The Siren Song of Sage of Quay

This post is intended to achieve some specific objectives, as follow:

  1. To put to rest the idea that Paul McCartney died an early death. (Part One)
  2. To put to rest the idea that he was replaced by an unknown but eerily similar-looking character whom the Sage of Quay, Mike Williams, refers to as “Billy Shears.” (Part two)
  3. To understand why the Beatles, at long last, are being exposed as frauds by Williams, in effect, being thrown under the bus. (Part three)
  4. To understand the true nature of the Beatles psyop – an immense operation still going on, but from now forward without the illusions that the four boys involved possessed any exceptional musical talent. (Part four)
  5. Of lesser importance, but just for the fun of it, to show that their public swan song, the famous Rooftop Concert, was, like them, fake.

Part One (It lives!)

Much of Part One and Part Two are going to be rehash for long-time readers, so skip ahead to Part Three, where I discuss the Sage of Quay, Mike Williams, and possible reasons for his public dismantling of the band.

Paul and Mike McCartney, twins, were born on June 18, 1942. They are currently 80 years old, that is, if Paul is still alive. Mike’s birthday was surreptitiously changed to January 7, 1944, a spook-laden number, 1/7/44, or double eights. When this was done is uncertain, but surely before the the assembly of the Beatles in the early 1960s. The boys were to lead double lives, and never appear in public together. But we do have photos of them from 1957 and 1959, seen below, Mike on the left, Paul on the right. Later I will show that Mike is our current day “Paul,” or Macca. For right now I am going to show that Paul has been with us all through the years.

The drum at the top of the page is from the album Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, an album released on May 26, 1967. I put it there because it is amazingly clever in concept. If you take that drum and slice it in half, as was done there, and then let the top reflect on a mirror, you get what you see-above, the words “I ONEIX HE*DIE.” The European custom is to put the day before the month, so what the drum says is 11 9 He Died, or that someone died on 9/11. In the fall of 1969, the Paul is Dead hoax would begin officially with a planted phone call to Detroit DJ Russell Gibb. The album cover for Sgt. Pepper had to have been in preparation long before release date, so it can be understood that the 9/11 date, now said to mean 1966, took place long before 9/11/66.

By the way, who discovered this hidden album clue? It is so deeply buried that it is beyond the reach of ordinary humans. My guess is that the people behind the hoax wanted credit for their work, and so surreptitiously let the clue slip out. Otherwise no one would know ever how devastatingly clever the people behind the Beatles were.

Paul did not die, not in 1966, nor since, to my knowledge. He is still with us. The two photos above are from page 118 of JoElle Steele’s book Face to Face: Analysis and Comparison of Facial Features to Authenticate Identities of People in Photographs. These are the earliest photographs of the two I know about other than their childhood photos, easily found on search engines. Later I will show that Mike on the left is the guy Mike Williams calls “Billy Shears.” For now I am going to show that Paul has been with us through the years.

Below is the entire collage given us by Steele.

Those photos are from page 118 of Steele’s book. She is remarkably opaque in these matters, a professional face analyst who has been used as an expert witness in trials. She is unable to see that she is dealing with two people. She claims that all twelve photo are of our current day Macca, Paul McCartney. Labeling the photos first by row (R) and then by column (C), we will see that eight of the twelve photos are indeed of Mike McCartney. Three are Paul. Those three are R1C2, R1C3, and R3C3. That makes 11, so there is an oddball photo in there, R4C1, which is either a composite face of the two, or one heavily doctored to add Paul’s eyebrows to Mike’s forehead. In any case, R4C1 is unusable, a fake of some kind.

We have many photos of “Paul” prior to 1966, at which time the man disappeared from public view. I am going to use two of those plus two others. How did Steele come upon the 1985 photo? Paul was hidden at that time. He and Mike stepped in and out in Wings concerts, but that stopped in 1981. The best I can say is that the photo was released by accident.

They are, L to R. Paul in 1959, 1964, 1985 (from the Steele collection), and some time around 2012, when a video was released of Paul going by the name “John Halliday”, the supposed caretaker of the McCartney childhood home, a national landmark in Liverpool. Let’s take a look at the video before we move forward. It is three minutes.

How did this come about? Generally secrets are kept secret in the Intelligence community. My Guess is that Paul, tired of living in obscurity, decided to go public. It was not well received by the people behind the Beatles. We are told that “Halliday” was fired after release of this video for drinking on the job. No matter, he stepped out, just as John Lennon did in the 2009 film “Let Him Be,” at age 69. Living in the shadows has got to be extremely difficult, especially for people formerly famous. View the video above, and decide for yourself who you are looking at. Trust me, I have it downloaded. If you see a gray screen above, get in touch with me and I will Dropbox the original to you.

I am going to do some face splits now with our four Paul photos.

That is the 1959 photo, the right half (our left) superimposed over the other three. Note the alignment of features. The Halliday photo presents some difficulties, as it is a screen cap and a bit blurry too. But I think them the same person. Everything, even the ears align. Paul would have been 69 or 70 around then, and usually the ear lobes have grown, but he’s got very little of that going on. The most reliable feature I see are the eyes, all angled downward at the same angle.

There I have taken the 1964 photo and overlaid it on 1985 and on Halliday. The 1985 photo has Paul looking off to the left, so the features narrow, but again, we have full alignment of features.

Finally, I have overlaid the 1985 photo over Halliday. There is some misalignment of the eyebrows, which I attribute to Paul being  69 or 70 on the right. The eyes are in perfect alignment, the shape of the eyebrows is right, but they are lower on the forehead due to his facial features having tightened by time. This has also happened to me. I am surprised I can see out of my right eye, as I have so much overlay from the upper part of the eye. I am 72. It happens. Anyway, given the far better alignment of 1959 and 1964 to Halliday, I accept this as less than convincing, something that by itself would not stand.

So there you have it, Mike Williams, evidence (note I do not use the word “proof”) that Paul McCartney did not die, and is in fact probably still alive. The whole of the Paul is Dead psyop, obviously in planning well before his alleged date of death, is utter nonsense.

End, Part One


Part Two (Magic Mike)

This is by far the easiest part of this post to write: The idea that Mike McCartney was not around from the beginning, that he magically appears as “Billy Shears” after 1966 (maybe even before, says Williams), can be set aside with ease. Below are two photos, one of Mike in 1957, when he would have been 15 or 16 years old. This is taken from the Steele collection. She claims it to be Paul McCartney.

Below young Mike is “Paul McCartney” in 2007, when he would be 64 or 65 years of age. Below is a face split of the two.

That is about as close as it ever gets. This is Mike, Macca, the guy Quay calls “Billy Shears”. He was there in 1957, nothing mysterious about it. He never left, he never changed, he never had to. There was no dead Paul, no one to replace. End of story.

End, Part Two


Part Three: Throw the bums under the bus, Mr. Williams

It is late September of 2022 as I write this. Paul and Mike McCartney are now 80 years of age. Ringo Starr is 82. John Lennon, likely still alive, is 81, soon to turn 82. George Harrison died (for real) in 2001 at age 58. George Martin died in 2016 at age 90. The Beatles are long over, mostly dead. Along comes Mike Williams, the Sage of Quay, and he is exposing them for the frauds they were. There existed only one talented musician, Martin. The four lads had no particular ability on instruments, no songwriting ability, as most of their body of work was written by anonymous others. Like the Beach Boys, like the Monkey’s, they showed up, they laid vocal tracks. They did as they were instructed to do, pretended as they were told to pretend. (I do not deny real musical talent in Brian Wilson, the George Martin figure for the BB.)

Why? There is an old saying in Intelligence circles, not always true, but often enough. It is “Now it can be told.” After critical information that we needed to have 60 years ago ceases to matter, someone, usually a hire, usually unconnected in any way to Intel circles, comes along to spill the beans. Why? Most of the fans are dead or senile, [in truth, they have been recycling the Beatles for new generation’s for decades, so that the fan base is still huge] and most of the living players from that time long gone. Could it be just to allow some creds to the little people behind the scenes, the ones who did the grunt work?

Below is the “boat photo” that first alerted me to the possibility of two Pauls:

The arrows point to what I thought were two Paul’s. There are not. The guy in the middle is indeed Mike, the guy on the left some other hand. My point in showing this photo now is to make the point that this photo, taken when the Beatles were in New York, possibly in 1964 for the Ed Sullivan appearance. It is 58 years old, and almost every person on that boat is now dead. Anyone around the Beatles that mattered is gone now.

Mike Williams is now free to release secrets that have been guarded for all that time. Did he get permission? Was he tasked to do it by insiders? I do not know, of course, but the point is that the Beatles are now being disrobed in public, and it is not a pretty thing to watch.

Paul (Mike) is the only one affected much by Williams’ work, as his reputation is that of a Mozart-like musical genius. He might be fighting back, as he recently released a coffee table book called The Lyrics, at $54.99 an expensive rendering of words he did not write. After all, as Williams has revealed, he did not write the songs, and so it follows that the lyrics are not his.

McCartney went through a phase where he wanted to separate what was his work from that of John Lennon, and so had John removed from a number of songs, like Yesterday. In retrospect, this seems like beautiful misdirection.

Mike Williams thinks that Billy Shears is an expert musician and songwriter. I really do not know what to make of that other than to speculate that he is building up the one Beatle who doesn’t or didn’t really exist.


Part Four (Reasons behind the Beatles psyop)

Billy Shears is a “golden apple,” a dropping left out in the open. That’s how Intelligence works, by leaving clues meant to be found, and then having agents “find” them and aggressively push them. Williams is actively promoting Shears and Paul is Dead. Both are, even over fifty years later, active psyops. I left a comment on one of Williams’ videos linking to my Sir Faul piece undermining both psyops. As fast as it appeared, the comment was gone. That has to be the active hand of Williams. Does he know what is up?

There was other stuff going on with the Beatles. John was not assassinated (Mathis indeed uncovered that), though George really died. I for a long time thought that the whole purpose of the Paul is Dead psyop was merely to misdirect away from Paul and Mike as twins, stepping in and out of each others’ shoes over the years. But adding the Billy Shears psyop to PID is overkill. Why are they still pushing both, and why with so much writing, effort, and elaborate resources? Especially now, as most of the players are dead. What is the point?

I can only speculate. Here is something that Williams has shown us: Between 1960 and 1966, the Beatles performed almost a thousand live concerts.   In the early 60s, they were doing 200, 300 live shows a year. That is an impossible schedule, as all they are doing is traveling, playing, sleeping, traveling again … in addition during this time, they made two movies, countless interviews, and supposedly wrote and arranged over seventy songs for albums up to and including Rubber Soul. (Williams claims that after Rubber Soul, Billy Shears stepped in so that everything after that was genuine Beatles material. Since we now know that Shears does not exist, we can dismiss that claim.) (Nothing changed after Rubber Soul.)

So Paul being a twin makes sense, as it cuts the work load in half. For Paul.

John Lennon’s background is fishy. I will cut to the chase here, as I could never nail it down. His mother, Julia, was said to have been hit by a car and to have died in John’s youth, in 1958. I do not believe that. I think Julia was an invention, a literary device used to get her out of the way. John having a living mother would complicate things, since his real mother was kept secret. Her supposed existence disguised the fact that John was not a Lennon, and that his true identity is not known.

Similarly, his father, Alfred, though a real living human, was most likely a hired actor. He was said to be disinterested in his family, and often away at sea. He died in 1976. He and John were not close. Why would they be?

What they have done there is to disguise Lennon’s parentage, assigning two people, one fictitious and the other an actor, to take their place. I could never stick the landing on this work, and will just offer my speculative conclusion. I put up quite a few photos in this post, and only offer one here, because the two boys, said to be cousins, look like they could be twins.

If so, that would make two of the four Beatles twins, cutting two workloads in half. What about George and Ringo? I got nothing. I gave up on this kind of work, as it is so long ago, but also because of the ease with which psyops can be sold, such as PID and Shears, makes it all seem so pointless. But do note: It is not necessary for performers on stage to be twins. People are quite gullible that way. They only have to resemble the original players. I have seen many photos of Macca that are obviously not him.

The people behind the Beatles, then and now, have unlimited resources, and know about the art of persuasion. I am resigned now to never knowing what is true other than this: Paul is a set of twins, both, to my knowledge, are alive though Paul remains out of sight (as does John Lennon). Billy Shears is an Intelligence creation. John Lennon might have been a set of twins, and his real parentage is unknown.

Quay has done good work in exposing the Beatles as not being the songwriters behind the Beatles catalogue, but loses it when he says that Billy Shears authored their later work. He  supposedly believes Paul died. Quay supports both misdirection efforts. That makes him misdirection. That he has been exposed to other ideas, and shuts them down … makes him, in my mind, a limited hangout. As with all such agents, take what is good, leave the rest behind.

Williams has good insight into the real purpose of the Beatles, Stones, British invasion, etc. It was to introduce massive change, to separate kids from parents, to attack religion, and introduce use of drugs into mainstream society. I don’t think Quay mentioned the latter.

All that in mind, that they are still pushing PID and Shears in 2022 makes sense. It is an ongoing project, far larger than a set of twins or a fake musical group. The Beatles as geniuses part of the psyop is over, but the ongoing change introduced with this project carries forward to this day.


Part Five (Rooftop Concert)

Some (like me) suspect that the rooftop concert was lip-synced – ask yourself, why put them on a roof and out of sight? Williams makes a good case that they never performed their later music in public because they did not write it, and so did not know how to play it. Also, the scenes of spectators down below looking up could be movie magic, merely splicing shots of random people told to look up. But indeed a crowd could have gathered. However, would anyone in that crowd know to question whether the Beatles were performing live, or if they were just lip syncing to tapes?

There were several advantages to performing on a rooftop and away from spectators. In addition to lip syncing not being detected, it reinforced the notion for posterity that the Beatles were very good musicians and live performers, even though they quit performing live in 1966.  The idea that they could stand on a roof and recreate music made in a studio sealed their fake legend.

The additional advantage to a rooftop over a theater is that the people behind the Beatles had complete control over everyone involved. No one unauthorized wandered on set. NDAs (non-disclosure agreements) surely abound around the Beatles, beginning to end.

The police who came to shut it down after 42 minutes would then be hired actors. The show was over.

36 thoughts on “The Siren Song of Sage of Quay

  1. Yep, I now accept it.

    Mark, I have never read whether you like the tunes, or not.

    To whomever wrote them: thank you.
    The Long and Winding Road.
    Ticket to Ride.
    Drive My Car.
    Abbey Road.

    I knew Ticket to Ride so well, that I animatedly interspersed the rolling simple meaning to my children as it played for the millionth time. They understood – it seemed.


    1. I liked You Won’t See Me, and had it on my phone. I probably had others but had pretty much OD’d on their stuff and moved on. Before I switched to classical I had Nathanial Retecliff and the Night Sweats, a Denver group (Give me a Goddam drink!) and even some America along with a U2 or two. As I said I am utterly pedestrian.On the Sage video he says that Chuck Jones (? I should write things down) claims to have played drums on 23 Beatle hits – not sure of the name but if that is the case then he knows everything but the voices were studio musicians. It is indeed falling apart finally.


      1. “Most of the fans are dead or senile…”

        I find this just incredible and absurd. [Most] of the fans of yore maybe, but I am certain that the tunes still sell millions of units per year. Those dinosaurs probably updating to CD or streaming services. Actually, my own parents are still alive, and when coherent, still would enjoy some of the tunes.

        As they say: the music is timeless (some of it anyway).

        I sent Sir Faul to our house-sitter (cats). A true die-hard [young] Beatles fan[atic]. She had automobile license plates with an obvious lyrical reference. She never touched the subject again (with me). I sent it to her, to simply inform her… previously we had had a rather lengthy conversation about our favorites and why. An educated AND smart young lady. I imagine she was hurt. Many would be.


        1. Yeah, I should scratch that remark as they have been recycling their stuff for decades for new generations.The original screamers are mostly gone or going.

          [I played When I’m 64 for my parents. Mom said they were just making fun of people like her and Dad.]


        2. I altered the remark in the post after your comment posted. I lined through it and added “, [in truth, they have been recycling the Beatles for new generation’s for decades, so that the fan base is still huge]. As always, criticism, friendly and not, is welcome.


          1. “they”?

            The music stands on its own… no promotion is needed. No matter who constructed it. Does Led Zeppelin need promotion? Elvis? The Stones?


            1. Yes, they are recycling, that is, repackaging the same music for newer generations. Of course it stands on its own, written as it was by some of Margaret Eliot Asher’s finest students at the Guildhall School of Music, including George martin, her star pupil. Little known, but when “Paul” was “dating” Jane Asher, who was appearing in public with both Paul and Mike as a beard, “Paul” moved into the Asher household in London. Lots of training of an unschooled and unskilled set of twins going on there.

              In Quay’s four hour video, a man is sitting at piano with George Martin looking on, and Martin is saying that it was Paul who wanted the strings accompanying Yesterday, not him. Such nonsense. The man plays the opening bar of Blackbird, except that it was a different song by a different songwriter, or composer. Another song Paul takes credit for that he did not write. When that happened Martin leaned back in his chair and covered his mouth, body language meaning “I have secrets I cannot divulge.”


  2. Hi Mark. This is Mike Williams (Mr. Quay). An interesting article but some of the views on my positions are not accurate. Please feel free to email me at xxxxxxxxx and I would be more than happy to clarify my work pertaining to the McCartney/Beatles conspiracy for future articles/posts on the topic. Thank you, Mike


  3. Great summation!
    One opinion on one point. You are right, me thinks, regarding the fictitious Julia Stanley. However, obviously someone whelped little Johnny and I would propose that rather than say it was, oh I don’t know, the Viscountess Celestina Maria Wurrtenburg-Arco-Valley of The Dolls, the bastard grand niece of the Kaiser and Lady Jane Fitz-Hugh Herbert , which would give the game away, they took two names from the two Royal lines to indicate where Johnny derives and how high up the royal food chain he is. So, one from the descendants of the gens Julia of Rome and one from the Stanley bloodlines at the apex of the peerage. Like so many, he’s caretaken, this time by an “Aunt Mimi” and they use Alf Lennon’s name for the public persona. Alfred is probably intel and they say he was a sailor so it was easy to keep him away from the main narrative, and when Johnny was starting to emerge as John, they “killed” the mother. Oh, and the same for “Paul’s” mother- dead, too, before he was injected with fame.
    PS- There was a collection of Ringo mug shots on-line somewhere showing that more than a few played that role, at least for the cameras. Ringo was comedy relief and bigger in America at first than in England. He has more solo time in A Hard Day’s Night than the others and is the focal point of Help! He went on to a comedic film career, used for a long time as a replaceable part that never quite got replaced. The character of Ringo also made John and Paul look much better as musician/rock stars by comparison. Serious men, you see, who make serious music.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Tyrone this comment has been sitting before me for a couple of days and I have been unable to respond to due to Internet problems. (Stay away from Viasat.) I want to know more of what you know about John Lennon’s real identity. I love that they chose the name “Lennon” invoking Vladimir, probably deliberate. Tell us more!


      1. Mark, my assumption is that the markers in the official Lennon sob story provide the clues if one can decode them. When I started researching Stanley Kubrick, I started with his name: Stanley. These illegitimate royals groomed for fame are not named arbitrarily. I take this royal breeder of bastards, “Julia Stanley” as code for where she sits in the royal food chain. She’s fertile, and they admit she had bastards with other men. Who she actually was may be impossible to know, but if I get to it this lifetime, maybe I can make an educated guess like I did with Hitler’s grandpappy.
        Back last decade I wrote about John and listed some of the usual markers: Absentee father- in this case, seaman Alf. Mother “dead” pre-fame to sever the actual royal ties to John for the public story.
        I’m all in on the twin Paul’s but looking at John’s disguises after Beatlemania, it could be different actors under all that mange.
        I suspect John is actually John Stanley, but his mother’s name might be Spencer, the middle name given to John is Winston, as in Spencer-Churchill. That’s how high up Julia goes thanks to her fertility. That is the most important aspect of the royal bloodlines. Keep the lines growing by whichever prince can get it up.
        Beyond that, the arranged coupling and procreation with banker scion Yoko looks like business as usual for bloodlines reaching across the waters. John had a child with Cynthia and then, because he was fertile, had one with Yoko. Then, according to those studying the film “Let Him Be”, he had another son, who stars in the film. In my reckoning, any prince, even from an illegitimate lines who can reproduce, gets certain privileges, immortal fame being one of the most sought after, I imagine.


  4. Current Ringo seems to age very gracefully. Halliday would have had work on his nose. Faul(Mike) and Paul appear to have different earlobes. How do we know George died..look at his death date: 11/29/2001 11/11/3 a 33 reference?.


  5. “I Saw Her Sit-ting There”

    Her name wasn’t Magill, she didn’t call herself Lil,
    and everyone knew her as Nancy–Sitting on the floor at my 10 o’clock, as “Please Please Me” played on the radio in the background. I was hell bent on finessing that bottle(Spin the Bottle) to have even two seconds of her. It happened. We later meandered over to the laundry room to practice. Another Beatle song was probably playing, as they owned the TOP 5 of the Billboard Hot 100. Jokes about our ” clothes washing” filled the school. Badge of courage, won!


  6. Good work. There is a photo of Lennon boyhood house caretaker Colin Unwin that looks ridiculously like an early John Lennon, even having the same crow’s feet. I will dig it up and post it if anyone is interested. It may be a similar situation where he began to look too dissimilar to his brother and was retired early, while the other one who appeared in ‘Let him be’ continued until 1980. Have also seen some pics of Ringo looking a lot like Tara Browne, the Guinness heir playboy who ‘died’ around 1966, but haven’t looked into that one so not saying it’s true. Possibly one of those sexy disinfo tidbits. Don’t ever recall seeing any Georges that looked off.

    I suspect the whole purpose of Paul is Dead was that the handlers could clearly see the difference between the two men – as can anyone who’s studied it – and they overestimated the general public’s facial recognition abilities. Hence they wanted to get it out there and dealt with before anyone noticed it. The wisdom of the approach is obvious as even to this day if you bring up the issue the response will be “that’s a load of urban legend nonsense, it was all dealt with and disproven in the 60s” etc. etc.

    As for why it continues to go on – well, they couldn’t have us getting to the truth, could they? Also it’s an interesting topic and one that’s very easy to waste people’s time with – people can get lost in all the rabbitholes for years and never get to the important stuff. The whole ‘iamaphoney’ thing seems to be a perfect example of that.

    One beef:

    “Anyway, given the far better alignment of 1959 and 1964 to Halliday, I accept this as less than convincing, something that by itself would not stand”

    Then why not finally just swallow your pride and admit it isn’t him? It’s Mike with his eyebrows altered, and possibly some other alterations too as he looks a little ‘off’. Here is John Halliday at the exact time Broadstreet was made.

    He looks nothing like Mike at this time – far too different to have ever appeared in the movie. Photo is from the accompanying booklet of Broad Street, where Mike is playing piano but the reflection in the piano lid is Paul/John Halliday:

    You deserve credit for the discovery of the eyebrow thing in Broad Street. Congratulations – but you sully your own discovery if you insist on muddling it with a falsehood. If you weren’t emotionally attached to it in some way then you would say the face split is a non-match.


    1. “I will dig it up and post it if anyone is interested”.


      I will dig it up and post it if anyone is interested.”



      1. John Lennon vs. Colin Unwin –
        This may not look like much at first glance, but try overlaying one image on top of the other and fading between them – it is absolutely seamless. Too lazy to make a video of it, sorry. If someone else can be bothered then please share as it’s quite impressive. Also notice the bags under John’s eyes that are already beginning to look a little like those under Colin’s.

        My best attempt at a face split. I didn’t follow any particular rules and am not claiming to be as good at this as Mark. There seems to be a slight misalignment with the nose (possibly caused by angle, though I fear not). It’s close enough to be beyond coincidence in any case, especially as this man was caretaker of the Lennon boyhood house.


        1. Caretaker of the Lennon boyhood home? Is this a pattern? You did a very good job there. As I recall, there was a book written by Unwood? Anyway, I was in touch with an Aussie guy a few years back while still on Facebook, and this guy was going to attempt to make personal contact with him. I lost contact about then.

          You’re right, the noses do not align, but this is about as close as it ever gets. I don’t think Unwood is Lennon, but he could be an identical twin. I’ve long suspected two of them, ,but cannot prove it even to my own satisfaction.


        2. The nose is the only thing odd in that matchup. Unwin could have been a fill in for concerts when the main Lennon was sick or could not make an appearances.


        3. In this picture, even his demeanor is similar…same cute little grin and expression in the eyes

          But are either of those dudes the same as this one?

          How does a perfectly straight nose turn aquiline?

          Did he always have a Roman nose and they simply doctored the early photos? No one gets plastic surgery to create a hook nose. Same guy with prosthetics/photo manipulation? Two or more different people? Something else altogether?
          Seems like some big inside joke or prank and I’m sure they get a kick out of watching people try to unwind it. Wouldn’t be surprised if they (the actors, the managers, their family, whomever) are “revealing” the con themselves – in a limited sort of way.

          What’s the fun in a prank if no one ever “gets it”? Like telling a joke and no one gets the punchline or even recognizes you were joking. There’s gotta be that “gotcha!” moment to make it fulfilling for the one perpetuating it lol. A prank isn’t funny to the one pranking if the recipient never even realizes that they were fooled – that moment of embarrassed realization of their own deception/humilation is the whole prize for the pranker.

          The matrix always seems to leave plenty of evidence and clues of it’s falseness so the observer constantly has a choice whether to believe or reject the lie – whether to participate in a fantasy or not. Whether this is intentional on TPTB’s part or just a hardwired law of this place, I don’t know.


  7. Nicely done. The whole “mystery” of the Beatles is how they managed to sweep the world in such a short time, and change so much in a short time. The answer is social engineering of course, but “They were just a band! Preternaturally talented, with prodigious production even for older, classically trained musicians, but hey, playing crappy sailor bars in Hamburg for a couple of years really honed their chops.” Aha, so in between sets the boys would wipe down a table and pore over musty Beethoven scores, puzzling how they could mix classical music with rock. I mean, what could be more inspiring and demanding than the Hamburg Docks bar scene? I heard Goethe spent some time there as a youth as well, perfecting his craft, taking inspiration in the nautical themes and tawdry nightclub shows. It’s ignorance of and bias against German culture to not know the deep well of artistic talent that Hamburg provides, especially the areas nearest the water.

    It is the depth and saturation of the Beatles op that many cannot fathom now. The media was limited and primitive compared to today, but the Moptops were always there, for one reason or another. Looking back, the level of promotion was unprecedented for a musical group, but for sure it was totally organic and merely a manifestation of the public’s desire for lovely tunes. It is impossible for it to have been more than that, because I say so.

    I recall their music on the radio when I was small, and then the cartoon came out. My sister and I loved it, even though the animation and story-line were of such poor quality. It was simply a way to bring kids into the cult. I watched a few episodes recently on YT; wow, crap. But effective crap.

    The few imdb reviews of it are pretty innocent, but some seem dialed into how strange it was, without specifically articulating How Strange It Was. Many even long for an “official” DVD set of the series, ffs!

    This one creeped me out:

    “Does this stick out in anyone else’s mind? rosaliez5 October 2001
    I couldn’t have been more than four or five when this show came out! Many years later (like 25!) “I’ll Follow The Sun” came on the radio at work. I mentioned to my friend how whenever I heard this song I could vividly recall how it was featured in one of the episodes of the cartoon, even though I only saw the episode once in my life. She said she saw it as a child as well and clearly remembered the scene, with the sun in one corner and the Beatles in a cluster looking up and following it. And strangely, it was the one and only element either one of us could remember about the series at all. I would love to have the opportunity to see this series again, perhaps on Cartoon Network or TV Land.”

    Maybe Stephers can enlighten us on this one? I could not find a scene of the band “following the sun”, but the relevant imagery begins at 2:43, an 8-pointed star, then repeats at 3:05, 3:20, (with the fox and George flashing signs), 3:50, and 4:35 At 2:54 it goes silent until 4:40, when the music can be heard as the song ends, likely due to copyright on “Ill Follow the Sun”. A bad joke ends the farce. Each episode was based on a song, btw.

    Voices dreadfully rendered by Paul Frees, the poor-man’s Mel Blanc.

    Ringo: How do we get back to the highway?
    John: It’s west, toward the sun.

    “There’s a feeling I get, When I look to the west, And my spirit is crying for leaving…” But that is another song, by another band, just a little later on.

    So that’s how the then-young rosaliez5 got those images stuck in her head.

    “History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake.”


  8. When I was looking for pics of John Lennon, this link from Newsweek came up right at the top. Posted just this year in June

    “Young John Lennon Once Told Reporter The Beatles Weren’t Good Musicians”.

    “He said The Beatles hoped they could get rich quick before their fame subsided – and even joked about hiding their money from future Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson.”

    “Asked if the Beatles regarded themselves primarily as musicians or entertainers, Lennon mused: ‘I’ve never thought about it really, but I suppose we don’t count ourselves as good musicians, so I suppose we’re entertainers. But we don’t entertain much ‘cos we just stand there, so I suppose we must be musicians. We’re in the union anyway.’ ”

    He also goes on to say that they were originally supposed to do cover songs, but they fought to do their own songs which I suppose people could interpret as they fought to perform songs they wrote, but I just take it to mean that they wanted songs credited to only them, written for them.
    The same way Britney Spears wants her own “Britney Spears TM” songs, not just covers of previous pop stars. Beyonce wants her own legacy, not just covers of Whitney Houston. No one pretends these women write their stuff, but they still have their own team that curates songs and sounds specifically for them and their fanbase. I think that’s what John was saying here (assuming he ever said any of this at all) – they wanted people to write unique songs for them the same way people write unique songs for Taylor Swift. Who wants to be known only as cover artist?

    They all just want their own brand, want songs written specifically for them. I mean, he just admitted they weren’t musicians or even entertainers. They just stood there. Because, you know, any real musician – talented or not – considers performing music with a band in front of a live audience as “just standing there” lol!

    The article also quotes Lennon as saying he was essentially a dropout in art school and had other people do his school work for him.

    The article states that the tape of this early (1964) interview was going up for auction. Probably not for real, not to a real anonymous fan anyway, but probably just an excuse to publish this story.

    “The extraordinary recording lay unplayed in a drawer for the next 50 years until Hill, a former teacher and university lecturer, was tidying up.”

    Which begs the question – does this tape even exist? A candid, off the cuff, honest interview with The John Lennon in his early career just sits around gathering dust for 50 years? Just got lost in the clutter, eh? I doubt this interview ever even happened, tbh. But the story, the revelation of the method, is what they wanted published.


  9. This has to be the most unhinged blog post I’ve ever read from beginning to end, and this includes your farcical “detective work” on Nguyễn Văn Lém’s execution photo which is how I stumbled upon this collection of insane ramblings.

    Your investigatory procedure is incredibly lacking. So many of your points are based on absurd suppositions you had just made yourself, and then built upon to grandiose levels.

    “His mother, Julia, was said to have been hit by a car and to have died in John’s youth, in 1958. I do not believe that.” Uh, why?

    “I think Julia was an invention, a literary device used to get her out of the way. John having a living mother would complicate things, since his real mother was kept secret.” Again, why?

    “Her supposed existence disguised the fact that John was not a Lennon, and that his true identity is not known.” Why is his last name significant in ANY way?

    “Similarly, his father, Alfred, though a real living human, was most likely a hired actor. He was said to be disinterested in his family, and often away at sea. He died in 1976. He and John were not close. Why would they be?” So ‘they’ created a useless fake relative that never was close to the person they created a staged life and parentage for… reasons? You say so much yourself:

    “What they have done there is to disguise Lennon’s parentage, assigning two people, one fictitious and the other an actor, to take their place. I could never stick the landing on this work, and will just offer my speculative conclusion.”

    You’re literally saying you can’t explain why this nonsensical scenario would come to pass – rather than, at the very cusp of realization, coming to the conclusion it’s nonsense, you go ahead and speculate some more.

    If ‘they’ have the power to hide pasts and disappear people, making him a fake birth certificate is a LOT easier than “But no like, his mom died and like, I don’t believe that because having a mom would make things more complicated unlike the actor they hired to act like an actor who acted, by the way he’s a twin or something and there’s two of them and he didn’t die.”

    TL;DR – You have wasted a colossal amount of time on trivial nonsense and uncovered nothing concrete or conspiratorial. You question things solely for the sake of the attention being intentionally contrarian brings. You’ve only made a bunch of easily lead simpletons more susceptible to manipulation through reading your random-ass backwards doublethink, rather than wake people up. You’re actually the poison in the world you rail against.


    1. Part of the problem with have is there is only one photo of “Julia” and John, and it is a poorly done paste up. Ergo I began to suspect that we do not know his true identity.

      But go your merry way. Everyone loves a good storm out. I hope this is yours. But if not, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Speaking of untalented, overrated musicians, tomorrow (or Wednesday – it is quite a long piece and will really waste your time!), I am going after Madonna.


      1. “Part of the problem with have is there is only one photo of “Julia” and John, and it is a poorly done paste up. Ergo I began to suspect that we do not know his true identity.”

        I like how you allege this photo is a “poorly done paste up” without any evidence whatsoever. I saw this on your Nguyễn Văn Lém post as well, you have a very poor grasp on photography/lighting/angles/etc so it’s very hard to take you on your word that this unposted picture is fake and thus John Lennon’s history is forged entirely. There’s only one photo of my dad from when he was an infant. Should I begin to suspect I do not know his true identity? My grandma didn’t have a photo taken until she was 3. SuPeR sPoOpY! She must have been replaced by an actor so I would get raised by the mysterious ‘they’ to come out of the woodwork at exactly this time so disprove you! You see how absurd this line of thinking can get when you throw out all logic and reason? Hell, you probably genuinely believe that, solely because I’m commenting on your stupid post.

        For the record, I don’t have a horse in this race. Don’t care about the Beatles, don’t care about Madonna. I just think your detective work would be laughable even on an episode of Magnum PI. All your ‘conclusions’ are based on wild assertions you make on your own with zero or specious ‘evidence’ and run with. I’m sure your family misses you, wishes you would seek help and stop ruining family Thanksgiving with these wholly absurd theories.


        1. Below is the ‘one and only’ photo I am talking about. There are many, many things wrong with it, but I will point out just one for you: Notice the length and snakelike flexibility of Julia’s right forearm. I’ve seen that many, many times in photos, floating hands, distended arms, all due to two things: One, the photo darkroom people of that era were overworked, and had to get a lot done. It as tedious labor, cutting and pasting, taking photos of photos. The other, the public is not skeptical and accepts a photo as a photo without looking closely.

          Yes, I am looking at you, J Letour.


          1. If that’s a fake, it’s an incredible fake and this really shows your poor grasp of photography/lighting/etc as I said before.

            ‘They’ managed to splice together photos of two people that seem to have the exact same exposure, the exact same light source, and shadows that compliment each other (the neck shadow on her inner right arm, the shadow of his shirt over her fingers on her left hand, the shadows from her chin being cast by a light source at the exact same angle as the light source casting the shadows of his chin, to name more than a few)? All before photoshop?

            What’s throwing you off is the blousy nature of the shirt/dress she’s wearing. Obviously it is rather large as you can see as far as the left side and the very wide sleeve. You can clearly extrapolate the length of her right arm (not visible) by looking at her left. Where the elbow bends correlates with a bent elbow at the opposite side; her right elbow would be just behind the center of his chest, set backward a bit (as you can see, her torso is turned slightly to the right). Enough room for her arm to be set back far enough from his head to have his head cast a shadow upon it, and far enough back for her to lay her right hand over his right shoulder at that angle (some of her wrist is even visible to the right of his neck, just darkened by the shadow cast by his head/hair) because wrists do, in fact, bend. You mean to tell me this incredibly realistic fakery was accomplished by an overworked dark room attendant, before photoshop and the ability to simulate artificial light sources and apply realistic shadows?

            Some people want so badly to believe there is some nefarious invisible hand pulling strings that make the world go round that they’ll intentionally ignore the reality in front of their face to try to uncover the assumed ‘deception’.

            Seriously, find a real hobby. Maybe model trains is your thing. Spending your retirement online reading conspiracy junk is turning you stupid.


            1. OK, now, as I’ve other stuff ahead in my day: Her right elbow is right by John’s left ear, and the forearm is pointed downward. She was obviously attending to other matters, and John’s body was superimposed in the darkroom. That makes the hand on John’s right arm a floater. In order for it to be her hand, it has to be long enough to extend from what appears to be a second elbow in the middle of his back. It is completely awkward, as happens when other people are removed from photos. Her blouse is unnaturally blockish, straight lines like that on photos always suspect. The lower half of his face is shadowed, hers competently illuminated. I make his light source to be directly overhead, hers perhaps 10-15° to the left.

              As happens, when civilians such as you see a photo, they automatically accept it as real, never questioning. The major events of my lifetime, such as JFK and 911, are dependent on photo fakery. Please note tht I am merely pointing out the obvious, and not belittling you in this process. Please go your way now.

              By the way, the very first photo was taken in 1826 or 27. The second photo, no doubt, was faked. This stuff, this monkey business, as been going on as long as we have had photos. It is a way of controlling perceptions, controlling reality. This photo tells me a lot, one that Julia Lennon did not die, as she never existed (we don’t know who this woman is), and that John’s real mother is hidden from us. I have other photos of the “Lennon” family (our writer Tyrone thinks his real name to be John Stanley) wherein there appears to be a real sense of family, affection and genuine happiness in the faces, probably his real family.


            2. Some people want so badly to believe there is some nefarious invisible hand pulling strings that make the world go round that they’ll intentionally ignore the reality in front of their face to try to uncover the assumed ‘deception’.

              if your message is “the existence of a Hidden Hand is merely a belief”, then I don’t agree.
              The existence of a back office behind the front office, the facade we get presented is everywhere. Assuming that it wouldn’t exist when dealing with worldwide things (“making the world go round”) is madness.

              Have you read or skimmed at least The Hidden Hand by Spiridovich (1926) ?

              If your message is however “stop believing in power of those Invisible Monsters, conspie theorists, and focus on that what is real; your real life and real things“, then I absolutely agree with you, because conspiracy theory is a trap, a honeypot set there to lure people in, make people crazy, believe strange things. That is so true.

              Life is about prosperity theory
              And practice


              1. I’m way done now.

                Did you really just suggest The Hidden Hand? You mean that insane book where he blames Jews for everything? Anti-semitic propaganda BS? I’m TOTALLY out. You people are legitimately disgusting and beyond hope. The fact you bought into that trash is actually shocking. I thought I was debating poor misguided boomers, not actual anti-semites. Miss me with that garbage. I’m sure you’re a big fan of Mein Kampf and ‘The International Jew”.

                You’re actually horrible people and you should be ashamed of yourselves, which unfortunately you won’t be. Say hi to Uncle Heinrich down in Argentina, marks.


                1. The first time I ever heard the word ‘anti-semite’ I was visiting Dachau, with a Jewish girl, in a school exchange program. She was practically inconsolable, and I’d never even heard the word before. It was pretty awkward! And I went to a very large high school in the suburbs of St. Louis. It was a non-issue. I was sometimes called a JAP at uni and the first time I had no idea what it meant. I thought he meant to tell me I look Japanese, but no, that I looked like (or acted like?) a ‘Jewish American Princess’ — I took it as a compliment! HA!

                  I’m not a baby boomer, but I can assure you that until about 20 years ago or so, the majority of Americans didn’t give one thought to the Jews, beyond making great bagels and funny movies. I’m really dead serious. The ‘Jewish question’ was not a question before that here, just like the ‘Trans question’ was not an issue until what, just a few years ago now?

                  Manufactured drama. Why? Cause folks eat it up and it pays really well and most folks are just bored.


                  1. “I’m not a baby boomer, but I can assure you that until about 20 years ago or so, the majority of Americans didn’t give one thought to the Jews, beyond making great bagels and funny movies. I’m really dead serious. The ‘Jewish question’ was not a question before that here, just like the ‘Trans question’ was not an issue until what, just a few years ago now?”

                    You’re absolutely wrong and should really read up on recent history (various articles quoted below over the decades):

                    “The International Jew is a four-volume set of antisemitic booklets or pamphlets originally published and distributed in the early 1920s by the Dearborn Publishing Company, an outlet owned by Henry Ford, the American industrialist and automobile manufacturer. The books are to be distinguished from The International Jew: The World’s Problem which was a headline in The Dearborn Independent, and is also the name of a collection of articles serialized in The Dearborn Independent.”

                    “Antisemitic activists in the 1930s were led by Father Charles Coughlin, William Dudley Pelley and Gerald L. K. Smith. Ford’s attacks on Jews continued to be circulated, although the KKK was practically defunct. They promulgated various interrelated conspiracy theories, widely spreading the fear that Jews were working for the destruction or replacement of white Americans and Christianity in the U.S.”

                    “In a 1938 poll, approximately 60 percent of the respondents held a low opinion of Jews, labeling them “greedy,” “dishonest,” and “pushy.”[32] 41 percent of respondents agreed that Jews had “too much power in the United States,” and this figure rose to 58 percent by 1945. Several surveys taken from 1940 to 1946 found that Jews were seen as a greater threat to the welfare of the United States than any other national, religious, or racial group.”

                    “Liberty Lobby was a political advocacy organization which was founded in 1955 by Willis Carto in 1955. Liberty Lobby was founded as a conservative political organization and was known to hold strongly antisemitic views and to be a devotee of the writings of Francis Parker Yockey, who was one of a handful of post-World War II writers who revered Adolf Hitler.”

                    “Seeking a venue, In 1977 and 1978, members of the National Socialist Party of America (NSPA) chose Skokie. Because of the large number of Holocaust survivors in Skokie, it was believed that the march would be disruptive, and the village refused to allow it. They passed three new ordinances requiring damage deposits, banning marches in military uniforms and limiting the distribution of hate speech literature.”

                    “During the Crown Heights riot, marchers proceeded carrying antisemitic signs and an Israeli flag was burned. Ultimately, black and Jewish leaders developed an outreach program between their communities to help calm and possibly improve racial relations in Crown Heights over the next decade.”

                    So that takes us up to about 20 years ago when you say anti-semitism “really” began in the United States. You’re clearly incorrect.

                    PS – Just for kicks and to address all of the issues brought up, you know WHY the “Trans question” didn’t come up until “now”?

                    “Institut für Sexualwissenschaft was an early private sexology research institute in Germany from 1919 to 1933. The name is variously translated as Institute of Sex Research, Institute of Sexology, Institute for Sexology or Institute for the Science of Sexuality. The Institute was a non-profit foundation situated in Tiergarten, Berlin. It was the first sexology research center in the world.

                    It was headed by Magnus Hirschfeld, who since 1897 had run the Wissenschaftlich-humanitäres Komitee (‘Scientific-Humanitarian Committee’), which campaigned on progressive and rational grounds for LGBT rights and tolerance. The Committee published the long-running journal Jahrbuch für sexuelle Zwischenstufen. Hirschfeld built a unique library at the institute on gender, same-sex love and eroticism.

                    The institute pioneered research and treatment for various matters regarding gender and sexuality, including gay, transgender, and intersex topics. In addition, it offered various other services to the general public: this included treatment for alcoholism, gynecological examinations, marital and sex counseling, treatment for venereal diseases, and access to contraceptive treatment. It offered education on many of these matters to both health professionals and laypersons.

                    The Nazi book burnings in Berlin included the archives of the institute. After the Nazis gained control of Germany in the 1930s, the institute and its libraries were destroyed as part of a Nazi government censorship program by youth brigades, who burned its books and documents in the street.”

                    Basically, we don’t have any prior history on transgender individuals because the Nazis destroyed all the history that people had collected.

                    Frankly it’s disgusting people think Jews are the “invisible hand” when anti-semitites were the basis for ALL of these occurrences, even when it comes to lack of understanding of transgender individuals today.


                    1. I did not say ‘anti-semitism’ began in the U.S 20 years ago. I could come up with just as many quotes on irrelevant historical books saying the same thing about any group. I’m telling you, it’s all bullshit. The violent crimes against any single group in this country are manufactured and the vast majority of folks are non-violent. That wisdom comes from life experience.


                    2. Hellow normie, welcome to your learning curve.

                      jews, or the Tribe of Tricksters as I like to call them, controlled the Nazis from the very begining. It is no wonder therefore, that the financial systems are organized like fascism while generally we are infested by cultural marxism (lessons from communism).

                      Only beaten jews cry antisemitism, welcome hasbara troll, when do you think you have something useful to comment instead of this jew washed policor poopspeak?

                      Enjoy the learning on Nazionim:



                    3. That was an interesting read, thank you for posting it!
                      One of the links I clicked on stated that, if a movie has been made from it, you can assume said event was a fake.

                      That seems like a real stretch to me. Some films are meant to cloud the affairs and to normalize criminal activity, wouldn’t you say?
                      One case in point I’d bring up is the film with Tom Cruise called ‘American Made’. This is a story I followed rather closely for decades, because I lived in Mena, AR, where the ‘scandal’ was partially based. It is a tiny mountain town and while I know how cringey it is to hear, “I knew a guy, who knew a guy . . .” I can say with some assurance —‘everyone’ knew.

                      I tried to play the real journalist around it once, for about a month, and what a fucking runaround I got from every direction. Coincidentally (HA!) loads of records and local newspaper articles were lost in a freak tornado. I remember watching the fake tv drama with Oliver North of his supposed ‘trials’. HUGE amounts of taxpayer money was spent, lots of mysterious deaths, of course, The Clinton criminals made bank and then ran to the Whitehouse for the ultimate protection.

                      I’m not saying the film tells the truth at all, or anything close to the real truth, only that it’s used to glamorize the criminals who got away with it all and to obfuscate the fact that there were REAL events, tied in with the Iran-Contra “scandal” (international criminal conspiracy), that have now been permanently diluted thanks again to Hollywood.


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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s