Paul is Dead/PID on Type1 Radio Lounge (Tina Foster) 12/14/2013
Watch HERE
(Coming soon. Rumble deleted my account, so I am in the process of re-uploading videos. )
New Art Internet Radio with Type1RadioAshram on BlogTalkRadio
MP3 audio of PID interview with Tina Foster 12/14/2013
__________________________________________________
Tina Foster is the author of
Email Tina at faulconandsnowjob at hotmail dot com.
This interview discusses Lennon and McCartney and their deaths. The man, Ole Dammegard has done extensive work in researching assassinations.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aykEIojFjGI
Mac and Lennon were not killed, both replaced. The Lennon imposter vs the real John Lennon was a political activist who was eliminated.
ReplyDeleteThere is and has been a war in the circles of political power. Both use replacements and both use mk and assassination. A great example is Arthur Bremer who ended the political ambitions of George Wallace who's was closely contesting the re-election of Richard Nixon. The "operation" worked but not for long.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvjg8YHOUh0
You say that both McCartney and Lennon were replaced, so are you saying they simply left, and were/are still alive, allowing their doppelgangers to just take their places? But, why?--why replace them? Because, they refused to go along with the nwo agenda to begin a societal revolution of sorts by using rock n roll music and it's tempo to begin affecting teenagers with it, as well as with words suggesting using drugs, and also by telling the world that they used drugs, too? So, if they were not killed, where are they? It's been my impression over the years that, it's easier for criminals to simply kill their opponents rather than mess around with any other scheme to get them out of their hair, so to speak--yet, you seem to believe they went to the trouble of replacing two human beings, and possibly 3 or even 4 counting Ringo, with look-alikes, who sounded similar, had similar talents, but whom they could control--I find that astounding--never known criminals to care that much for others, especially those who stand in their way--have you?!
Deletetina - I am the premier conspiracy theorist bar none, but was nonetheless shocked by the paul McCartney story which I just discovered this week. it is an enigma within a riddle within a conundrum and difficult to assemble into a coherent narrative. without doubt the man died - and more likely was murdered.
ReplyDeletedo you have any opinions about whether he died in the states, England, or france? do you have any opinions on the date of death? do you believe it was accidental or intended?
why do you think that john was replaced in 1966? the john we knew who was assassinated in 1980 seems like a continuous character of the pre-66 john at least in thought. if the beatles were silenced because of their growing political prestige and opposition to the Vietnam war, why would the john replacement be allowed to continue anti-war talk?
there is one theory - rather credible - that john got himself in trouble because his double fantasy album was a strong hint that he would blow the charade. but that is rather odd thing for a Manchurian candidate to do. it's not like mk ultra subjects to grow a pair and stand up to their captors. but I totally believe that the ghastly yoko ono was an intelligence hack of a very sinister and powerful kind.
Hi, Tony,
DeleteMy opinion is that Paul died either in Seattle or LA around Aug. 25-28, 1966. I definitely think he was assassinated, but the car accident story has been disseminated as disinfo.
I think John was replaced based on physical & personality differences. There are a couple of articles on the blog about his being replaced (including fingerprints being confiscated by the FBI). The replacement John was allowed to continue his anti-war agenda in a very controlled way. IMO, the methods used with handler Yoko were more to discredit the anti-war movement. Giving a speech in a bag? That is so Monty Python :P It is possible that the double's programming was breaking down & needed to be eliminated for whatever reason. The very public execution must have served some purpose - perhaps it was simply a warning to others who might have considered exposing something TPTB wanted to keep a lid on.
Happy new year!
Tina
Dear Tina,
ReplyDeleteI've looked at other PID stuff on the Internet in past years but never found anything I could really sink my teeth. Wow, you have amassed an incredible amount of stuff. I'm impressed.
However, I've never felt so conflicted. I've maybe read through 10% of you articles thus far. Here is what I find very convincing (to date):
1) Nose length difference.
2) Eye color difference.
3) Differences in ear lobe attachment.
4) I thought it was significant the LIFE magazine (known to work with spooks like the CIA) did a cover up for the PID conspiracy. It was especially telling that LIFE compared 1967 Faul with later versions of Faul. It shows me that they know better.
5) Height differences.
6) Lip shape differences.
7) Differences in the shape of the face.
However, here is what the other side of my melon is telling me... For one, there seems to be a continuity of talent. Very few, I believe, are capable of singing and playing like 1966 Paul. I'm thinking it would be pretty tough to find an impostor who closely resembled 1966 Paul AND had enough talent to carry-on in 1966 Paul's footsteps. Plus, a vaguely remember PLAYBOY magazine rating Paul McCartney (Faul) as the top rated Rock & Roll base player in the world (and, if memory serves, the rating was based on a PLAYBOY reader's poll). So, if PID is true, Faul not only matched 1966 Paul's talent but possibly even exceeded it! I'm almost okay with this scenario up to this point.
But then there's the issue of 1966 Paul's left-handedness. I see two possibilities, both of which seem to be INCREDIBLY unlikely. The most reasonable of the two is that Faul was born as left-handed as the 1966 Paul. But how likely would it be to find a musically talented (talented enough to be rated top rock base player) McCartney that looks similar to McCartney AND is left-handed? I would think the odds of such a match would be close to zero.
However, the left-handed Faul is REASONABLE compared to the idea of a naturally right-handed Faul forced to play left handed and getting world-class ratings doing it. That's got to be a magnitude-of-order tougher! Or, maybe I'm over-rating Faul McCartney's talent. Wouldn't it be fair to say that most people would have trouble singing and playing a rock & roll base guitar, period? And, especially, most people would have difficulty singing and playing as well as a 1966 Paul? And it would take an extra especially talented Faul to 1) sing and play exceptionally, 2) sing in play mimicking 1966 Paul 3) able to look kinda-sorta like 1966 Paul and 4) PLAY THE BASE BACKWARDS?? My brain agrees with your evidence. My common-sense intuition says "extremely unlikely to the extreme". Can you help me resolve this conflict? Thank you. Allison.
Excellent questions, Allison. I share your concerns. I think that having a lefty impostor wasn't crucial in the beginning because they were just making studio albums behind closed doors. Faul and George Martin have admitted that the bass parts for Sgt. Pepper through Abbey Road were added last in overdubs after the other instrument tracks had been laid down. That being the case, even George Harrison (or Feorge) could have played and recorded those bass lines for the studio albums. Films from the period show Faul pretending to play bass, but what you hear are pre-recorded bass tracks. You don't really need a lefty playing bass until you have the rooftop concert where it can't be faked so easily.
ReplyDeleteJust heard the news that Clare Kuehn
ReplyDeletewas replaced in 2008.
Has anyone any relevant info on this?