Saturday, October 11, 2014



Tina Foster discusses the death and impostor-replacement of Beatles Paul McCartney and John Lennon with Jim Fetzer on the Real Deal.


The Luciferian Deception

Reptilians, Cetaceans and Frequency Wars on Planet Earth


  1. Fetzer has his fingers in all sorts of areas. Why did he invite onto the steering committee of Scholars for 911 Truth, but then say I was childish when I challenged him regarding the validity of the Hutchison Effect? This man is not who he at first appears to be, that much is clear...

    And why did he ask Clare Kuehn to present Dr Judy Wood's 911 research at a Conference in 2013? What is the connection between Keuhn and Fetzer?

    I'd generally advise people to avoid Fetzer if possible, though of course he has somehow had the time to interview a fair number of people on various topics,

    1. i preferred your interview with

    2. I would encourage people to study fetzer as much as possible as he is one of the leading investigators and analysts in the myriad psychological warfare campaigns waged by us and Israeli ruling elites. jim's research and curating of leading authorities on the cia's and mossad's murder of president kennedy is sterling, ground breaking, and brilliant.

      I would generally advise people to avoid people who tell them whom to avoid. I encourage people to investigate on their own subjects of interests rather than rely on thought police to corral them into the matrix.

    3. I read your article at the link you provided, and I couldn't agree more with Dr. Judy Wood--I love her work on what happened that day--since I am no scientist I refrain from making any claims as to what caused those buildings to simply 'dustify', as Dr. Judy puts it. I also can't make any claims as to whom we need to avoid, since I haven't gathered enough evidence on what others claim, in order to make a decision like that.

      However, if someone is truly wanting to learn the truth on any subject, they will make the effort to seek proof from many sources, comparing each of them to one another--if no conclusion can be reached by us, due to the solution being 'over our heads', then we simply need to continuing learning more about the subject until a conclusion can be reached on our parts. Short of that, we'd need to decide whom to trust from among all the investigators into whatever subject it is, and try reaching a conclusion based on the conclusion reached our own chosen 'expert', I guess.

      But, when it comes to evidence, that should never be discounted in favor of trusting a conclusion of someone else who seems to reject that evidence , if they can not explain exactly why they do not trust what appears for all the world to be concrete proof.
      Also, if someone seems to simply be presenting theories that contradict the evidence, their motives have to be taken into consideration before ever even trying to understand the theory they are trying to interject--are they just muddying the waters, or are they actually trying to present an alternative batch of evidence?

      It's the same with the JPM case. Is someone genuinely trying to help find out what really happened to Paul, or are they simply interjecting things that end up leading us down rabbit trails? If we find that they're just a 'Peter Cottontail', then they do need to be ignored, if not exposed as the 'disinfo perps' they really seem to be. Thank you, Mr. Johnson, and I would recommend Dr. Judy's presentation at this YouTube link, since the sound quality of the video is better than at the links you provided in your article:

  2. ps - regarding clare Kuhn I couldn't say what the relationship is any more than I could say what the relationship between you and the cia is. however, my impressions of clare are positive and as someone capable of cogent original thought, especially in regards to the McCartney murder.


Thank you for your comments. They will appear once they have been approved.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.