Monday, May 11, 2015

Why Ringo's Confession, "We replaced Paul!", appears to be authentic

by Jim Fetzer

[NOTE: This article was originally posted on Veterans Today on March 29, 2015. When I was sacked by Gordon Duff for speaking out about JADE HELM and his abusive treatment of Robert O'Dowd for an earlier article regarding JADE HELM, I discovered that he had taken down my four most recent articles about the Boston bombing and this article as well. In one of the most brutal media massacres of all time--where he has deleted 150 articles of mine on JFK, 9/11, Wellstone, Sandy Hook, the Boston bombing and more--I am going to do my best to restore the most important. He trashed me on Kevin Barrett's "Truth Jidad Radio" for having published this, but, as I observed in the original article, if Paul McCartney, the most publicly observed person in the world, could be replaced without notice, anyone could be replaced, which also happened with Saddam Hussein, as I reported in articles that Gordon Duff has now obliterated.] 

The blunder of drawing conclusions about truth or falsity based upon sources alone is called "the genetic fallacy"

First known photo of Ringo playing drums with the Beatles (22 August 1962)

"During our “False Flag Weekly News” on 5 March 2015, I had included an interesting report about Ringo Starr having claimed that Paul McCartney had died in 1966 and been replaced. Because I had done research on this subject for at least three years  (due to Clare Kuehn’s keen interest in the subject, about which she has an extensive blog), I thought it was an extremely clear explanation of what had happened and how Paul’s replacement had come about using a look-alike by the name of Billy Shears. Kevin, however, took strong exception and would even publish an article about it in VT:

What bothered me most was that, even though I explained that I had been studying this issue for some three years and that it was like most other complex and controversial questions (where, if you haven’t looked at the evidence, a conclusion that is actually well-supported might sound rather bizarre). But Kevin was supposed to know that already on the basis of JFK (where THE WARREN REPORT is anything but authoritative) or 9/11 (THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT is likewise a work of fiction). Authoritative sources are not necessarily right or non-authoritative wrong.

I mentioned during our (rather strenuous) exchange that he really needed to look at the evidence, but a conversation between us yesterday indicated to me that he had done no such thing, which I have found to be acutely disappointing. 

Clare’s blog has quite a lot about the subject, including a most intriguing diagram that John Lennon sketched, which portrays what appears to be a young man with his head split open and brains and gore running out of it – not the sort of thing one would expect a Beatle to doodle! But it clearly raises questions. 

Clare has a great deal to say about this it and offers quite a lot of evidence –most of which is highly circumstantial – that strongly suggests that Paul may have died in 1966 and been replaced. I have been after Clare for years to provide forensic proof that Paul had been replaced, which she has done (gradually, piece by piece), over the years. 

But it was the discovery of a study by two Italian forensic scientists that made me a believer, which is why I am publishing a synopsis of their research below. I may be unable to affect Kevin in his thinking, but others may be less closed-minded.

Undoubtedly, it was because I had done research on the subject and he had not that we had such a striking disagreement on the air, which like the show was spontaneous and unrehearsed. 


Indeed, if you listen to it even causally, you can see that I am very pissed off, because he is paying no attention at all to what I am saying about “Ringo’s confession”, which ties together all the loose ends of the case in a very tight package that I believe is complete, accurate and true. 

Kevin, however, was preoccupied with the source of the report, which he discovered to be, a shell site. No doubt, the source is not notable; but it is an elementary fallacy to judge the truth or falsity of a claim on the basis of its source. (This is known as “the genetic fallacy”, as I explained during our exchange on “False Flag Weekly News”.)

Strictly speaking, of course, we could both be correct, where a source of no reputation nevertheless offers a story that is true, which, indeed, is my position about this matter. There might have been a variety of reasons for concealing its origins, but the article itself was substantial and offers proof on its own:

Not only does this explain away the mystery, but a very straightforward comparison of the two was provided as well:

In my opinion, this photographic comparison should have caused an acute mind like that of Kevin Barrett to pause and ask if he was not committing the premature rejection of the issue at stake, where Paul’s face is rounder and has a decidedly younger appearance, while Billy’s is longer and presents a more mature countenance.  (Many more features distinguishing them are presented below.) 

According to the article, Ringo explained they had sent out many clues:

One of the most interesting aspects of the story is that Ringo also explains the cover of “Abbey Road” as among the most important clues they had transmitted, where each of the four represented a crucial participant in a funeral service: the minister, the undertaker, the corpse and the grave digger, which I only understood from reading this explanation – and I have been a huge Beatles fan for virtually all of my adult life. This is embedded in the article:

Now if Kevin Barrett can commit a blunder of this magnitude, then most certainly mere mortals can commit it, too. I therefore offer this as an advisory to avoid the genetic fallacy. If he were to come back now and say that he only meant the source was of indeterminate origin and that he did not mean to impugn the truth of the contents of the article, he ought to have made that clear. Because several times I emphasized that the story (“Ringo’s confession”) appeared to me to be accurate and authentic, but even in his own article about it, Kevin continues to alluded to “the bogus quote”.

Paul and Jane (before and after)

And just for the sake of driving the point home, who other than a Beatle would have been in the position to explain what happened? Kevin would insist that I am taking for granted that it did happen, but there is a veritable mountain of proof to substantiate that Paul McCartney before the incident in 1966 is not the same “Paul McCartney” after 1966, where I would like to believe that he could still be convinced that we are talking about two different persons, no matter how difficult it may be to comprehend. If it took me three years to sort this out, perhaps we should check back with Kevin in 2018.

Paul is Dead: Chiedi chi era quel «Beatle» 

by Anonymous Student

The cover-story Chiedi chi era quel «Beatle» (literal translation: Ask who was that “Beatle”) for the issue of Wired Italia (July 15, 2009), the Italian edition of the US magazine Wired, describes the analysis of the McCartney conspiracy theory conducted by two Italians, Gabriella Carlesi and Francesco Gavazzeni (the man and woman in this photo):

Their purpose for analyzing this conspiracy theory was to provide indisputable, scientific evidence that would put an end to the persistent rumors that Paul McCartney had died in a car accident in 1966.

However, the results of their analysis surprised them. Instead of putting an end to the rumors, their analysis provides scientific evidence that the Paul McCartney of today is not the same man as the Paul McCartney prior to 1966.

By coincidence, on that same day that this article appeared in Italy, Paul McCartney was at the Ed Sullivan theater  in New York City to appear on the David Letterman television show and to give a free, outdoor performance on top of the marquee of the Ed Sullivan theater.

He and Letterman laughed about the silly rumor that Paul McCartney had died in 1966. We could interpret McCartney’s appearance in New York City as an attempt to distract Americans from the publication of the Italian article and to encourage Americans to laugh at the McCartney conspiracy theories.

I will use the name Paul to refer to Paul McCartney before the 1966 car accident, and Faul to refer to the Paul McCartney after the accident. So, are Paul and Faul the same person?

Who are Gabriella Carlesi and Francesco Gavazzeni?

Gabriella Carlesi is forensic pathologist who specializes in identification of people through craniometry (i.e. comparison of certain features of the skull) and forensic odontology (i.e. analysis of the teeth), while Francesco Gavazzeni is a specialist in computer analyses. By putting their talents together, they were able to use a computer to obtain high precision measurements of Paul McCartney’s skull from various photos of his face.

Certain features of our skull, teeth, and ears are extremely effective for identifying us; some of them cannot currently be modified by surgery. In fact, in Germany, the identification of the shape of the right ear has the same legal value of that of a DNA test or fingerprints detection.

Gabriella Carlesi has been a consultant for identification of people via digital image processing for various investigations, including:

• The identification of Sergei Antonov in the scenario of the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II, in relation to the “Mitrokhin Archive” (for an Italian Parliament Commission);

• The identification of Francesco Narducci, connected to the investigation of the so called “Monster of Florence”;

• The murder of journalist Ilaria Alpi and her camera operator Miran Hrovatin (for an Italian Parliament Commission); and,

• The assassination of Benito Mussolini and his mistress Claretta Petacci (for a historical reconstruction).

Forensic evidence based on photographs

The two researchers began their analysis by obtaining high quality photos of Paul McCartney before and after the car accident. Gavazzeni complained that some photos taken before 1966 were not properly dated (sometimes different photo agencies would have different dates for the same photo), and that some of the best photos were the property of photographers who were very reluctant to release them. However, they eventually found two good quality photos dated before 1966 and two after 1967.

Different photos of a human face, in order to be compared, have to be re-sized to match the same scale; to do this, one feature of the face must be used as a scaling factor . These two researchers opted for the distance between the pupils. In other words, the photos were scaled so that the distance between the pupils was exactly the same for all of them.

Once photos of a person have been scaled so that the eyes have identical locations, then if you lay the photos on top of each other, certain features will match exactly, such as the shape of the skull. The skin and hair may be very different, but the skulls should be identical.

Both of the photos taken prior to 1966 matched one another perfectly, and both of the photos taken after 1967 matched one another perfectly. However, the researchers were shocked to discover that the photos prior to 1966 did not match the photos taken after 1967.

For example, the frontal curvature of the jaw was different (i.e. the curve going from one ear to the other and passing through the chin, which you see when looking directly into a face, as in the photos on the right) and the jaw arc was also different (i.e. the curve of the jaw that you would see if looking downward at the head from above).

Gavazzeni noticed a common feature of Faul‘s early photos that is not seen in his recent photos: a dark area shadowing the external corner of the left eye. That area now shows something half-way between a scar and something that resembles skin that was stretched as a consequence of cosmetic surgery, or, as Gavazzeni suggests, of an imperfect cosmetic surgery.

Faul's head is more oblong than Paul's

Photos show that Faul’s head is more oblong than Paul’s head. Gavazzeni pointed out that some of the early printed photos of Faul must have been compressed in height in order to make his head appear shorter and more rounded. He said his conclusion is inescapable because the shape of the skull of an adult cannot be altered.

He said there was 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.

Carlesi pointed out that the line separating Faul’s lips is much wider, to the point that it was obvious even when Faul 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 can not modified by surgery. According to Carlesi, these points for Paul and Faul are considerably different.

Some features of the ear are also useful for identification purposes because these as well are not modifiable through surgery. Carlesi and Gavazzeni determined that the ears of Paul and Faul differed significantly.

Teeth can be altered… to a certain extent

Some features of the human body can be altered, such the position and slope of teeth (dental braces do this for millions of people). Carlesi noticed that the teeth configurations for Paul and Faul do not match, but in a very curious way.

In Paul’s mouth, his upper right canine tooth is pushed out of its normal position because there is not 
enough room in his jaw for all of his teeth to fit properly.

In Faul’s mouth, that same canine tooth is also crooked, but there is plenty of room in his jaw for all of his teeth. Since no other teeth are pushing against the crooked tooth, how did that tooth become crooked?

Carlesi concludes that the crooked tooth in Faul’s mouth was the result of a dental operation to simulate the crooked tooth in Paul’s mouth.

Carlesi was even more amazed at the difference in the shape of the palate. It was so narrow in Paul that some teeth were misaligned (such as the canine tooth mentioned above), but Faul’s palate was so wide that the front teeth did not rotate with respect to their axis, or tilt, as was happening for Paul, with the only exception of that upper right canine (mentioned above) which leans outward.

Carlesi points out that altering the shape of a person’s palate, although possible in the 1960s, would have required a traumatic surgical operation (the breaking of a bone. She doesn’t say which bone, but seems to refer to the hard palate), and it would have required the wearing of fixed dental braces for more than a year. 

Therefore, if the conspiracy theories are false – i.e., if the Paul McCartney that we see today with a large palate is the original Paul McCartney with a small palate – then Paul went through some very serious dental surgeries, and he would have suffered for a long time, and it would have had an effect on his voice.

The more logical conclusion is that the Paul McCartney of today is a substitute, and that Faul went through a much simpler dental operation to make one of his teeth crooked.

A DNA test!

Carlesi and Gavazzeni commented that if McCartney really wanted to put an end to these rumors, he could have offered to take a DNA test with his father or his younger brother, Mike, but he didn’t. McCartney took a DNA test only once, but the authors of the article point out that the DNA test created more confusion and suspicion of his true identity, not less.

In 1962, when the Beatles were living in Hamburg, Germany and still unknown to most people, Paul McCartney had a brief affair with a German woman named Erika Wohlers. She gave birth to a daughter, Bettina, in December 1962, which was during the time the Beatles were starting to become famous. The Beatles soon left Germany, and McCartney abandoned Erica. Around 1967 McCartney agreed to pay 30,000 deutsche marks to support Bettina, but he was not admitting to being her father, even though she claims her German birth certificate identifies him as her father!


Once Bettina became an adult, she asked a German court to have McCartney recognize her as his natural daughter. McCartney had to submit to a DNA test, and the test showed that he was not her father. Interestingly, based on an autograph signed by McCartney, together with some photos taken for the occasion, Bettina accused the person who took that DNA test of being a substitute for Paul, not the real Paul McCartney! The autograph, for instance, was signed by somebody right-handed (Paul was left-handed).

Carlesi and Gavazzeni do some damage control

Both of the Italian researchers were shocked to discover that the conspiracy theories appear valid, so at the end of the article they do some damage control by pointing out that since McCartney is a famous person, more analyses should be conducted before anybody makes these accusations so that we can be 100% certain about the conclusion.

Earlier in that article, Gavazzeni admitted that the more they were pressured to release the results of their analysis, the more they tried to stall for time because the evidence was pointing in the opposite direction of what they were hoping for. Unfortunately for them, the more the time they spent analyzing the evidence, the more certain they became that Paul McCartney really did die in 1966!

It’s also amusing to note that Carlesi said that she had agreed to get involved in the analysis because she assumed it would require only a few minutes of her time to prove that Paul and Faul are the same person!

Comments from readers of the Italian article

Some readers posted interesting comments at the bottom of the on-line version of the Wired Italia article:

• Reader frabot, on August 22, 2009 at 23:42:07 suggests to watch "The Late Show with David Letterman" for July 15, 2009 (is it a coincidence that this is the same date of the publication of that article by Wired Italia?), in which McCartney jokes about the idea that Paul died in 1966. That footage is interesting because Faul seems to lie in conversation with David Letterman:

• Reader Luca, on August 1, 2009 at 13:11:29 claims to have analyzed the voices of Paul and Faul and that their timbres differ. He also points out that after that accident the Beatles significantly changed their hair styles, especially McCartney, who conveniently had slightly longer hair on the right side of his head.

• Reader easytale, on July 30, 2009 at 9:53:35 points out that Faul played live only a very few times, songs like “Yesterday”, and that he played them only after the 1980s. And once, around the year 2000, he played in Canada using his right hand!

So, recapitulating:

Forensic evidence shows that Faul is not Paul;

Old photos were altered to make Faul more closely resemble Paul;

• Faul went through some dental operation(s) to have some of his teeth misaligned to mimic Paul’s particular defects;

Faul had to learn to play left-handed.

How many people have been threatened, intimidated, killed, or bribed to keep quiet about this?

Acknowledgement: Special thanks to Eric Hufschmid, who published an earlier version in 2010 with this note: “Last year the cover-story of Wired Italia, the Italian edition of the US magazine Wired, was about two Italian researchers who tried to disprove the conspiracy theory that Paul McCartney had been replaced by an impostor. 

A man in Italy considered the article to have a lot of valuable information, and so he sent me a summary of it.” Eric did a bit of editing, where we have done a bit more, including the addition of several images for publication here."


  1. Mr. Fetzler,what on earth is your major malfunction,numbnuts?

    1. The real Jim Fetzer has died and been replaced by an imposter.

    2. Well, given the forensic proof adduced here, while I would agree that one of us may be out of touch with reality, that would not be me. Or do you really think the same person could have different teeth, different palates, different ears and different heights? One of us IS a bit nutty.

    3. Well, given the forensic proof adduced here, while I would agree that one of us may be out of touch with reality, that would not be me. Or do you really think the same person could have different teeth, different palates, different ears and different heights? One of us IS a bit nutty.

    4. knock yourself out Jim

  2. Dr Fetzer, your conclusions have been drawn correctly in the article as you bring the factual information together—which also gels with simply common sense—a powerful combination for both truth and reality.

    Further, you also have the sharp minded capability of seeing the forest for the trees – as you have in the purpose of the article:

    “If Paul McCartney, the most publicly observed person in the world, could be replaced without notice, anyone could be replaced, which also happened with Saddam Hussein … “

    Your intellect for Truth has surpassed the limited mind capabilities of Barrett and Duff—a thousand-fold may I say, which is the reason all your articles were scrubbed from the VTN site. There are limits to what ego-focused people can take—which also makes them vulnerable to the dark side.

    We are still looking for one of your latest articles on the Boston Bombing that was scrubbed by the VTN site, a link which was being carried at the site – if you are able to send it through, please do at the Citizens America Party site (link above) – we are willing to carry all your articles.

  3. You need to post your great article on the Cartha DeLoach memo regarding the Altgens6 photo. It illustrates the discrepancies between the early AP release of the photo (in the Oakland Tribune) and the Groden version. Oswald was Doorman.

    1. Regarding the David Letterman interview with the former Beatle, his answer about the rumor that he had died struck me as odd. He said while the photo was being shot he was hot and since he was wearing flip flops he simply kicked them off, apparently to cool off. Has anyone ever walked on the street during midday when it was a hot sunny day? The pavement is scorching, usually. If you already are wearing flip flops your best bet is to keep them on. One's feet will only get warmer, not cooler, if you are on pavement. Unless of course pavement in England gets cooler in the sun unlike American pavement.

    2. Absolutely Diana! I snapped to that too. Howard Stern also interviewed Faul and brought up the same thing and made a comment to the about it not making sense and all Faul did was shrug.

  4. Prof. Fetzer,
    Two questions:
    1) Have you tried analyzing the facial features of Faul in his recent virtual reality concert? What better way to check whether the facial features are of the real Paul or an imposter?

    2) Why not contact Freda Kelly, the Beatles' secretary during the majority of the Beatles' career including the period prior to Paul's alleged death in 1966, and also the subject of the 2013 documentary "Good Ol' Freda?" (The subject of the PID controversy is almost entirely avoided in the documentary). Her upcoming appearances and screenings of the documentary are listed at this link, including Oct. 10 in Catonsville, Maryland. She would make an excellent guest for The Real Deal.


  5. I try to keep an open mind unless I have firm and well informed reasons not to have so I leave here with a heavy heart, but not yet sure what to believe the same as I did when I read that Bob Dylan might just be a brand and the real artist has been Leonard Cohen. Being a lifelong fan of both I had to admit that it was instantly obvious to me when I considered it. There are inconsistencies in Dylan's career which make one wonder how he could have been so supernaturally poetic sometimes when his supposed original songs hit us and crude and pretty un exciting a lot of other times especially now he is older when many others of less talent supposedly have not become less even if they perform only once in a blue moon. He can play his guitar and harp and sing with a very special voice but those lyrics truly have some gold which seems out of place amongst much of his other stuff and yet it gels perfectly with Leonard Cohen's incredible talent which to my knowledge has never been anything but exquisite and unique and with a tongue so golden angels must weep over some of his prose.

    Just don't please come and tell me that Cat Stevens was substituted along the way and my brother Yusuf Islam isn't the same voice who sang me Morning Has Broken to me when I was in kindergarten, whose voice accompanied me on my walkman as I hit the road to find myself as a young man and today who sings my Athan (Call to prayer) five times a day. I definitely can hear the same rich and mellow sound today as always and selected his voice among fifty different choices for my iPhone Prayer ap before I realised it was my old pal Cat Stevens.

    As for McCartney I was never really a fan. I was a Beatles fan of course and still am. However I loved them as a group for the harmony and awesome energy which is as alive and exciting, even makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck and sends goosebumps for me when I hear some of their tunes. What about the first Chord of Hard Day's Night?

    If they subbed Paul out due to untimely death as said, I can imagine Epstein doing that anyway, then it is understandable. Unfortunate but the guy around today did at least perform on the stuff since he appeared and isn't without talent. It certainly would put a new understanding on many things.

  6. Very interesting. I'd never heard a word of this before so this is my introduction. I won't be forming any fast hard conclusions until I've at least confirmed the sources for all the info given and seen what the rebuttals look like. If Brother Barrett has not done as much before making up his mind it makes me sad, because he is my brother and in Islam we are taught to be more thorough than that if we desire truth.

    As far as VT is concerned I've had my reservations for a while and expressed them politely enough a few times on the site. I have seen how fast and complete is the censorship rather than answer to some things or be seen to be caught in an inability to answer something. I recently mentioned a couple of matters I'd had related from a retired military gentleman in South Asia who had recently met with Gordon and which did beg some answers and I intimated I had been told another thing or two perhaps but would rather keep my own council on that for now, especially since my friend was dead only a few weeks after I saw him. I noticed the next day when somebody had "liked" my comment via the Facebook ap since it was the FB comments section on VT, that the entire Facebook comments section was gone from the article. He'd done that before to some other remarks I made which were admittedly matters of dubious nature which did beg some sort of answer, even if just to deny it or tell me to buzz off, but instead the whole thing got ripped out and presumably buried in a hole in the back yard with a tree planted on top. I am used to all sorts of censorship on the net and don't get all twisted up over it. I've been banned from most mainstream and at least half the alternative sites out there over the last decade and a half of rummaging around on the net trying to get as complete a handle as possible on just wtf is going on. I have yet to see such a complete and total disappearance of entire comments sections like that before and the somewhat over reactive nature of that in itself tends to give some credence to my esteemed friend's views, may he rest in Allah's peace.

  7. The idea that MI5 had thought that the death of Paul was so traumatic that it would cause many teenage girl fans to commit suicide, so they just had to replace him with Faul just does not ring true, especially when the Beatles were apparently threatened several times with all being murdered 'by crazed fans' if ever they opened their mouths about Paul, as surely that would cause even more teenage girl fans to commit suicide wouldn't it?

    The real reason is probably that the Beatles were a mind control asset via making hypnotic music with subliminal tones to alter brain function, or similar, and that they maybe even knocked off the real Paul to insert their agent Faul, or as Heather Mills is supposed to be the crazed fan who caused the real Paul to crash and die in the first place, simply unbelieveable, and then she is the same woman hit by a police motorcycle and who lost her leg, and then married Faul, simply unbelievable, unless Heather Mills, with a yahoo name and physiognomy, like her MI5 handler, also with a yahoo name, needed to have closer hold of Faul to 'control' him. It is said the Beatles were a mind controlled Tavistock Institute product anyway. I have spoken with a British scientist who told me in detail how he had been recruited by the Blair government to research into mind control using pop music tones to alter brain function, and even how, over a period of time, to cause certain parts of the brain to expand, and others to shrink, as certain frequencies are known to do, and perhaps the hypnotic music of he Beatles, which actually felt like a religion to many, drawing one to play their LP's over and over again, like a mantra, was just such a thing, and such an asset needed to be so heavily controlled, even through the most likely deliberate killing of the real Paul, made to look like an 'accident' through an apparently deranged fan in the car with Paul supposedly going berserk with passion and causing him to lose control of the car. How come she walked away uninjured, whilst Paul burned to death, lost all his hair and teeth? I think Paul was hit to gain entry for the asset 'Sir Faul', and that the death threats from MI5 were to make sure their asset got to influence the music production the way MI5 wanted, despite the Beatles deliberately see through pretence of their idea of why MI5 threatened them, and of course, the other Beatles made it pretty obvious, since why would MI5 kill them all too if they really replaced Paul purely because they feared British fans would commit suicide. The British government could not give a flying toss in reality if 10,000 Beatles fans committed suicide if they were just any rebellious pop band, in fact they would only be too happy to see it happen, given the way the government quite happily kills hundreds of thousands, even millions of innocent people abroad, dropping bombs like confetti for trumped up reasons like 9/11, just to instal Rothschild fractional reserve banking in those countries, and Israeli military bases like they did in Libya. They had never gone to such lengths before when other musicians like Mark Bolan died, and thousands of girl fans never committed suicide then did they?

    1. You make important observations! please message me thru Fetzer asking for Mr. Smith

    2. Brilliant mothman777! I've come to the same conclusions, to which you've added depth. Thank you. FWIW, a certain film directors' father was a founding psychologist at Tavistock/MK ULTRA. Did anyone else notice a time loss during that 4 hour movie?

    3. Excellent observations. I'm sure this Faul is not Paul, and that they killed the real Paul in a ritual slaying for their satanic masters. How do I know? Because he was killed on 11/9, or 9/11 in European notation. They always use those numbers in their ritual dates.

    4. Paul was in France on 9 November 1966 so the chances of him being killed in England in a car crash that day are slim.

    5. Mothman777, You said: "and perhaps the hypnotic music of he Beatles, which actually felt like a religion to many,". I knew a girl that would play St. Pepper, open the albumn and stare at the Beatles and cry her eyes out. Go Figure!

    6. Heather Mills wasn’t born til 1968!!

    7. Heather Mills wasn’t born til 1968!!

  8. The viewing field is too narrow and a whole lot of text gets chopped on the right side of this article. While it's so intriguing the choppiness is frustrating. It's like listening to a vinyl Beatles album with skips and scratches!!

  9. There is loads of evidence to plough through,but wht gets me more than anything is how come billy Shears was such a fantastic bassplayer.The bass playing on stg peppers is not the work of a beginner,infact Paul changed the way people play bass big time!

    1. Nobody going to answer? There is no way on earth that the bass from 1967 Beatles records was done by a beginner let alone a righty playing lefty....and Iam not a shill.Heres a clue for you all,study the bass playing of the late 1960s Herbie Flowers...

    2. Ever hear of studio musicians? Maybe it was Carol Kay. She could play anything.

    3. It's Carol Kaye and she was too busy doing awesome sessions in the States for people like Brian Wilson.

  10. How do you really know who was playing bass on an album, or singing for that matter? For all I know it could be Gerry Rafferty singing on some of the later songs, or the Electric Light Orchestra doing some of the instrumentals. Afraid fans would commit suicide? How about, afraid they wouldn't be raking in millions for the records; and who all benefits from those millions?

    1. Well you could listen to tapes of the recording sessions which show the development of the songs from idea to finished product with the musicians discussing their ideas during the process. That would be one way of knowing. Being familiar with different musicians playing styles would also help.

    2. Good point,if you listen to outtake sessions from set peppers during an early version of 'benefit of Mr Kite' you hear a glass smash and John Lennon starts chanting how 'Paul broke a glass broke a glass today'....

    3. That happens on You've Got To Hide Your Love Away uglycustard not Mr Kite.
      I can't believe these idiots here really thing Paul is dead. So much of the info/"facts" displayed are just plain wrong.

    4. Thanks I just realised my mistake today when playing Anthology 2 in the car!

  11. I think the Beatles did instigate the "Paul is Dead"meme, mostly on the Pepper album cover, but they meant he had died to his ego, i.e. he had "turned off his mind" and floated downstream. McCartney had recently taken LSD after avoiding doing so for a long time, whereas the other three were way ahead of him. Thus I suggest they were having a bit of fun with him on the Pepper and Abbey Road covers.
    Of course fans ran away with it and assumed he had physically died. I bet the Beatles regret assuming their fans were more sophisticated than they were/are.

  12. Your average person is stupid and easily sold a bill of goods.
    It is easier to sell people a lie than it is to tell them the truth.
    The impostor, calling himself Paul McCartney to has a longer narrower skull with less depth. he has a beak nose with the pointy tip turned down. His ears don't match, his teeth don't match and he is much taller than the original Jame Paul McCartney.
    I don't know what more Fetzer's moron friend needs, beside a good pair of seeing eye glasses!

    1. Very good answer and the most sensible I've read.

  13. Facial forensic evidence here for a Paul replacement is quite strong to the point where argument against it appears to be futile in my opinion. The cover up possibly involved protecting Brian Epstein's investment as well as the groups suggested function in socio- engineering directed by the powers that be. Paul's probable death whether by accident or by design had to be covered up to maintain the full and continuous impact that this group was designed to have on our society.Apparently they were very successful.

    1. How about the musical evidence "Dr" ? What does that tell you ? It tells me that Paul worked hard at his trade and developed in a completely linear fashion as a result of his efforts as a player/singer/songwriter/arranger.
      Why is no-one here discussing the music angle ? It all points to it being the same person. Which is a shame because it would be fab to be able to blame Ob-La-Di Ob-La-Da on someone else.

    2. Very good point Rick the music arrangements performance is always largely ignored by these people.

    3. I was unaware of all of the comments here. About the musical angle, a colleague who teaches music was struck by the fact that Faul is great on piano and keyboard but weak on guitar, while Paul was great on guitar but weak on piano and keyboard. It has taken me a long time to appreciate that Faul even appears to be a more creative and versatile musician than Paul.

    4. compare the solos on Good Morning Good Morning from 1967 and Taxman 1966. Both Paul !!
      His guitar work on Pepper / White Album and Abbey Road is fab. He actually played very little guitar on their early albums. He starts playing lead guitar on the Help LP, a little on Rubber Soul and then from Revolver (Taxman) onwards. I'm not sure how anyone can claim that his guitar playing 1967 to 69 (on Pepper/Mystery Tour/White Album/Abbey Road) is weaker than it was 1958 to 66 which are the years preceding his so-called death we have audio evidence of.

    5. Jim, can your music colleague post a list of recordings featuring Paul on guitar ? I'm assuming you meant guitar and not bass guitar. You'd be hard pushed to find anyone who doesn't think Macca's bass playing got better from Rubber Soul onwards. His keyboard playing got better through the magic of practice, an old musicians trick.

  14. George in an interview was told by the interviewer "I have met your 3 mates." and George replied, "Have you met the other 8 Beatles?" Each had a double. John Lennon's double (more talented than the original) was killed. The original John still lives. The original Paul still lives. Reportedly, the third American tour was performed by doubles. Ringo recently said he had been on Ed Sullivan twice, but history shows three appearances.

    1. "Ringo recently said he had been on Ed Sullivan twice, but history shows three appearances."
      No it doesn't.

    2. Source for the ridiculous doubles claim.
      Are you sure the ever humorous Harrison wasn't referring to the long list of so-called 5th Beatles ? When was this interview ?

  15. Jim (?), your caption "these pictures from 1966" - neither of those are from 1966. I believe the one on the right is probably from Oct 18 1967. The one on the left looks like early 1964 though i haven't bust my ass to confirm it.
    The inaccuracies and stupidity elsewhere in this article lead to the only possible conclusion - Jim Fetzer is dead and has been replaced by an imposter.
    I suggest that as punishment, the imposter listen to the complete set of January 1969 Nagra reels to further study this "case". I also recommend the same to anyone stupid enough to be taken in by this rubbish. If you want to know where to find the Nagra reels, do some research and get listening. I expect a full report.

    1. Ha I used to have those all on separate CDs took me hours and hours and hours to download them all

    2. So don't you think Jim should do some proper research and listen to them from beginning to end to aid his understanding of the Fab 4 ?

  16. I think that a more important study would be to trace the linear musical development of Paul as a songwriter, singer, guitarist, bass player, pianist, arranger, his harmony singing relationship with John, recording studio techniques etc.. which all point to it being the same guy from the first recordings in 1958 to the last in 1970. None of this appears to have been touched on. Outside the main catalogue of recordings there are around 200 hours of unreleased recordings in circulation which must be critical to any study of Paul McCartney and his music during his Beatles career.
    Jim did you study any of this material. Are you a musician ? Do you know how singing/songwriting/bands work ? Ever played in a band with the same people for a year or more ?
    You're out of your depth and out of your mind. You should be ashamed of yourself for promoting such utter rubbish. Three years you say you've studied this for ? I've studied Macca's music for 40+ years first as a fan, then as a musician/songwriter/singer and producer. Paul did not die in 1966.
    Honestly, next you'll be saying either John Lennon is still alive or was replaced by an imposter in 1966 - you can tell because the new John Lennon wore glasses and started acting weird. That is about the level of your research. Pathetic.

    1. Here! Here! At last someone with a bit of thought!

    2. What would it be easier to fake:
      Paul's face
      Paul's voice
      Paul's song writing
      Paul's talent as a musician
      John Lennon said this about how he viewed the musical talent of the man who replaced Paul:

      "A pretty face may last a year or two
      But pretty soon they'll see what you can do
      The sound you make is muzak to my ears"

      Muzak--that comment was not a compliment. Muzak is "elevator music"! John was saying that, talent-wise, the substitute for Paul was in no way as good a musican-singer-songwriter as the original Paul McCartney, who was also his friend.

      I am sure if the music written and played by "Sir Paul", beginning from 1967 onward, was truly studied far more closely, then compared to McCartney's work up until 1966, the differences would make themselves better known.
      There is no way in this world McCartney, [James Paul], ever did one other thing after 1966. I only wish that were not true. I think the truth is deliberately being obfuscated, because it's there for all to see, if only people would get off their high horses and take a close enough look.

    3. there is a completely linear progression in Paul's writing/singing/playing from 66 through to the end of The Beatles.
      John was being bitchy.

    4. lol rick stagger is in denial

  17. "Reader Luca, on August 1, 2009 at 13:11:29 claims to have analyzed the voices of Paul and Faul and that their timbres differ. He also points out that after that accident the Beatles significantly changed their hair styles, especially McCartney, who conveniently had slightly longer hair on the right side of his head."
    What did he analyse and how ?
    The band changed their appearance before "Paul's death". John had a very short haircut and his to-become trademark granny glasses to film How I Won The War starting in Sept 66.
    George grew a moustache around this time (see photos of him in India oct 66).

  18. When is this accident supposed to have happened ? On Nov 9 1966 Paul was in France and went on from there to Nairobi with Jane Asher and Mal Evans.

  19. "Reader easytale, on July 30, 2009 at 9:53:35 points out that Faul played live only a very few times, songs like “Yesterday”, and that he played them only after the 1980s. And once, around the year 2000, he played in Canada using his right hand!"
    Don't know about Canada but the rest of this is wrong. Paul played a number of his Beatle tunes on the Wings world/USA tours 1975/76 notably Yesterday. He continued this pattern on his 1979 UK tour.

  20. I would like to know the time-frame in which the "so-called" Faul learnt to play bass and guitar left handed. I am a pretty decent musician. Do you have any idea how difficult that would be and how long it would take ?

    1. And to emulate Paul's melodic approach with all those lovely grace notes and passing tones....left handed?

  21. Is there a link to any of the credentials and previous work by Carlesi and Gavazzeni in particular the other work cited here ? All i can see on google is more Paul Is Dead rubbish. Jim can you post any links to their previous work/reports/science publications ? I have to say that on the basis of this I would consider them neither professional or reliable but then i'm not a forensics guy.
    Incidentally, post the Help! still presented above, Paul did smash his face/teeth in in Liverpool in Dec 1965 chipping a tooth (see Paperback Writer/Rain videos) and getting a scar for his pains. He was riding mopeds with Tara Browne (I imagine they were stoned as the fab 4 generally seem to have been from 1965).
    I'm all ears - you can measure them if you like.

    1. The photograph they used from Sgt Peppers was flawed,it was a stretched image.How professional is that then.....

  22. "Old photos were altered to make Faul more closely resemble Paul;"
    Given that the Fab 4 may have been photographed or filmed more than anyone else in history to that point (seemingly almost daily for long periods) that is just not possible.

  23. " Faul went through some dental operation(s) to have some of his teeth misaligned to mimic Paul’s particular defects;"
    That is just desperate. When could this have been done - read The Complete Beatles Chronicle by Mark Lewisohn for what is pretty much a daily guide to the Fab 4's activities.
    Lennonology by Chips Maddinger for a more Lennon slanted diary covering 1966 onwards.
    Real quality research from primary sources.

  24. Mr. Fetzer, I read an article where someone had asked a person why the truth hasn't come out and they replied "It's out there, believe it or don't believe it." The most compelling information for me was Carlesi and Gavazzeni's work. I've only been at this a couple of months, but, I have looked at thousands of pictures and read extensively and I honestly believe the man that is claiming to be Paul McCartney today is an imposter and a liar. If anything can be believed from reading "The Memoirs of Billy Shears", when the Beatles disbanded George, John and Ringo expected Faul to quietly disappear into the sunset. Guess the money was too good! Talk about being guilty of identity theft of the highest magnitude!!! Ringo did an interview with The Daily Mirror and said he was the last Beatle.

    Look at the second picture you posted after the picture of the "First known photo of Ringo playing drums 22 August 1962". The right eye of the guy on the right is lower than his left eye, while the guy on the left's eyes are perfectly even. Just sayin.

    1. I think you're completely wrong TexasTuff. Please read through the various points I've made. On musical terms alone it's not possible and certainly not in any of the timeframes suggested. I have heard probably at least 200 hours of unreleased stuff by The Beatles. Paul was and is still Paul.
      Study John and Paul's harmony singing relationship. You can't just sort that out overnight or in a few weeks.
      I strongly suggest you listen to the January 1969 Nagra reels. Read Lewisohn's Complete Chronicles and Maddinger's Lennonology. Quality research and on the audio front the Nagras are a big insight into the Beatles working and personal relationships and history. Look at the Threetles session where your "Faul" plays Thinking Of Linking, an unpublished Lennon-McCartney song from the late 50s or early 60s, apparently unrecorded. How did he remember that one ?

    2. Rick, you have gone on a binge here, but you do not deal with the decisive forensic evidence. They have different teeth, different palates, different ears, different shaped and sized craniums, different faces and different heights. Clare has observed that Faul has been photographed wearing a false ear piece. What you write is complete rubbish, sad to say.

    3. What about the decisive audio evidence Jim ? What I have written on the musical side of things is not complete rubbish while you are free to disagree with my assessment of "Paul's death".
      Any "measurements" taken are from photographs, not from the man himself. They are not decisive forensic evidence.
      The dates on the two side by side photos up top still say both are from 1966 which neither are.
      Jim, you'll have better luck convincing me Pete Best was a better drummer than Ringo or that George was the noisy one.
      I doubt we will agree on this issue.
      Do you have a musical preference between the two ? he/they were exceptionally talented and wrote and sang some awesome songs. Can we agree on that ?

  25. What interview are you speaking of?

  26. On one hand the Paul and Faul photos do have differences. On the other, it would take a supernatural force to find someone who closely resembles Paul, plays the same instruments, sings like him, writes songs like him , etc. Then consider his family would have to keep quiet . George Martin and everyone at EMI would also have to be quiet for the last 50 years. The one question I have is what was Heather Mill, his former wife , talking about when she pleaded for her life on video saying if the truth about her ex husband came out the world would be shocked and couldn't handle it. Mr. Fetter makes no reference to that video which is easily found on YouTube .

  27. I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.

  28. Ringo never made any such statements about Paul being dead and this whole Paul is dead thing is an astronomical load of crap.

  29. This blog is for the believers who are searching for the truth. It is amazing that---In the face of overwhelming evidence that the original JPM dissapeared in 1966 we still have many doubters who based on crude language try to say the whole issue is completely a hoax. The doubters argument is based on foul language & ignorance. It is profoundly sad that JPM died in 1966. the true facts may never be fully revealed for another 20 years. It is now possible to find out who were the people involved in the JFK assassination (JIM MARRS). This issue is more difficult as there were a lot less people involved in the crime.Very very sad. LETS Thank Ringo for your his honest attempt to tell as much as he knows about this very tragic occurance. Disclosure comes at a very high price to those who dare to speak the truth. See no evil,speak no evil.

    1. Paul lives.
      Tell you what though Henry, there was a massive change in John's appearance in late 1966. Maybe he's dead.

  30. This is staggering that I only become aware of this tragedy just two months ago & the more I do my research the more there are unanswered questions. It is not a matter that the original JPM died in 1966 it is a question as to how,when & why. It may take 20 years for the full story to come out. I have enjoyed listening to the beatles music for 50 yrs and noticed a profound change in the music (sgt peppers) & the appearance of the new PM just before they split up.There is no doubt something very tragic happened in 1966.

    1. there was a profound change in their music on Revolver recorded from april 1966 onwards. all their appearances changed over the next few years. there's no tragical mystery tour involved. Paul lives.

  31. If you wait long eneough nothing matters. In 20 years time maybe--- when the full story comes out---it will not matter because most of the people who really cared about the matter will no longer be here to worry about it.

  32. I've been a big Beatles and McCartney fan since the first Ed Sullivan show, so I know almost everything there is to know about them. Bottom line, there are definite differences in skeletal and cranial structure of early Paul and later Faul. Paul was equal in height to John, but beginning with Sgt. Pepper he suddenly grew to be 2 or 3 inches taller!
    The only solution to this debate would be a DNA test between a member of Paul McCartney's family and Faul. But I doubt that any one of them would consent because they are all "in the will" and wouldn't jeopardize their inheritances. I wish Paul's death in 1966 weren't true, but I have come to agree that it probably is.

    1. here comes your 19th nervous breakdown baron34

  33. This comment has been removed by the author.

  34. Actually, Fetzer, the real reason you were sacked was that your were making a bunch of crazy ass shit up, and calling it journalism.

  35. WHY would Ringo have done an "exclusive" interview with a hack rag like the Hollywood Inquirer of all things?

    1. He didn't, it's made up just as George Harrison's "death bed confession" is made up.

      Also, the Memoirs of Billy Shears is fictional (and the author admits that). I can hear it already, wait for it, wait for it, that's because it's true and it has to be published as fictional so they can publish it. They're sneaking the info out.

      Tell you what if it's true the author should publish it as non-ficional and see how many lawsuits come rolling in from the people who know and call it out as BS.

      Anybody can write a book with fake dates that add up to 33, throw in some occultism, masonry, satanism, into the mix and you have a very appealing tale and you can sell books. I haven't seen any of the material in it verified, I keep reading the information can be verified, but I never see a credible source verifying any of it. The book itself is the deception.

  36. Paul's left eye was slightly lower than his right. I would like to know how they lowered Faul's left eye socket in his skull in order to match the real Paul's eye sockets. Yes Paul had the same lower left eye after 1966. Did they install Paul's skull on Faul? Go on YouTube and put in the search term "Paul is not dead", you will find many videos comparing photos of Paul pre 1966 to post 1966, it's the same guy, including the teeth, same scar on the mouth, same freckles, same skull, it's the same guy. All of those videos do a better job at analyzing the photos than this article. Also, there's a doctored video of George in an interview on the Midday Show in which they edited it to make it sound like he says Faul,it's a hoax, watch the unedited video, he says Paul. Another video shows George at John's house in around '71, George says "Beatle Phil" (he's referring to Phil Spector) NOT Beatle Bill. It's clear as day if you're listening to the original unaltered footage.

    Lastly as a musician myself for many years I can tell you that the way somebody plays an instrument is like a fingerprint. I can tell when somebody is copying a great player and when it's the real deal. Without a shadow of a doubt, the bass playing of Paul McCartney is unmistakable, it's the same guy before '66 and after '66. I have heard incredible musicians cover McCartney material including Ardy Sarraf from The Fab Four, I can still tell without even looking at the video it's not Paul's bass playing or voice. It's very close but it's not him, it's obvious to me. By the way Ardy is right handed and taught himself to play lefty for the Paul gig, no Satanism involved, he just worked his ass off practicing.

    If you really think that number one, some unknown studio musician was sitting around that was able to write the same caliber of material and play the bass the same way as Paul McCartney and secondly, look exactly like him or was able to get the level of plastic surgery needed in 1966 to look exactly like Paul you're delusional. They can't even do it now. And don't tell me MI5 had the technology, no they didn't. Plus get the voice dead on? lol. Oh yeah Paul transferred his voice to William during a seance. That's the story in that fictional book right? Something like that?

    Please, what a bunch of crap.

    1. Spot on. The "imposter's" singing style, writing style, musicianship style (on multiple instruments) is the same. Not even the best Beatle tribute acts have managed it. Coz it's Paul all the way.