Thursday, June 18, 2015

The Tragical History of Paul is Dead (PID) - Part 3

The dominant theory surrounding Paul McCartney's death and replacement has the tragic events beginning one evening in November 1966 - possibly November 8, which was a “stupid bloody Tuesday” (from the song, "I am the Walrus").1 As the story goes, McCartney and the other Beatles had an argument at Abbey Road Studios, whereupon an angry McCartney stormed off, jumped into his car and sped off.2 He lost control of his car, and crashed into a light pole. In the collision, McCartney was supposedly decapitated, thus bringing meaning to “he blew his mind out in a car” from the song, “A Day in the Life.”3 

McCartney was officially pronounced dead (an allusion to the O.P.D. patch on McCartney’s Sgt. Pepper uniform, which actually turned out to be O.P.P. - Ontario Provincial Police) at the scene during the early hours of Wednesday, November 9th, a supposed allusion to “number nine, number nine.”4 

The story theorizes that, when faced with the prospect of losing revenue due to McCartney’s untimely death, the three remaining Beatles covered up his death by hiring someone allegedly called “Billy Shears” (the name of the fictitious leader of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band), "William Shepherd," or “William Campbell” to pose as McCartney.5  This man was said to have once won a McCartney look-alike contest, however, Keith Allison actually won the 1965 contest.

According to the legend, the Fab Three gently broke the news to the fans by means of concealed subliminal clues and back-masked messages in their songs and album covers. These clues revealed the truth about McCartney’s terrible fate.6 

The so-called “dean" of "Paul-is-dead" theorists, retired Delaware high school teacher, Joel Glazier, recalled: 

At the time, people took it very seriously. It was the end of the '60s. You have to remember this was against the backdrop of the assassinations of Martin Luther King [Jr.] and Bobby Kennedy, as well as the Vietnam War and the Pentagon Papers. So this sounded like the perfect conspiracy cover-up. People stayed up all night talking about it, and some were actually quite scared.7

At the end of October 1969, the brouhaha over McCartney’s death became so extreme that LIFE magazine sent a team of London reporters and a photographer to the remote Scottish farmhouse where McCartney was living in seclusion to settle the matter.8 Researcher Brian Moriarty recounts the day’s events:

Alerted by the barking of his sheepdog Martha, Paul ran out of his barn and starting screaming at the reporters for trespassing, threatening them with arrest and physical violence. The photographer, Robert Graham, began taking pictures of Paul's temper tantrum, and got soaked with a bucket of water. The Life team then retreated by running away down the road. Sitting in his kitchen a few minutes later, Paul recognized the likely consequences of what he had just done. He jumped into his Land Rover, caught up with the soggy reporters, and invited them in for a warm cup of tea. After a bit of discussion, they cut a deal. Paul agreed to give the Life correspondents a worldwide exclusive interview. In return, Robert Graham agreed to give Paul the film in his camera.

The resulting article, “Paul is still with us,” appeared on November 7, 1969. In the article, the reporter asked McCartney if were still alive to which he responded: 

Anyway all of the things that have been, that have made these rumours, to my mind have very ordinary, logical explanations. To the people’s minds who prefer to think of them as rumours, then I am not going to interfere, I am not going to spoil that fantasy. You can think of it like that if you like. However, if the end result, the conclusion you reach is that I am dead, then you are wrong, because I am very much alive, I am alive and living in Scotland.9 

LIFE’s reassurances that Paul was “still with us” were enough to convince most people all was well. 

Some remained unconvinced, however. For example, it has been noted that the reporter asked if he were still alive, not if he were the original McCartney. In addition, if one carefully considers the statement, “To the people’s minds who prefer to think of them as rumours, then I am not going to interfere, I am not going to spoil that fantasy,” one will note that what McCartney actually said was that he was not going to interfere with the people who thought of Paul’s death as “rumors.” He isn't going to “spoil that fantasy” that Paul was “still with us.” Others noticed suspiciously that the LIFE article had only included photos of McCartney from 1967 and later, but no pictures from 1966 and earlier for comparison purposes. [See LIFE proved Faul McCartney was "still with us" for more information]

In 2007, McCartney was publicly accused of having sent a double to give blood for a paternity test in 1984 by Bettina Krischbin. She claims her mother, Erika Hübers, had an affair with Paul between 1959 and 1962 in Hamburg. The suit was dismissed when the blood test came back negative, but Krischbin pointed to the photo in the files from the day blood was taken as evidence of a stand-in. Krischbin said, “[t]he real McCartney had at this time a much fuller face... the man in the photo looks like McCartney. But he isn’t.” She also noted that the signature on the 1984 paternity test: “It's a fake. We've found out that the signature comes from a right-hander but Paul is a left-hander.” [See "Paul McCartney's" stand-in gave blood in paternity case for more information]

Was Faul the stand-in? If so, there is no wonder the paternity test was negative.


1 Jim Yoakum, “Man Who Killed Paul McCartney,” Gadfly May/June 2000,

Alessandro De Arcangelis, “The Great Hoax: The Beatles Death Curse,” Newsblaze, February 07, 2010,

Jim Yoakum, “Man Who Killed Paul McCartney,” Gadfly May/June 2000,

4 Id.

5 Id.

6 Id.

DAVID BRINN , Is it McCartney or is it an imposter?, Jerusalem Post, Sep 24, 2008.

Brian Moriarty, “Who Buried Paul?,”

Id.; See also “Paul is Dead: Rotten Apple 34d,” posted by “Iamaphoney,” February 27, 2007

The Luciferian Deception

Reptilians, Cetaceans and Frequency Wars on Planet Earth


  1. Happy Birthday Paul!

    1. You mean Happy Birthday to the original Paul. As far as I understand, nobody outside the replacement Paul's inner circle knows the replacement Paul's birth day, month or year.

    2. How about November 9th, 1936?

  2. Perhaps Faul, too, was born, on June 18, 1942. After all, the powers that be have been known to use astrological twins.

  3. No, the intended date clue date was misinterpreted by USA questioners, as Nov 9. The clue itself and the history missing period for the historical conflation of two men puts UK date format as correct: Sept 11. The Tues reference is then when lies began.

    1. That's amazing, and I think I can believe that, because there are some Christians who now believe that Christ was born on September 11th:

      That would mean He could very well have been conceived on December 25th, which is why 12/25 is such a blessed holiday, having so obviously been blessed by God for our sake[s], as the one day that is used to remind so very many of us that He's real, and why He came here. And, I never thought of "bloody Tuesday" as being the day they all began to lie their heads about Paul, but that's such perfect sense.

      I also think that O.P.P. might simply be pointing to the fact that Paul's 'stand-in' is from Canada--Ontario--with the last 'P' having been distorted deliberately in that picture in order to give false credence to the idea that it meant, "Officially Pronounced Dead", even if it was true by that time. That way it would give them what those lying criminals enjoy using most--Plausible Deniability--hiding behind that makes them think they're safe.

      I never thought that 'f'aul might have been born on November 9th, though, but that does seem like a bit much. It would be fascinating if true, though, but the odds are very long against it I'm sure. But, I'll be trying to keep an open mind about many things having to do with this subject. No sense in blocking myself off from anything that might help! :)

  4. Not sure my comment about the patch sent. It is basically the OPP patch, but the Sgt Pepper image was doctored to be OPD. Why not correct the article with notes of your own, Tina? <3

  5. The occult elitists behind the new world order/one world govt. use colors to transmit information about themselves, and others, the same way they use numbers that they attach certain meanings to, to send information to each other, right under our very noses. Same for hand signs, and handshakes, etc.

    In this color photo of the "Sgt. Pepper" 4, I realized those colors contained on those uniforms just might signify something very vital to all of this. I'd never seen an enlargement of the cover photo, so I sought one out, and this is a pretty good one:

    The colors of those uniforms are very interesting:
    George's is Orange--in Old French, it's spelled Or Ange or L'Orange, which means in French, "Gold/Golden Angel".
    John is seen with a French horn, as well, in this picture:

    It makes me believe the two are tied together--the orange color of George's uniform, and the French horn carried by John. Or Ange, or Gold Angel, is a favorite color to convey a message by the 'powers-that-be'. The Golden Gate bridge reflects a message about their false Christ, or the anti-Christ, and from which direction they expect him to come when he returns to earth--they expect him to return through the "Golden Gate", but not the one in Jerusalem, that's in the old Jewish Temple--that Temple gate, called the Golden Gate, which faces east, was sealed up, and the Muslims placed a cemetery in front of it, hoping to prevent the Messiah/Jesus from entering into the Temple through that gate--they believe He would never cross over a grave yard. The occultists believe their false Messiah will come from the east, which is why they named that famous bridge in San Francisco, the "Golden Gate".

    'F'aul and Ringo are actually wearing the same two colors, only in different proportions. 'F'aul's uniform is mainly blue, but with pink stripes. Ringo's is mainly pink, but with blue stripes. I think that's broadcasting the idea that both men "go either way", sexually. The one with more blue might mean a dominant male; and, more pink, the more subservient one.

    John's uniform is "Chartreuse" green, with Or Ange/Orange braiding, and trims. Green is another favorite of satan followers/'illumined' type occultists. Green represents satan to them. The Or Ange/Orange represents the "Golden Angel"/anti-Christ. But, John's expressions, in the various photos, seem to show that his heart doesn't appear to be in any of it:

    Also, in that last photo, 'F'aul is wearing a satanic, upside-down cross, as a blasphemy against Jesus Christ. It's hanging over his left breast, which is more than likely not the side into which the Roman soldier thrust his spear into Christ's side. But, the word left is referred to as meaning 'sinister'. On George Martin's "Coat of Arms", the bird[called a House Martin] has the golden upside-down 'recorder'/flute held under it's 'sinister' wing, or left wing:
    [Continued in next note]

  6. Colors of Sgt. Pepper/Beatles uniforms, etc. [continued].

    A "V" shape formed by the hands, or fingers, whether pointed up, or down, shows allegiance to the satanic motto, "As Above, So Below". Even just forming a simple "V" with the forefinger and thumb is enough to demonstrate the "above" or "below" symbolism.

    In this photo, however, George is definitely pointing to 'F'aul with his left/sinister index finger, while 'F'aul has his back to the camera:

    Also, if you look closely at Ringo's hands, clasped together, it really does appear that his left/sinister middle finger is sticking out more prominently than the fingers on his right hand--kinda like he's giving everyone 'the finger', or something, doesn't it? It could also signify something else, as well. The 'illumined'[so-called] occultists/nwo satanists use sex with which to victimize, and to control, their victims. It has to be horribly degrading and frightening, and their victims must suffer extremely at their hands. The ones who buy into it all, and give themselves over to the sexual debasement, are the sorriest ones of all, but also the most dangerous, since they will do what they are instructed to do by their occult 'overlords'. Looking at these photos from Sgt. Pepper's makes me both sick at my stomach, as well as so totally sad at what happened to those men, thanks to those deluded occultists. What happened to Paul, especially, because of them!

    Another oddity: John is wearing a white daisy with a yellow center, on both of his shoulders:

    Here is one of that flower's more popular meanings:

    "Adjective: pushing up daisies
    (idiomatic, euphemistic) Dead.

    Synonyms: "six feet under"

    But, it's originally designated meaning was this:

    Old English dæġes ēaġe ‎(“day's eye”) due to the flowers closing their blossoms during night."

    So, it could be pointing to both meanings, since the "all-seeing eye" might be what's also being represented by that daisy.

    But, also, look at this:

    "A Daisy symbolizes innocence and purity. It can also symbolize new beginnings. The flower meaning of daisy is “loyal love”and “I will never tell”."

    So, a Daisy can mean: "I will NEVER TELL." [!]

    Here are the words from the last few verses of John's song, "How Can You Sleep[At Night]?":
    "A pretty face may last a year or two
    But pretty soon they'll see what you can do
    The sound you make is muzak to my ears
    You must have learned something in all those years

    Ah, how do you sleep
    Ah, how do you sleep at night"

    Notice that he tells 'F'aul that he considers his music to be "muzak". Here's the definition of "muzak":

    " 1. recorded background music transmitted by radio, telephone, or satellite to built-in sets in offices, restaurants, waiting rooms, etc."

    In other words, what is usually referred to as, "Elevator music"! :D

  7. Hi--this is about Sir George Martin, who saw himself as the "5th Beatle", and his coat of arms, to which this is a link:

    That is definitely a House Martin bird representing Martin sitting on top of that helmet. In it's 'sinister', or left, wing is held an upside-down gold flute, which I think sadly represents what he witnessed happen to Paul. However, I now don't believe Sir Martin had anything directly to do with what happened to Paul. I think it was out of his hands. You see, little, cute House Martin birds, which are related to the more common Barn Swallow, don't eat beetles. Especially not large Stag ones.

    So, we have the 3 gold beetles on the Coat of Arms, representing the remaining 3 Beatles, with the larger beetle representing John, I guess. With Sir Martin sitting atop the helmet, golden flute tucked safely, yet upside-down, beneath his left wing. The face of the helmet is turned slightly to the right, with it's face visor wide open. And, on the visor to the helmet are 5 square openings--5--3 on one side, two on the other. Is 5 representative of the "5" Beatles, including Martin? I think so.

    So, who was closest to George Martin, represented by one of the two squares on the right side of the visor? I am now thinking it was Paul. Not that Paul and John didn't become great friends while members of the band. In fact, considering what happened to John once Paul was gone[replaced by 'f'aul], he and Paul had been closer than I first thought they'd been. John didn't just fall apart thanks to drugs, and booze. The man stopped being able to smile after what happened to Paul! He always looked like he'd "lost his best friend", as they say.

    I've been watching "A Hard Days Night" over and over this last week or so, and I am struck by how happy John actually appeared to be back then, only 2 years before Paul's 'replacement'. Yet, once 'f'aul came into the picture, John continually looked like he'd been hit by a truck! Grim-faced, just totally grim!

    And, something about Cynthia keeps nagging at me, and for some reason something about her stories, especially the one in which she gave John a mechanical 'bird in a gilded cage', truly bother me. Couple that with the fact that, for some totally odd reason, John seemed to just turn his back on both Cynthia and his firstborn son, Julian, which, to me, made no sense whatsoever. And, for me, that all really adds up to a serious conundrum. One that isn't explained away by drug usage alone.


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