Below the fold here is a video that is between Mike Williams, Jay Weidner, James Delingpole and Williams Ramsey, on the “Beatles Conspiracy”. The video is 4:35, that is, four hours and thirty-five minutes. Nonetheless, I expect all of you to drop everything and take half your day and watch it.
Actually, for my purposes here, you can go to 2:02:47, where Mike Williams begins to talk about the changes that “Paul” underwent from 1966 to 1968 or 69, which is why I am bringing the video and Williams to light here. In the brief interval after 2:02:47, Mike will hold up pictures of “Paul” McCartney claiming that the pictures are of a different person than the original.
I’ve seen them all before now. I’ve looked at these pictures, examined them in detail doing face splits and all of that, and have found them all to be of “Paul” or his twin brother, Mike. Keep in mind that Mike McCartney, the man we know as Macca, is a different person than Mike McCartney, aka “Mike McGear” (stage name), whose picture is off to the left here. McGear was created as misdirection. There were originally two McCartneys, twins, Paul and Mike. McGear claims to be Paul McCartney’s brother. He is not.
All of that is covered elsewhere, notably in my piece, Sir Faul. The reason that I am bringing it up here is that Mike Williams knows about my work, and has been shown the photos, and does not acknowledge them. Once Ab and I asked him for an interview, and he agreed with the caveat that there would be no talk of anything regarding twins. Instead, he goes into great detail about a man (who does not even exist) called “Billy Shears, a reference to the work pictured below.
According to Williams, as I understand it, Shears is a real person who stepped into the shoes of McCartney upon his alleged death in 1966, and has been impersonating him ever since.
That’s nonsense. If Williams knows it is nonsense, he is either 1) Refusing to undo his long work in unraveling the Beatles conspiracy. That is what would happen if he simply acknowledged that Paul and Mike are identical twins, and that no one died in 1966 (or 1980). Paul, the crooner who sang Yesterday on Ed Sullivan, was later retired as differences between the two became apparent. 2) Another possibility, Williams is a limited hangout. As weird as it sounds, the “Paul is Dead” psyop is still active here in 2025, with various sites and authors clinging to it. Williams would be part of that. More evidence to this effect is that Williams buys in totally to the John Lennon fable of a mother who was run over by a car and a dad out to sea. He is a good investigator, I might even say a crack one. I like his work, with obvious exceptions. He just can’t get off Billy Shears.
OK, enough of Williams and the four-hour video. In it, he mentions that the Memoirs of Billy Shears is “66 chapters and 666 pages long,” Spook markers, anyone?
That’s all I needed. Dammit I am going to read it now. I’ll report back. In the meantime, be sure to watch the entire four hour video below. You will be tested.
Piece of Mindful 
I have been thinking how they retired the Beatles script after they broke up in 1970, because the trajectory of the band was too incredulous for any serious student of music or history to buy. They were a real Spinal Tap type band – they went through several transformations -all supposedly organic, and based on their own observations of trends. From teeny boppers, a boy band, to serious bards, to psychedelia, then hard rock – all completely manufactured (dictated from the top down) to an objective observer. I don’t know of any other bands who flipped so fast from one genre to another, especially at such a precocious age. Sure the Rolling Stones flirted with these genres, but they were always more of the ultimate bar band, and not super serious about the music (like the Beatles supposedly were with all the complicated arrangements used in Sgt Peppers, with lots of orchestral assistance).
LikeLike
I wish it was still available, as it was cameras in the studio as the Beatles were supposedly recording Get Back. It lasted maybe an hour, and had all the banter and stuff, but they didn’t actually record anything … they just tuned their instruments. One short scene I remember was Paul, his back to us, hands unseen, supposedly doing an amazing left-handed riff on the bass. Had to be fake! And then, day is done and they are leaving the studio and we hear the opening chords of Get Back being played back on the speakers, supposedly the sum of their day’s work. I had the video up on the blog here, and then it went gray.
LikeLike
Is this Mike Williams only claim to being popular? If so maybe that’s why he doesn’t want to give up his “invention” of Billy Shears. Can’t he focus in on some other bands?
LikeLike
I know so little about him … I’ve assumed that Sage of Quay is a stage name, and that he is a musician.
LikeLike
Mike Williams does have a video about the Rolling Stones traveling to Muscle Shoals to record the “Sticky Fingers” album sometime around 1971. Of course that is where the “Swampers” record. They are like the southern version of the old “Wrecking Crew” studio musicians. Mike concludes that the Swampers actually played all the instruments on the album with Mick Jagger doing the voice over.
LikeLike
Thank you! Please link if you can.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLike
The Stones were apart of the British Invasion so that would mean MI6 and a project. Brian Jones probably was a handler, and didn’t die in a swimming pool. I always thought Keith Richards looked similar to Queen Elizabeth II, could they be related? To get that level of fame they would have to be related to extreme wealth.
LikeLike
I think most of what you have written Greg is very reasonable. But it depends on what you consider extreme wealth. I don’t believe that anyone near the top wants fame or are allowed to have it.
There is a band called Sleep Token (with anonymous members) out there currently. I wonder where they sit on the wealth and family tree?
I have zero level of fame but sometimes I avoid my local cafe simply because I don’t want to have to talk to half a dozen people. I could only imagine being famous, what a chore.
LikeLike
That’s a great point. I always thought fame would be a curse. And now, not that I’m famous, but if I go to a conference and there are a lot of people who know me and come up to talk – it’s dreadful trying to remember names and make all that small talk. I agree the most rich would want to be completely anonymous. Moreover if people know you’re wealthy they will always be kissing ass, or wanting something. Better they don’t know about your wealth.
LikeLike
Very wealthy New Englanders, i.e. Yankees, are notorious for dressing like poor farmers and being indistinguishable from the average next door neighbor. And I remember reading an excellent book called the King of California, about these farmers who came in and bought up most of the Central Valley and ruled it like a feudal kingdom, and do to this day (supposedly). And they dress like yokels.
LikeLike