Sir Faul

Sir Faul

Boat photo with arrows

It all started with the boat photo, and two “Paul’s” visible. I have arrows pointing at them in the photo above. I saw this photo long before I discovered the McCartney twins, and it stuck with me. But I did not know to follow my instincts. It just struck me as very strange.

Years later (it is now 2022), I do not think the guy under the arrow on the left is Paul. The secrecy around this band would preclude any photo of the two of them together. He is someone else. But the guy in the middle (I can see his cowlick) is Mike McCartney. It is not his twin brother, Paul. Mike is the guy we today call “Macca”, or “Paul McCartney”. He is a huge phony.

We were walking through Barnes & Noble not too long ago, and I came across a book called The Lyrics, supposedly the words and stories behind all of the musical work of Paul McCartney, maybe the biggest walking impostor of a genius who ever tread on our planet. Lorne Michaels, the man behind Saturday Night Live, calls him a “fucking Mozart.” That’s OK by me, as I do not care for Mozart either. I do not buy all the stories about this child prodigy who was writing complete symphonies at age six. He was a project. So is Sir Faul. He is a guy who is perfectly comfortable taking credit for the works of scores of anonymous others. He did not write Yesterday. Neither did his brother, Paul.

In the video above, Fil of Wings of Pegasus analyzes McCartney’s singing from 1964 and 1968, and declares that no indeed, Paul did not die in 1966. Only idiots think that anyway, but I suggested to him in comments under this video that he also analyze the video below, Till There Was You, from 1963, the original “Paul McCartney” singing at a Royalty Command Performance in 1963 in London. Fil, who is Fil Henley, surely knows not to go there. Inside the music business, what I write below is well understood.

The guy was a pretty good crooner, but bobbed his head too much. I can only think that this song, which appears real, is a good demonstration of some talent in the band, but no Mozarts. Just well trained muscle-memory guys. In 1966 they would stop live performances, and suddenly, as if by magic, they got amazingly good on their instruments and started writing music far above their pay grade. I do think they supplied, like the Monkees, vocal tracts, but I do not think they wrote the songs nor played the instruments. The Brits must have had their own version of the Wrecking Crew. The Beatles, like the Monkees, were a project. Where do you think the people behind the Monkees got the idea?

So I decided to rewrite Sir Faul, and call out the guy. The second thing that prompted this is a concert tour he is going to do in the coming months. He is almost 80, and his vocal chords are surely past their best days. His playing ability, to me, has always been suspect, that is, he is right-handed and yet plays left-handed. I suspect ghosting going on there. He has surely worked hard at switching dominant hands, but it is so much easier with someone who has accumulated so much fame just to hire it all out. What I think audiences will see in the coming performances is a ghosted voice and instruments, and a man who just cannot let go of being the most famous musician on the planet, a fucking Mozart.

I’ve added a word or two here and there, and replaced gifs with face splits. Enough of this monkey.

The main characters:

There are three players here. Not knowing their real names, I will use their public identities.

Paul 1959McCartney 1964“Paul McCartney” is the original Beatle we came to know, the “cute one,” the one who co-starred with Mike in the movie A Hard Day’s Night.  In scenes from that movie where “Paul” is wearing a fake mustache, it is Mike. Keep in mind that we do not know that “Paul” is his real name. It could be, like “John Lennon,” a stage name, an invention by those shady men behind the curtain who formed the “Beatles.

Mike 1957McCartney 2007“Mike McCartney” is Paul’s twin brother. Again, we do not know that this is his real name, but for purposes of this essay we will call him “Mike.” He, for the most part, played the part of “Paul” in the movie Help! He is known today as “Macca.” Paul mostly disappeared from public view, and has re-emerged on occasion, as will be seen below.

“Mike McGear”mike-mcgear is a hired actor. He claims to be Paul’s brother, but bears no resemblance to either Mike or Paul, as can be easily seen. McGear is a “lifetime actor,” or a person whose entire life is a lie. If the Beatles were going to use “Paul McCartney” as a set of twins,  then it was necessary for Mike McCartney to step out of his life and allow a replacement in. To pull this off, the handlers invented the character McGear.

Lennon 12I cannot help but notice that McGear bears a strong, perhaps familial resemblance to another character in this stage play, covered elsewhere, another lifetime actor called John Lennon. I say this because of the curvature of the nose lightly to his right. I see this same feature in Lennon. It could well be that they are keeping it all in the family.

The Hoax

In the fall of 1969 radio disc jockey Russell Gibb, WKNR-FM in Detroit, received a phone call from “Tom,” who told him that Paul McCartney had died and had been replaced in 1966 by a lookalike. Thus began a cottage industry that continues to this day, now called “PID”, or Paul is Dead. It is continually churned, new clues added now and then.

It is misdirection, designed to get us asking the wrong question. Paul McCartney was indeed replaced by a virtual lookalike, and I know who the replacement is. It was not hard to discover. If I could do it, so too could all of the sleuths who make those PID YouTubes and run those PID web pages.  Why don’t they? It is, I suspect, because they are tasked with keeping the mythology alive. They are disinformation agents.

The phone call to WKNR and subsequent publicity was obviously a staged event. The troubling question why? Had the managers of the Beatles not done the whole business with album and song clues, the whole switch would have gone down seamlessly. It was done so well that we would never have known to question it. Why did they clue us in? Did they overplay their hand?

The Beatles in 1966 stopped performing in public. In a period of five years they released a series of albums – Rubber Soul (1965), Revolver (1966), Sgt. Pepper (1967), White Album (1968) and Abbey Road (1969). After the phone call to WKNR we would learn that the albums were littered with clues hinting at the death of Paul. Hundreds of thousands of kids rushed to buy them to examine the clues and, if somehow able, play the songs backward. (I never could pull that off.) We love a mystery, and they provided it.

Below is what is in my view the most impressive album “clue:”


That is the drum from the cover of Sgt. Pepper. If you mirror the top as the bottom, as done here, see how it spells out I ONEIX HE ^DIE. That could mean he died on November 9th, September 11th (Europeans list date and month rather than month and date, our custom) or they could be taunting us with 911 clues. (I ONE=11, IX=9.) Although the Twin Towers had only been recently completed at the time of the PID hoax, it seems that the numbers “9” and “11” have significance preceding, or even superseding, the events of 2001.

Who knows, but good lord! The effort, the sophistication of the PID psyop is impressive! There had to have been some of the top graphic artists of the time behind it. I can assure you it was not four twenty-something mop-tops who assembled the album covers. I also suspect they did not write the music or play the instruments in the studio. We had a long discussion in a previous thread where some claimed that the rooftop concert was lip synced. These were not the musicians we were led to believe them to be.

[By the way, who but an idiot savant could have uncovered such a “clue” as this? It was obviously leaked to us by the people behind the hoax, wanting some credit for their genius.]

The boys as kids

Here’s a photo of the McCartney boys, Paul born on 6/18/42, and Michael, we are told, on 1/7/44, (am I seeing two 8’s?) or eighteen months later.


As I studied this photo, I realized that these are indeed brothers, as the eyes, nose, mouth and ears are a match. The one on the left looks two, perhaps three years old, which would make the other 18 months old. But wait! At that age he should exhibit more babyish qualities, in fact, should still have baby cheeks and be smaller in size. But these two kids could easily be the same age.

I began to suspect I was looking at twins. I found other photos:


That’s a lovely family shot of Mary and James and the boys, but again, I am not seeing eighteen months age difference between left  and right. In this photo I noticed something that would appear again and again over time.  I originally thought that it was Paul on the right, but looking at later photos, I discovered one key to telling them apart – one of them parts his hair on the right, in fact has what looks like a natural cowlick, or an unruly section of hair that goes against the grain of the rest. Hair partIn later years that cowlick would turn up in the twin I call Mike. (Note that Mary has dressed them in identical shoes, socks and shorts, and shirts of the same maker. It was common practice in those days to dress twins alike.)

Paul Mike Mom

Hair part 2Getting our bearings here, I can now assert that Mike is on the left here, meaning that must be Paul on the right. The cowlick is apparent again. Paul has lost a front tooth, so he must be about six. Again, they are dressed alike.

But I did find a photo of the two where there is a definite age difference. This photo is said to be of Paul and his younger brother Mike.

McCartney sister

It is hard to say which twin that is, but I am guessing Paul due to the part on the left.  There is, however, a slight problem here – the one on the left is not Mike. It’s a girl wearing a dress and strap-on shoes, girlish in style. I don’t know who she is, perhaps a cousin. That they assert this to be Mike and Paul … it reinforces the age difference, but is absurd.

Mike Paul twin shotThere are other photos of the boys in this era, such as the one on the left here, an obvious shot of a set of twins, Mike with the cowlick on the left. Check here for yourself, and see what I saw. What a revelation!

Photographs of the boys dry up after this time. They will appear again in the late 50s, and then again as fully formed Beatles.

The fact that these photos appear on a massively censored Internet troubles me. How deep does it go?

In the meantime, Mike McGear appears around 1962.

Mike McGear

McGear is one of the hardest aspects of this psyop for people to grasp (along with the role of Jane Asher – see below). If a guy has a musical career, claims to be Paul McCartney’s brother, and no one contradicts him, who am I to doubt?

We have found in these complicated and long-running stage acts that there needs to be certain characters in play to misdirect us and distract us from the truth. McGear, who doesn’t even remotely resemble a McCartney, is such a character, He is a lifetime actor hired to play the part of Mike McCartney to allow the real person to slip into the role of Beatle Paul McCartney.

McGear apparently got married without the presence of fake Paul, who had to be pasted into photos. Below is supposedly McGear’s wedding day in 1968, also attended by “Paul” and his girlfriend, Jane Asher.

Mike wedding

The composition of this photo makes it appear that he’s an awkward man, even gawking at Angela’s chest. The wavy vertical line between “Paul” and “Mike” is just sloppy darkroom work, even to the degree of embarrassment for some lowly technician. Notice that “Paul” has that cowlick, which always gives him away. There are two sets of people in the photo, Paul and Jane, and Mike, Angela, the young boy and the older woman. “Paul” and Jane and McGear were not together that day, so “Paul” had to be added. Real Mike McCartney did not attend fake Mike McCartney’s wedding, it appears. Mike Wedding day

Same day, and an odd one, as Mike and Angela are not even front and center at their own wedding. They don’t seem to be important players. Notice again … the cowlick. That’s Mike, not Paul and Jane Asher. Mike and the man next to them were pasted into this photo. They are looking one direction while everyone else is looking at the camera. Another fake.

Just for fun, let’s take the same photo and see where they eyes are looking:

Wedding bells

My guess on this, an informal photo taken while setting up for real photos, which would explain the back of the head in the foreground. They are staging, as all of us who have been through wedding ceremonies know about. That’s why participants on the right are distracted. I think the three on the left, Jane, “Paul,” and the older man (said to be Paul’s father, but possibly another lifetime actor) are inserted later, in the darkroom. A floating hand on Paul’s shoulder (red circle) is a clue. That often happens in paste-ups.

Anyway, forget Mike McGear, who is mere misdirection. He’s fake. They had to fake “Paul” being at his wedding, so did it in the darkroom.

Jane Asher

We are all familiar with the concept of a “beard,” or a professional starlet (usually) used to conceal the fact that a male star is gay. They are all over Hollywood, from Angelina Jolie to Kelly Preston to Katie Holmes. They are also present in politics, Melania Trump coming to mind. Hillary and Bill Clinton have been referred to as a “double bearded” set.

But beards perform other functions, as well. Jane Asher’s bearded role was that of “Paul” McCartney’s girlfriend in the early years. He supposedly moved in with her parents, Margaret and Richard Asher, a music professor and a doctor. Peter Asher, of Peter and Gordon and later a music producer, is Jane’s brother.

George MartinGeorge Martin was one of Margaret’s most prominent students. It is my suspicion that much of the early music of the Beatles was written in the Asher household, though not necessarily by any of the Beatles. Yesterday and Michelle have highly sophisticated chord progressions, far beyond the capability of a twenty-something kid with no formal music training, in my opinion. I’ve long wondered if they are George Martin compositions, or perhaps a committee in which  he participated. Often referred to as the “fifth Beatle,” he was the only one with serious musical training.

Jane and MikeJane and PaulJane’s bearded role, to be seen in public with both Mike and Paul during these years, was not something she relished, if these photos are any  indication. This was an acting gig and done to misdirect and sow confusion. How can we claim they are twins, or that Paul has been “replaced” when Jane is there riding sideboard, seen with both. She provided continuity.

Anyway, that was Jane Asher’s role. Look at the fun she is having! Have you ever seen three people so deeply in love?

How to tell them apart

Photo montage

The above photo montage is page 118 from the book Face to Face: Analysis and Comparison of Facial Features to Authenticate Identities of People in Photographs, by Joelle Steele. Oddly, Ms. Steele, a facial recognition expert who has been called to testify in court on occasion, cannot tell the difference between Paul and Mike. Given her obvious qualifications, I would attribute that failing to the power of groupthink. Claiming that there are two “Paul’s” would endanger her career. I do not suffer that problem. My sleuthing “career” has never paid me a penny, nor will it ever.

Here are photos in order, left to right, top to bottom, year given by Ms. Steele:

1957: Mike
1959: Paul
1964: Paul
1965: Mike
1966: Mike
1968: Mike
1975: Mike
1977: Mike
1985: Paul (He’s alive! He’s alive!)
1995: A composite photo, upper half Paul, lower half Mike, or so it appears to me. The people behind Sir Paul are aware of the eyebrows.
2004: Mike
2007: Mike

Easy enough, right? I learned to tell the difference early on by the hair part, but in addition, Paul’s eyebrows wrap around and down, his ears are lower on his head.

Here are two photos of the brothers, side by side, both at young ages:

I am now going to do a face split – I set the pupil distance on both photos at one inch. Little known fact, as we age, our skulls are fully formed by late teens or early twenties, and do not change thereafter. So if I compare the left side of 1957 Paul with the right side of 1959 Paul, we should get a precise match.

We do not. The mouths do not line up. Neither do the noses. Mike (left) has an eyebrow that ends well above the eye pupil, while Paul (right) dips down further. The ears cannot be judged, as angular distortion plays a role, but in my judgement, as many thousands of these as I have done, face splitting will more often tell me that two people are not the same as when they are. These are two different men. I would guess they are identical twins, as there are other clues, hair part on the right for one, the left for the other. One right-handed, the other left. (They placed Mike behind a piano back in the days, as he had not yet mastered left-hand playing. I must say, playing left-handed now as he does (unless he is being ghosted) is quite an accomplishment.)

After a serious amount of gazing at computer screens, you too will be able to see the differences. But one other way to tell, and this is with a hat tip to the work of others, can be found in this YouTube video. It is an 8:32 piece, and I am not showing it here – just go to the link if you have time. I will capsulize with this screen grab:


“Paul”, on the right, has a “…narrow palate that causes his upper left molars to be misaligned and angled inwards.” Mike on the left (note the cowlick) has regular teeth. “Grendoza,” the maker of the video, uses the word “had” instead of “has” as the video is intended to advance the PID psyop. But it will come into play again momentarily. For now, understand the three easy recognition tools to distinguish between Paul and Mike: 1) wraparound eyebrows, 2) cowlick on the left versus part on the right, and 3) misaligned upper left molars.

In the video we learn that Paul and Mike have been stepping in and out of the role of “Paul” since the beginning, on Ed Sullivan, and as part of Wings up until about 1990. At that time it appears that Mike permanently took over the role, and Paul was retired.

The following clip, supplied by our writer Tyrone, is instructive of just how “in your face” they have been with the McCartney twins.

At 1:28 we find Paul talking about their dress style, and at 1:48 it is Mike! They pull the switch right before our eyes, expecting us not to notice.

(2022 again:  The more I look at this, the more I suspect that Mike came out of makeup before the video with Paul’s eyebrows. They know all about the differences. I suspect that is Mike, playing Paul. It reminds me of the 1995 photo above, where makeup artists have given Mike Paul’s eyebrows.

John Halliday

The following video is about three minutes, It is worth a watch:

[2022] Note how when you get a side view, lines appear to go back from his eyes to near his ears. That is plastic surgery. While they were (apparently) identical twins, nature does not control everything. Life choices interfere, and that extra tall beer he sports may be either a result or a cause of his disenfranchisement from the band. Too many hard day’s nights?

It came out a few years back, and was brought to my attention in the comments. I can add a little clarity to it by use of Photoshop:

I was able, on the right, to capture a moment in the video where Halliday is looking at us straight on. Here is a face split.

Look for alignment of features, as the years have not been kind, the lines around the eyes possibly evidence of plastic surgery. But the same features are present, with longer ear lobes, of course. “John Halliday” is in my view “Paul McCartney” in retirement. I’ll go one step further – John Halliday might be his real name. If you watch the video, do pay attention to the teeth. Screen grabbing them proved impossible.  (I learned later that “Halliday”, caretaker of the McCartney childhood home, had been fired due to drinking on the job.)

In the British peerage you will find a man named “Halliday Mccartney”. Strange, it is.

Paul in later years

More fun: Richardjuckes in the comments below my recent Bill O’Reilly piece offered up a video of Dhanny Harrison, George’s son, doing a 2013 cover of For You Blue, a George Harrison composition. (I do suspect that George wrote his own music, including some high quality work in later years.) In it he noticed that both Paul and Mike were present in the still photographs used. Here are two screen grabs:

The photo on the left is Paul wearing a wig, and heavily made up so as not to look his 71 years. He has, by that time, developed severe wrinkles around the eyes, not apparent here on either one, either slick photographic retouching or makeup. Richard noticed how, for purposes of this video, Paul and Mike were wearing the same clothing and wig, indicating that the psyop is still in active production.


The Beatles were an expensive and highly sophisticated psyop, introduced on the scene in the wake of the fake John F. Kennedy assassination.  I was around then, and remember all of the screaming girls, and although I was too young to understand the word “orgasmic” or realize that what I saw was an outpouring of pent-up sexual frustration AND grief over JFK. I suspect at this time that the two events, both highly choreographed, were timed to happen as they did, part of a major restructuring of our society, and destruction of a once great land.

And Paul is alive. He’s a set of twins, by the way. And, oh yeah, John Lennon is a whole nuther can of worms. I thought at one time that there were twins there as well, but I could never nail it down. But he’s alive, I think. The working class hero was set up to take a fall, to inspire a whole generation to follow a supposedly idealistic but mushy-brained pop star, who was then offed in public. I think of it is a “killing hope” project, and not the first. Some other day.

43 thoughts on “Sir Faul

  1. George Martin also hired voice actors to masquerade as the Beatles for the Anthology albums, to give the impression the sessions were organic and the songs evolved in the studio. The banter on certain tracks is clearly people impersonating a Liverpudlian accent, and not the original John, Paul & George (Ringo never says much in any event).

    You can clearly hear this on the first version of One After 909 on Anthology 1, the one with the ‘false starts’ and outtakes. On both versions of One After 909 it is not John Lennon singing IMO, but someone impersonating his voice. The impersonator exaggerates the Lennon ‘s’ sound, but in a way that is forced, over the top and completely inconsistent. You can hear what I mean at 13 seconds (‘Shed’ instead of ‘said’, etc) and elsewhere on the 2nd version:

    There are plenty of examples all over the Anthology trilogy. It’s like a bad caricature, the audio equivalent of the way Faul squints his eyes slightly and say ‘you know’ every 2.7 seconds in an attempt to sound like Paul. None of the Fauls ever got the head bob quite right either. An interesting, completely in your face hoodwink. And people still can’t see or hear the difference!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Interesting … by the way, trains running one direction are numbered even, the other direction odd, so the “one after 909” would not be 910, but rather 911. This whole thing is such a spookfest.


  2. You can also see Faul’s awkward banter, trainwreck face and haircut, and absolute lack of bass mastery from 9:00 on in this video:

    It should be obvious to anyone with eyeballs that it is not bass virtuoso Paul McCartney playing in the I am the Walrus video. It isn’t even a left handed musician! He plucks and clunks away awkwardly like he’s never even seen a bass before. He’s not much better in this video.

    At one point during his faux fa(ul)mily reunion he looks at the actor playing Papa McCartney in a knowing way and says ‘allo, dad!’ whilst grinning that smug, self-satisfied, bucktoothed smile of his. He seems to revel in the fuckery, one of many reasons I despise him.

    Sage of Quay craps on about that idiotic Billy Shears book too much, but he has an excellent video on the making of Rubber Soul and how it couldn’t possibly have been written and recorded in the timeline given. I think it’s this one:


    1. That’s really interesting and well done. I most likely will listen to the entire video in the coming days. His analysis of time a available for song writing is missing a salient point, however. It is said that entertainment loves twins, and we know that “Paul” was a set of twins. Having the other twin do a concert provides valuable down time for the other. MM, who found two live birth certificates for Elvis and for Aaron Presley, received emails suggesting that this is how “Elvis” managed to perform live in Las Vegas while at the same time churning out crappy movies. There are some who think that there were two groups of Beatles, and that all four were twins. There is some evidence of this for John, but not enough to be certain, as I am for Paul. I have seen nothing anywhere indicating more than one George or Ringo.

      By the way, one reason entertainment loves twins is strict child labor laws in California.


  3. SO glad I came across this blog, because it confirms what I’ve thought for quite some time. How did this yobb go from “I Wanna Hold Your Hand,” to any of their later stuff? When he went solo, the quality of his output was horrific. Always a mystery how he maintained any prominence, but now we know why…

    Liked by 1 person

    1. FWIW, I looked up “yobb”. It’s not a word, but should be.

      There was a movie one time called “Vanilla Sky,” and McCartney wrote the cover song for it. He was nominated for best song at the Golden Globes. He performed it at the Oscars and I thought at the time, 2002, “man, this sucks.” That song went absolutely nowhere, but was performed at the Oscars anyway. The idea must have been to get McC to perform it, which would be good for ratings.

      (I looked it up – Best Song award that year went to Randy Newman, If I Didn’t Have You, written for the animated film Monsters Inc. I always liked Newman, a unique style. I did not understand why his song, Short People (have no reason to live) was not better accepted.


      1. Yobbo is an Australian and British colloquial term. Yobb sounds like a shortened version.
        Shortening already shortened colloquialisms is a practice common to the yobbo in Australia who is found, like a wanker, in every tier of society but is particularly prevalent at cricket matches. There they gather together to spill beer and hurl abuse at opposing teams. And when that opposing team is England they enter into a frenzy.
        It is likely that nearing the end of a long hot day of abuse and beer the yobbo has lost the capacity to enunciate two syllables.


  4. I am not Beatles fanatic enough (or hardly any) to continue poring over it all in this detail, myself – but I am curious if you (or anyone here) ever watched that epic Peter Jackson documentary. Supposedly that shows them working out the songs in the studio, “writing” it in real time. I thought at the time it came out, that this would catch POM’s attention, and be a major part of the case one way or another. But so far, I’ve seen it referenced, but there’s been “no comment” from anyone that I can recall.


    1. I haven’t watched it either, but I would assume they would know when cameras would be in place to capture the proceedings for posterity. Thus, as we now know they were pretty much actors as much as they were musicians/songwriters (if not MORE so), they could have easily just acted out those parts that were supposed to have been “impromptu.”


    2. I assume it is a pack of lies, painful to watch. There might be some erosion of the group’s reputation over time, so they come along and reassert the lies and myths for a new generation. Here we know there are two Paul’s and that John is still alive. I’m pretty sure Jackson did not pick up on any of that.


    3. I didn’t watch the Peter Jackson movie on the Beatles, but I listened to Mike Williams’ review of the movie in three episodes (plus more discussions with Paul Jansen), which is probably more interesting than the movie itself.

      I also recommend, if you are interested in how the pop music business works, listening to the four hour long presentation linked by GREY MAN on whether or not the Beatles wrote all of their own music.

      (You can use yt-dlp on Github to save videos or download just the audio from Youtube and other sites. I prefer just listening while doing mundane tasks to watching.)

      It was on this blog that I came across Mike Williams’ work. When I mentioned it a couple months ago Mark didn’t like it as it goes counter to his twin theory. But now, Mark, it’s good that you’ve noticed that there is quality to Mike Williams’ work. Because there is.

      By the way, I did read the Billy Shears book (blue version) and don’t think it’s “crap”. It explains quite a lot of things, for example, about otherwise unintelligible lyrics. But then, I also think that Paul is dead. Not that it matters much but I just think that’s what happened. He died and was replaced with Billy. And the book goes into some detail about how this occurred. It was an interesting read to me.

      Rather than focussing on photos, you can tell Paul and Billy are not the same person by listening to them. The replacment clearly is a substantially more intellectual and refined person. And I absolutely agree that he behaves like a caricature of Paul. The mockery of the gullible public and the fun involved are quite substantial, too. That much is also stated quite explicitly in the book. And yes, I think he – Billy – wrote that book and then, for some reason, had it “encoded” by Thomas E. Uharriet (whether pen name or not, don’t know and don’t care).

      There is a bizarre fascination, in the Anglosphere, with this cabbalistic stuff about numbers. I understand it is so because of the masonic problem and the importance it apparently has. Mike Williams also goes on and on about numbers. Not the most interesting part to me because so many permitted ways the numbers are allowed to add up to 9/11 or 666 that the game lacks selectivity. – ZZ.OZ.ZOZZ


      1. I took the time to watch the Williams 4+ hour video because the guy does a good analysis, except for the Billy stuff, which is Intel, professional misdirection. That they did not write the music, that they merely supplied vocal tracks, that they were not even technically proficient … I had figured that all out on my own, but Williams added depth and substance to my analysis.

        Paul is not dead. He just wasn’t what they wanted. He was a crooner, a head bobber, whereas Mike had raw energy and sex appeal, was a good stage performer. Paul had to take a back seat. Looking at John Halliday, you can see they were right. the guy did not age well, and lost whatever tenuous edge he had. I watched the Williams analysis. You could do worse than to watch Give My Regards to Broadstreet (released in 1984, 18 years after Paul supposedly ‘died’).’ In it you will see both Mike and Paul performing. Perhaps it was Mike’s way of giving Paul his due after he had been put on the shelf. He gets to perform three or four numbers at the beginning, and then it is all Mike. Watch it! If the singer is sitting, it is Paul. If he is standing and performing, it is Mike. Williams is incredulous that “Billy” was there in the early days! Of course he was. He is Mike! I was struck throughout the Williams video that all pictures were of Mike, not Paul. It was Mike from the beginning. Paul just didn’t cut it as a rock star, and was on the periphery. It is not complicated.

        Do yourself a favor, watch GMRTB, see the nuances that distinguish these two identical twins. I think Mike paid tribute to both Paul and John Lennon, both of whom are present, Lennon for only one scene. Paul said in an interview one time that when he is down and needing comfort, he talks to his brother. He meant Paul, not McGear.


        1. PS: I do wish, if you are going to critique my work, that you at least read it first. I did Williams that courtesy, and learned a lot in the process. You could as well by checking out my analysis instead of commenting without doing so.


          1. But I did read this post. I also read your analysis 15 months ago as contained in Miles Mathis’ paul8 PDF file. We discussed it, and disagreed, and you suggested I rather leave than continue (but then crossed that out as I just saw).


            We disagreed on the photos. The photos are not the main thing for me. It’s the personalities of the two guys that are very different. The original one (Paul) simply is not an interesting person. He’s a hyped up teen idol, and that’s it. There’s nothing more to him. The replacement (Billy) is much more sophisticated. In my opinion, they’re neither twins nor brothers.


        2. “Paul is not dead. He just wasn’t what they wanted. He was a crooner, a head bobber, whereas Mike had raw energy and sex appeal, was a good stage performer. Paul had to take a back seat.”

          If “Mike” is such a good stage performer, then why is it that the Beatles completely stopped stage performances after the summer of ’66? One of the reasons Billy gives in the book is that Billy was noticeably taller than John and George and the original Paul (who were roughly the same height), so they couldn’t share a microphone on stage any more.


    4. By the way, TimR, if you watch maybe the first half hour of the Sage of Quay video above, he does a good job of describing the powerful people behind the Beatles, why they were assembled, their true purposes, which they were probably not even aware of: to break up the nucear family, destroy or weaken Christianity, to introduce drugs into the mainstream of society from the fringes. I would add to feminize men. They were remarkably successful, perhaps even more so than the people behind them imagined.


      1. Thanks, I will try to check it out. It’s funny, I grew up in the 80s and my slightly older neighbor friend was a huge Beatles fan. So I heard lots of it hanging out with him. He’s still into it, along with other music. It has definitely shaped him in some respects. But you know, he’s also a Clint Eastwood spaghetti western fan, so I guess people pick their influences from the menu on offer…


  5. Mark you nailed this one. I’d say it’s the close we are going to get for any discovery about the Paul character. Anyone from their childhood come forward with information? Nobody went to school with these kids? Also what about all the behind the scenes people, management, roadies, hairstylist, groupies. Sure they could have been paid to keep silent, sign nondisclosures, but all thru the 70’s, 80’s 90’s somebody should have got something out. Guess we have to wait for a deathbed confession which would be surpressed too.


      1. A long time ago, my brother-in-law was a polygraph examiner. He applied to work at the CIA, but ultimately didn’t pass their tests or meet their standards. He went through a long process with them, though, and once told me he was surprised how much spying went on at the local level, right here in our mid-size Indiana town. The subject made him uncomfortable and he only mentioned it once. All I recall him saying was that local intelligence agents here can and do track what people are typing on their keyboards while they’re typing.

        Many years later, I was at a computer store here in town and the general manager started trying to sell me antivirus software. I said I was pretty sure it was a racket–that the antivirus makers also make the viruses that we have to buy the software to stop. The manager–who, perhaps because of what my brother-in-law had told me, seemed kind of spooky to me–gave me a subtle, knowing smirk and said, “Hm… I think you might be on to something.”

        My point is that my brother-in-law and this manager don’t go around telling everyone what they know A) because it wouldn’t server them professionally but B)–and more importantly–nobody wants to hear it. Looking back, I’m surprised I didn’t question my brother-in-law more about his CIA experience. Part of ME didn’t want to hear it. As a society, we’ve been conditioned to turn away from and shut our minds down to evidence that crazy conspiracy theories might actually be true.

        I know other people with unpleasant specialized knowledge who keep their mouths shut because talking about such things would simply make them pariahs. As the Covid narrative has lost traction, a few friends have acknowledged I was right, but they continue to avoid me. If you went to school with Mike/Paul and know things the world doesn’t, I suspect you learn soon enough that you might as well keep it to yourself.


        1. I am curious about those school photos of “Paul” [see Gray Man comment 5/4 above and watch at least part of the video], as he seems to have wiggle room around him. I wonder if those photos have Been doctored to remove his twin brother. But then again it could be that they went to different schools. The house in the background of the John Halliday footage is not an ordinary bungalow. It is quite large and elaborate. This was not the home of two working class guys.


        2. “a racket–that the antivirus makers also make the viruses that we have to buy the software to stop.”

          I also used to think so, and it could be: the pyromaniac firefighters. And the same knowledge of operating systems and hackery is involved. But today I think it’s not necessary for the AV companies to take charge of producing malware.

          Anyway, it’s sooo true that people don’t want to hear that kind of thing. They want to live in peace and safety. They don’t like the idea of rackets being run on them.


        3. Interesting about your brother in law. I don’t doubt it, based on things I’ve come across over the years.


        4. “he was surprised how much spying went on at the local level, right here in our mid-size Indiana town”
          This ties into my research in my own area. That some people are faking their deaths and then relocated to live out the rest of their lives. They probably were an intellegence asset for the entire duration they lived here. Our towns city/county/state levels are corporations with managers and owners. I’m thinking that may be okay as they could have done good works too, and stick up for people, as they would have the behind the scenes information on what really happens. Or they could shut doors on competition or throw people under the bus who have different political views. I assume our phones are listening, our computers have keyloggers, yet could it go as far as filings in a mouth or implant in our bodies. How close does the local community surveilence actually get…


    1. Also, I suggest you go back to 1985, where the Beatles’ song book was sold to Michael Jackson for far less than it was supposedly worth. We are told the boys were young, did not have negotiating skills, but that is a cover story. For what? I can only speculate that the people who really wrote the music wanted a paycheck. The Beatles had no ownership or control. Michael Jackson? He, like the Beatles, was just window dressing. What really went down? People cashing in. That is all I can make of it.,


      1. “Michael Jackson? He, like the Beatles, was just window dressing.”

        Michael Jackson was one hell of a dancer. And his singing was more than good enough for pop music.

        The original Beatles were a bar and cover band, as Mike Williams pointed out. There must have been a musical production team behind them, both for composing and for performing because they were incapable of either to the degree found on the studio albums. And even in their big concerts, which were just 30 minute sets, to be generous, they were, at least sometimes, assisted by some kind of playback.

        And of course, in addition to the musical team, there was a sophisticated and well-funded marketing and social engineering team behind them, which, among other things, paid groups of student girls to scream stupidly and thus incite school girls to do the same, and which had the connections to arrange for police to “ensure safety” wherever the Beatles “showed up”.

        I guess they only really started to make money when Billy came in and took charge of the band. The others were too lazy to mind about the business side.


        1. In terms of that particular business deal, the Beatles catalogue, the Beatles did not own the songs and MJ did not buy them. They were just window dressing. I am suggesting the real talent behind the Beatles wanted a payday.

          “Paul is Dead,” Billy Shears, grates on me like fingernails on a chalk board. It such an easy mystery to unravel, yet you prefer the Intel psyop coverup versions. There were two of them from the beginning and to this day. Let simple explanations overrule complicated ones.


      2. Was it not Theodore Adorno who supposedly wrote much of the Beatle music?
        His widow brought this Beatle Musicbook on the market. After mr. Adorno died.
        But now this info is difficult to find.

        The Guardian has a pay wall. : the intro into an article:
        11 sep. 2019 — “The Beatles were semi-literate in music, they barely knew how to play the guitar. Who composed their songs was Theodor Adorno,” he said etc.

        I remember that the MSM mentioned the fact that a mr. Theo Adorno owned the Beatle Catalogue. Which I then thought quite strange…Who was this Adorno?
        Why would a rather stiff German music composer own the Beatle legacy?
        Not so strange if indeed he wrote much of it.
        It seems that this Link to Adorno info in the press…mostly disappeared from internet.

        Theodor W. Adorno September 11, 1903 – August 6, 1969)
        Member of the notorious Frankfurter Schule, a German composer, sociologist,
        Alledged Tavistock member. Influencer.
        This link: by
        Andrew Woods is a PhD candidate at the Centre for the Study of Theory and Criticism at Western University, and a Doctoral Fellow at the Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right.

        Was Theodor Adorno “The Fifth Beatle”?
        How a conspiracy theory about the Frankfurt School made its way around the world
        October 8, 2019
        LaRouche commissioned a 100-member research team from his political party — the U.S. Labour Party — to document the involvement of the British Royal Family in the global drug trade. In 1978, he published the results of their inquiry, Dope, Inc.: Britain’s Opium War Against the U.S, which identified both Adorno and the Beatles as participants in a shadowy British plot to disorient the youth of America.

        According to Dope, Inc., the British Royal Family weaponized the music of the Beatles to promote drug consumption in America. Yet the Fab Four would never have succeeded without the musicological theories of Adorno, a British secret agent. LaRouche and his acolytes distort a quote from Adorno’s 1962 study Introduction to the Sociology of Music to insinuate that he wanted Americans to become hopelessly addicted to pop music.
        Coleman claimed that Hitler exiled Adorno from Germany for his subversive musical experiments.
        During his exile, Adorno allegedly worked for the British Royal Family at Gordonstoun School, where he invented the genre of “Beatlemusic Rock.” According to Coleman, the Committee of 300 decided in the 1960s to unleash Adorno’s Beatlemusic Rock on the world.
        Coleman asserted that Adorno’s songs for the Beatles were such a success that the Committee also asked him to write lyrics and music for other rock groups. He speculated that the Rolling Stones also recorded and performed Adorno’s music. Ultimately, the Committee of 300 recruited the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, and other unspecified rock groups to perform Adorno’s “fiendish Satanic music” and promote marijuana use.


  6. And, of course, one of the Beatles’ managers was a man named Brian Epstein. Is it possible that he’s related to Jeffrey Epstein? They always involve their family members in their projects, so why not? 😉

    I think a genealogy search on this man may answer my questions (supposing his family tree hasn’t already been fully scrubbed).

    Here it is:

    (They admit that he’s Jewish, just like Jeffrey Epstein. And, of course, his family were Liverpool merchants, which is another clue. Stay tuned.)


    1. He even died in the same month as Jeffrey Epstein (albeit not on the same day). Coincidence? I think not. Conveniently, this was after his father’s death a few days earlier.

      During that time, he reportedly was going through the Jewish ritual called Shiva, which is a mourning process that lasts for a week. Perhaps he joined his father in underground intelligence ops soon after?

      Anyways, if y’all are curious, you can read further about this matter at Wikipedia, which will be our template for scrutiny:

      Liked by 1 person

        1. How odd. You’d think that they would’ve paid a visit. Reminds me of Mary Todd Lincoln and her absence in her husband’s funeral. Or Marie Thérèse Charlotte and her absence from her parents funeral after the Bourbon Restoration in 1815. We all know what those mean…. 😊


          1. They said they did not attend so as not to create a diversion, what with the fame and fans. That actually makes sense. They did attend a private ceremony near Abbey Road studio.


            1. Interesting. Perhaps they didn’t want to create a scene, although, IMO, the more likely scenario was this wasn’t a real funeral (and Brain was probably still alive), so they didn’t bother to attend it, or at least not publicly.


              1. Always suspicious when someone dies that young. He died 23 days short of his 33rd birthday. Karen Carpenter died 28 days short of her 33rd birthday. I am missing something here, not sure what.


    2. Linda McCartney ‘s father, Lee Eastman, was born Leopold Vail Epstein and was the son of Russian-Jewish immigrants. Coincidence?


    3. On familysearch I went one generation further than Geni, Isaac Epstein’s folks are Samuel Epstein, b. Latvia, 1849-? and Sarah Madvejew, b. Dvinsk, Russia, 1853-1874.

      Interestingly, Duckduckgo brings up the surname Medvedev on a search for Madvejew. (Pavel Medvedev was a guard at the Ipatiev House.)


  7. The genie deal is disinformation at best. They write the history books, own the land. Own & operate the banks/laws/media.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s