was it chaotic?
It was a yes, back and forth.
I'd say it was somewhat chaotic.
There was a lot of information and a lot of strong opinions and and evidence.
Introduced I would have laid the basis of the fact that.
You know that the band, you know, is, you know, by the time, you know, that Paul had died, it had reached a status where contractually they really didn't own much of their own selves anymore.
You know, the band through agents and other representatives.
▲
Export Selection